Lords Sitting of 3 November 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

LORD DIAMOND
The Right Honourable John Diamond, having been created Baron Diamond, of the City of Gloucester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shackleton and the Lord Gardiner.
The Lord Strathalmond—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

GREEK INDEPENDENCE ANNIVERSARY FESTIVAL
2.48 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government in view of the involvement of Lord Byron and the assistance of other British philhellenes in the Greek War of Independence against the Turks, whether they will encourage British participation in the 1971 Athens Festival and other cultural activities in Greece on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of that Independence.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that many people will wish that the British association with this event should be marked in an appropriate manner. Various possibilities are being considered, but I am not in a position to say anything more definite at the present moment.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very limited reply, may I ask whether
284
he would not agree that it would be highly desirable that there should be British participation next year in Greece, in view of the fact that Byron is an eminent British poet and is also a Greek national hero? May I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government would be willing to support, through the auspices of the British Council, an exhibition either in London or in Athens, with Byron and the Greek War of Independence as its theme?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am well aware of Lord Byron's connection with Greece's independence, and there may well be something in the idea which my noble friend has just mooted. I do not think it would be helpful if I were to go into any detail at the present time about what particular form of participation, if any, we may take in this historical event, because at the present time these matters are under discussion privately between the parties concerned.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, if participation of this nature is approved, will the Minister consider the return to the Erectheum of the caryatid which was removed a long time ago for reasons which might have been good at the time, but which no longer hold good, bearing in mind that the Greeks, in the long run, will rid themselves of tyranny?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before replying to the noble Lord's supplementary question may I congratulate him on the first supplementary question which he has put in your Lordships' House? Possibly the question would be more properly addressed to my noble friend Lord Eccles in both his present and his previous capacity, but I will see that this matter is brought to the attention of those concerned.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he does not consider that Lord Byron would turn in his grave if he had an exhibition in his honour in present-day Athens?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think it is for me to speculate on that particular matter. All I would permit myself to add is that Lord Byron, if he were able to do so, would, like Her Majesty's Government, look forward, as we do, to the restoration of democratic liberties in Greece.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is not aware that Lord Byron would surely have approved of the decision of the Greek Government to support our fight against the axis in 1940, albeit a decision taken by a dictator?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I finally ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will bear very much in mind the fact that since 1966 there has been no British orchestra, no British ballet company and no British theatrical company appearing at the Festival, while in effect the Iron Curtain countries, particularly this year and last year, have sent a number of orchestras? Is it not rather ridiculous that Iron Curtain countries should be sending orchestras while we do not send any at all?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess that I am imperfectly informed about what particular orchestral dispositions the Iron Curtain countries have made. But the consideration which he has put to your Lordships will be in our minds.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Earl state whether he considers that as a matter of principle our cultural activities in Greece ought to be increased or diminished, quite regardless of the political complexion of the Government of that country?
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to say that Her Majesty's Government would favour, within the limited means available in this matter—and the priorities— an extension of cultural contact between the two countries, between which there is a long and traditional friendship.
VISCOUNT TENBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Lord Byron would undoubtedly prefer a colonels' régime to a Fascist régime, but at the same time he would definitely not approve of the present régime in Greece?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think these hypothetical questions about what Lord Byron might or might not like go a little beyond the particular Question.
286
All I would say is that, like the noble Lord, I am a great admirer of Lord Byron as a letter writer; and no doubt the noble Lord has read the views of Lord Byron on the Greek situation in 1821.

ANIMAL TRANSPORT: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport. Before they can do so, however, a number of legal and administrative problems have to be solved and legislation will be required.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his Answer? May I ask whether he is aware that if this subject is not dealt with in the Queen's Speech next year he may expect Notice of Motion?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, whether it will be in the Queen's Speech or not is not for me to forecast at the moment. I am afraid it will not be possible to ratify it during the present Session, but I have every hope that it may be possible in the next one.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that this traffic, both by sea and air, is producing a large amount of cruelty, unnecessary suffering and deaths among birds and animals? Do they realise that this is a most urgent problem?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, yes, they certainly realise that it is a most urgent problem, and every speed possible is being made.

TRAFFIC NOISE
2.56 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they adhere to the last Government's target date of 1980 for the halving of present traffic noise.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a very satisfactory Answer?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are always pleased to be able to please all parts of the House.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would my noble friend give more detail on this matter? I should like to know how he expects to achieve this result if the number of cars on the road is expected to double by this date?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in regard to the last part of the noble Lord's question, we are talking about the reduction in sound of individual cars, lorries or motorcycles. We are going about this in two halves. We shall shortly be publishing regulations which will require lower noise limits by 1973, which is what was intended in the White Paper that noble Lords opposite published; and we have every hope that by 1980, with the scientific research that is going on, we shall be able further to reduce the target to that which was intended in the White Paper.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that laws in America are much more stringent about the abuse and use of silencers on motor cars than they are in this country? And may I, with great sympathy for his answer—and pleasure in it—ask him whether he will kindly look into the number of prosecutions that have been made with regard to abuse of silencer regulations in this country.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful for what the noble Earl says about America. I
288
will look into the matter and ask my right honourable friend in another place also to look into it. With regard to the latter part of his question, I may tell your Lordships that about 12,000 prosecutions are made each year by the police in regard to noise which is due to culpable fault of the owners.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Lord to bring the date of 1984 forward to 1971–72, because there is going to be a terrible noise in this country about Tory policy in the next two years.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are moving as fast as the scientists will allow us. By 1973 we are going to have a further reduction, as I have already said.

B.O.A.C. AIRCRAFT HIJACKING: SECURITY MEASURES
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what disciplinary action was taken against the official responsible for security in Bahrein when the Arab guerrillas boarded the B.O.A.C. VC 10, subsequently diverted by them to an airstrip in Jordan at a time when security ought to have been at its maximum as other airliners had been diverted and all the world knew that the B.O.A.C. would be a priority target.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, responsibility for security is shared between airlines and airport authorities. According to my information, the persons to whom the noble Lord refers did not board the aircraft at Bahrein, but at another Gulf airport. I am satisfied that B.O.A.C. attempted to take effective steps to tighten their security at all Gulf airports in the period immediately before the hijacking.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether it was not really a piece of neglect not to have searched people at those points, whether it was in

289
Bahrein or elsewhere, thereby allowing people who were fully armed to get firearms and bombs, according to the reports later published, on to the aircraft?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would reply to that question by saying that the decision whether to search, and how intensive the search should be, lies with the airline; but it is the police, in conjunction with the local customs officials, who would have to do the search in each case.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, may I ask why it is that at present not everybody is searched at London Airport?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Question relates to disciplinary action taken against an official responsible for security in Bahrein. If the noble Lord's supplementary question relates to that, then I would only say that I have already said that effective steps to tighten security at all Gulf airports were taken in so far as it was within the capacity of B.O.A.C. to take them.

HOUSING FINANCE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Sandford will be making a Statement on housing finance.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
BRIDGE STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, BANBURY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARMED FORCES BILL [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to continue the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955, to limit the duration of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, and to amend these Acts and other enactments relating to the Armed Forces. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read the first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 36(5) be suspended so as to enable the Lord Privy Seal's Motion on the Reorganisation of Central Government to be taken before the four Special Orders on Tuesday the 10th of November.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will of course recognise it as one we considered and passed during the last Parliament— although I am bound to say that the attendance of your Lordships to-day is very much greater than it was on that occasion. It was then welcomed by both sides of your Lordships' House and was given a very speedy passage. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that on that occasion I said:
"… this was an exceptionally well drafted and clear Bill. Its purpose was clear; its purposes commended themselves to the House. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/4/70, col. 1114.]
On that occasion I was speaking from the Benches opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was in my place here. But this change of position has not made me, or the Government, change our view of the Bill. We examined the earlier Bill carefully and have needed to make only one small change in it. To save your Lordships the task of comparing the two versions to identify the change, I will revert to it in a few minutes.

291
The purposes of the Bill are quite clear. For more than a century there has been legislation in this country dealing with the safety, health and welfare of mineworkers. This has been reviewed from time to time—either following disasters or because the Government of the day considered that a review was needed for other reasons. The last general review was made by the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Rockley which reported in 1938. The Report of that Commission resulted in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, which is the governing Act in this field. The tragic disaster at Aberfan four years ago, which the Tribunal under Sir Herbert Edmund Davies investigated, led to the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969. These two Acts, generally speaking, lay down broad principles—the ends to be achieved. Detailed provisions laying down how these ends are to be achieved are contained in regulations made as Statutory Instruments.
One essential feature in this code of mining law is that responsibilities are firmly placed on persons who can clearly be identified. At a mine, prime responsibility rests on the manager who is automatically guilty of an offence if there is any contravention of provisions of the Acts or regulations (except where the duty is expressly laid on some other person). The 1954 Act allows for the appointment of one or more under-managers and, indeed, requires one to be appointed in certain circumstances; as the law now stands an under-manager's responsibilities may be limited to part of a mine, and if a contravention takes place in a part which is within his jurisdiction he too is automatically guilty of an offence.
These provisions were reasonable and acceptable when the 1954 Act was drafted. But since that time there have been big changes in the coal mining industry. At that time the National Coal Board was organised in five tiers; now there are three. There are far fewer collieries, but their average output is very much greater. Mechanisation has made tremendous strides. In 1958 only 28 per cent. of coal output came from mechanised faces. In 1968–69 the percentage had risen to 93 per cent. Consequently the industry is much more capital-intensive. A single face may
292
represent an investment of a quarter of a million pounds. To be operated economically, it has to be worked on two or three shifts each day instead of the single coal turning shift which used to be normal. In 1958 there were nine coal faces at which three shifts were being worked. In 1968–69 there were 315.
I should like to explain to your Lordships why it is difficult to cope with these changes satisfactorily with the law as it stands at present. First, the law does not recognise, and so does not place statutory responsibilities on, any official who might be interposed between the manager and the under-managers to assist the manager in carrying out his duties. In the mining industry statutory recognition and statutory responsibility march hand in hand with authority; without statutory recognition and statutory responsibility it is difficult to exercise authority. This is quite understandable. Where the law requires an under-manager to "carry the can", he may well be diffident about taking instructions from a senior who has no such legal hardware to handle. We propose to put this right by providing in Clause 1 that a senior employee who is instructed in writing to assist in the discharge of a manager's statutory functions shall have the same responsibility before the law, in relation to those functions, as the manager himself.
The second snag concerns under-managers. Under the 1954 Act an under-manager's responsibilities may be limited to part only of a mine. But within that part he is responsible for 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Clearly, it would be indefensible to continue to hold him statutorily responsible all the time if another under-manager has charge of the same part of the mine but on a different shift. Clause 2 gets over this by providing him with a defence if there is a contravention of the Act or regulations at a time when he is off duty and the contravention is not due to any act or omission on his part.
I have explained the difficulties and how it is proposed to overcome them. Now a word about safeguards. The Bill is designed to ensure that an assistant is neither given nor accepts duties which he is not qualified to perform. It may

293
be convenient to your Lordships if I refer at this stage to the one change we have made in the Bill. The previous Bill made it an offence for an assistant to act on instructions given to him by the manager if he knew that he was "not capable of having any statutory responsibility" because he did not hold qualifications specified for the particular purpose of those instructions. These words "not capable of having any responsibility" appeared in Clause 1(b). We now consider them to be too wide because although a man might not hold those particular qualifications required for certain duties, he might well be qualified for statutory responsibility in another capacity. We have therefore changed the words to read:
"… not capable of having a statutory responsibility of the manager …"
I should perhaps also add that a minor amendment will be required to the Bill because of a change in the organisation of Government since the Bill was printed.
This Bill is short, but important. It will assist the coal mining industry to adapt its management structure to modern conditions and to the technological revolution which has taken place. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that the industry is not hampered by legislative requirements that have become outdated in some respects. I readily acknowledge that the credit for the Bill belongs to the previous Administration. Because we recognise its merits, we have taken an early opportunity to introduce it anew to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, he and I have been here before, and I must congratulate him on his greater drawirg power, as is evident from the larger attendance in your Lordships' House, than when I had the privilege of commending a virtually identical Bill to your Lordships some six months ago. I am bound to observe that I trust that the noble Lord is here setting a precedent in respect of the coal industry and that before very long we shall have the opportunity of hearing him introduce a Coal Industry Bill which will follow as closely
294
as the present Bill the intentions of the previous Government.
My Lords, in the circumstances it is clear that we on this side of the House give a warm welcome and shall give a very favourable passage to this Bill. I do not think that the amendment which has been made is likely to cause us materially to modify our opinion of it. As the noble Lord has explained, it is a Bill which is necessitated by the changing economic and technological character of the mining industry and it is, of course, a Bill of which the theme and the purpose is the further improvement of mine safety. In this regard it is gratifying to be able to say that the latest Report of the National Coal Board, which contains the figures of casualties for the year 1969–70, marks a continuance of the favourable trend beyond the figures for the calendar year 1969 which were the latest then available to me when I commended this Bill to your Lordships in April.
It is perhaps noteworthy also that the National Coal Board Report draws attention in this regard to growing concern at the number of accidents that occur either on the surface or on the haulage and transport systems underground. I am sure that that situation is attracting and engaging the attention of all those who had any degree of responsibility for it. I think it would not be appropriate for this Bill to pass through your Lordships' House without paying tribute to the concern which has been shown with all aspects of mine safety by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers and other appropriate trade unions; and I wish in particular to pay a tribute to the work and the activities and the standards set over a very long period of time by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Mines. My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in commending this Bill to your Lordships.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I have not put my name down to speak, but I think I am probably one of the few mine managers, if not the only one, at present in your Lordships' House, and I should like to congratulate the Government on carrying out the work which our Party started, and realising the stress which a mine manager has. Only people who have experienced this stress can possibly

295
know what it means. The telephone can ring at any time of the day or night—at night by one's bedside, and it can be a terrifying experience. Until now it has been legally impossible to hand over adequate responsibility to anybody. I confess that I am speaking with emotion because I have myself suffered these things, and I congratulate the Government on reintroducing this Bill.
3.18 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I just thank the two noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they have given to this Bill, as well they might. I realise it is purely fortuitous that there are a larger number of your Lordships here than on the previous occasion because we are, quite rightly, taking this Bill at an early stage.
May I now refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, about the Coal Industry Bill? As he will doubtless recall, my honourable friend the Lord President announced in the House of Commons on July 16 that the Government will introduce a Bill this Session to lessen the effects on the mining community of the contraction in the coal industry after the existing powers expire in March of next year, and that Bill will be published in the near future.
I should like to join in what has been said about mine safety. There has been a dramatic fall in casualties and this, as the noble Lord said, marks not only the concern but the success of all those who have had anything to do with this subject. I would also join with him in the tribute that he paid to the inspectors in this regard, but I would also say that the real effort and responsibility for the reduction of casualties lies with those who manage and work in the mines, and I think this improvement is a signal tribute to all of them.
As to the remarks made by the noble Lord about the risk of accidents on the surface and the haulage and transport systems underground, I am sure that careful note will be taken of them, and I hope that the same success will attend the efforts to deal with this problem as with other problems, such as pneumoconiosis and the like. Again, I thank the House for the way in which it has received this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. As I explained to your Lordships on First Reading, this Bill is a substitution for a previous Bill which I withdrew because the drafting was faulty, so may I start by thanking very sincerely my noble friend Lord Windlesham, the Home Office and the Parliamentary draftsman for getting the drafting of this Bill right.
As your Lordships will see, this Bill seeks to amend Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1961. Section 2 of that Act deals with the prohibition of sale of certain articles or parts of articles. The regulations that prohibit their sale are not only for selling but for holding for sale. Section 3, which I seek to amend, gives the enforcement provisions. When that Act had been in force for some time it was found that there was a gap in the enforcement provisions which makes enforcement in certain cases very difficult and in certain cases virtually impossible. This was realised seven years later in 1968 when the Trade Descriptions Act was brought in; this loophole had been spotted and the necessary section was put into that Act. This Bill in fact brings the Consumer Protection Act into line with the later Act.
The law under the present Act is that where a retailer—or anyone else for that matter, but I want to talk particularly about the retailer—sells goods which are prohibited, the local authority in whose area the goods are being sold must first of all prosecute the retailer. The retailer has a defence laid down in the Act if he can prove, which is not always easy, that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods were in accordance with the regulations. As I hope to show in a moment, very often the fault lies with a wholesaler, and more often with an importer or a manufacturer. But the local authority who have brought an action against the retailer— and that must be the first step—cannot bring an action against the manufacturer

297
or importer if they are outside the local authority area. There are very few local authorities who have manufacturers and importers necessarily inside their area. Therefore, the only way to bring a satisfactory prosecution in a case which is not the retailer's fault is to ask another local authority to bring an action. The whole procedure has to be completed within six months. Very often this makes it virtually impossible to prosecute anyone. That is the position.
The matter is urgent because of the safety regulations for children's toys. The regulations are fairly involved and very widespread. Apart from the big toy shops, such as Hamley's, specialising only in toys, there are thousands of small retailers all over the country selling a few toys who have neither the experience nor the equipment to test the toys to see whether they come within the regulations. Some of the testing is extremely expensive. The most usual fault, I think, is the lead content, either in part of the toy or in the paint on the toy. Small retailers cannot possibly test that; they do not have the facilities, and, as I say, it is expensive. As a result, as the Act now stands, when it is quite clear that the retailer is not really at fault, local authorities are very often very unwilling to prosecute, partly because they think it unfair and partly because it appears rather a waste of time.
If this Bill is passed, there will be what are called "passing over" provisions. That means that where the fault lies with a manufacturer or an importer—all of whom have or should have facilities—or to a wholesaler, then the prosecution can be passed by the local authority against the person who is really at fault. One of the reasons why it is so complicated to enforce in regard to toys at the moment is this. Although many toys are manufactured in this country, an enormous number, perhaps the majority, are imported from Germany, Italy, Jugoslavia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, all over the place, and no small retailer can possibly know if what he is buying from the importer is in accordance with the regulations. If this Bill becomes law, at once the local authority will be able to proceed against the person they find is really responsible. The matter is urgent because children's health, and in some cases their lives, are at risk. Children suck lead
298
toys and so on. I use lead as an example; there are other dangerous toys. So although this is a small Bill, I hope your Lordships think it a worthwhile one, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Derwent.)
3.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like at once to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on introducing this Bill at this time, because he seems to have persuaded the Government to find time for it—and I do not get the feeling that the Government are unduly interested in the affairs of the consumer, particularly as they have not shown great regard for the only watchdog the consumer had.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on the clear way in which he explained the Bill to us. As he so rightly said, the 1961 Act is an Act of great significance and relevance. This was brought home to me only last week when talking to a group of women who were voicing their concern about these unsafe toys; and indeed about other electrical goods which are unfortunately appearing in the shops. As the noble Lord has said, it is right to extend the coverage of responsibility. One would, of course, hope that this Act may be extended; some of us would like to see it extended to the area of testing and other matters. But at this time, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is a matter of urgency, and I wish his Bill every fair wind and success in passing through this House.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I briefly endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Phillips. I think the noble Lord has brought forward a Bill which requires to be introduced. It passes over the responsibility from the retailer, where it rests under the Sale of Goods Act, to the person who has the ultimate liability, who is the manufacturer, wholesaler or importer. I think all of us who know anything about this subject must welcome it, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill an easy passage.
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has explained very clearly the purpose of the Bill which he has introduced. Its

299
intention, as he has indicated, is to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1961 so as to include "passing over" or "bypassing" provisions of the kind contained in other legislation concerned with the protection of consumers. Such provisions can be found not only in Section 23 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, on which this Bill is based, and to which the noble Lord referred, but also in Section 27 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963, Section 113 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and Section 45 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956.
Since the Consumer Protection Act was passed in 1961, regulations have been made relating to the safety of oil heaters, toys and carry-cot stands, the flammability of nightdresses and the colour coding of flexible cords attached to or supplied with domestic electrical appliances. Further regulations are in course of preparation. As the noble Lord said, enforcement of these regulations is entirely a matter for local authorities.
It is an offence for any person to sell or offer for sale in the course of a business any goods which do not comply with regulations made under the Act. Anyone, whether manufacturer, importer, wholesaler or retailer, who sells or offers for sale non-complying goods therefore commits an offence under the Act.
Section 3(2) of the 1961 Act provides that, in the event of a prosecution, it is a defence if the person who is prosecuted can establish that he had reasonable cause to believe that all the requirements of the relevant regulations had been satisfied. When the Consumer Protection Bill was before your Lordships' House in 1961 the application of the Bill to sales by retailers and the adequacy of the defence provisions were discussed at some length and, at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, moved an Amendment which would have inserted both defence and "passing-over" provisions on the lines of Section 113 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. The noble Lord, however, withdrew his Amendment on the grounds that the defence so provided would be less favourable to retailers than the defence already provided in the Bill to which he
300
and I have already referred. No "passing-over" provisions were included, since under the Bill anyone in the chain between manufacturer or importer and retailer could be prosecuted if he had sold non-complying goods and in these circumstances "passing-over" provisions did not appear to be necessary.
In the event, as the noble Lord has said, there have been certain difficulties which were not foreseen nine years ago. In the case of regulations based on a British Standard, such as the Oil Heater Regulations, retailers can rely on the British Standards Institution's Kite-mark as ensuring that the goods which they offer for sale comply with the regulations. Then again, compliance with regulations such as the Electrical Appliances (Colour Code) Regulations can be confirmed by visual inspection of the goods in question. As regards other regulations, however, such as the Toys (Safety) Regulations, there is usually no Kite-mark or other visible approval to which the retailer can turn and on which he can rely. Most retailers, for example, are clearly unable to determine for themselves whether or not the lead content in the paint on the toys which they sell is within the prescribed limit. In practice, therefore, they have sought a written assurance from their wholesalers that any toys or other goods supplied comply with any statutory requirements which may be relevant, but it seems that, in some instances, the courts have not regarded the assurances obtained by retailers as sufficient for the purposes of the defence opportunities provided by the 1961 Act. This of course is entirely a matter for the courts, but it does point to the sort of difficulty with which a retailer can be faced.
The power to prosecute was also referred to by the noble Lord, and this is entirely in the hands of the local authorities. Local authorities can prosecute only for offences committed within their own area, and the manufacturer or importer will frequently be in business in an area outside that in which the retailer is selling or offering the goods for sale. In theory, this could perhaps be overcome by local authorities' liaising more closely with one another, but in practice it has been found that this presents difficulty.

301
I do not think the noble Lord mentioned another difficulty: that prosecution under this Act must take place within six months. This is provided for under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 and the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954. Here again, the manufacturer or importer may escape because a period of six months has elapsed since the offence has been noticed by a local authority and proceedings have been instituted.
So, for reasons of this sort, as well as the ones that have been mentioned by the noble Lord in his introduction of the Bill, by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the Government welcome this Bill. We are happy to support it, and hope that your Lordships will agree to do the same.
3.34 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I just thank my noble friend, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite for their support? I am glad that they think, as I do, that this is an urgent matter. There is just one point in regard to which I may have been misunderstood and which I would correct. A retailer may have been warned by an inspector but continues to sell, although by this time the local authority have proceeded against the real culprit. There is nothing to stop them from proceeding against the retailer at the same time. I think that ought to be made clear. I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING FINANCE
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment. The Statement sets out some of the broad decisions of principle on the basis of
302
which we propose to change the structure of housing finance.
The Statement continues:
"There are a multitude of disadvantages with the present system. Ratepayers and taxpayers are being faced with a large and rapidly growing subsidy bill. The subsidies are not distributed so as to remedy the housing problems of the worst areas. The rents paid by tenants are related neither to the value and quality of their accommodation, nor to their capacity to pay. The help available to the poorer tenant is incomplete and haphazard. The present system of rent control in the private sector is creating new slums at the very time when local authorities are replacing existing slums with new houses.
"My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I have worked out a strategy for reform, but before our plans can be perfected we will need to consult the local authorities and other interested parties.
"We intend to introduce a pattern of rents which will remove the present artificial distinctions and inequalities between the private and public rented sectors and within each of them.
"The fair rent principle has become generally recognised as an equitable basis of determining rent structures. I am glad to pay tribute to the Party opposite for introducing this principle. We now intend to take the natural step of extending it within the private sector. We intend to see that controlled tenancies will progress more rapidly into the fair rent system. We will thus prevent thousands of dwellings from sinking into decay and encourage the improvement and repair of these properties.
"At the same time we shall apply the fair rent principle to local authority dwellings in England and Wales over a period. There will be a limit to the average increase of rent in any one year.
"In Scotland my right honourable friend has concluded that, because of the different nature and the relative number of privately and publicly rented houses, the fair rent formula

303
cannot be applied at present to council houses. However, in consulting the Scottish local authority associations he will be making proposals which for the next few years will have broadly the same financial effects as those which I have outlined for England and Wales, and will provide for the same rate of progression in rents. The aim will be to balance housing revenue accounts by the end of this period. My right honourable friend will consider the possibility of moving later to the same rent basis in Scotland as in England and Wales.
"In order to see that tenants are not prevented from occupying accommodation suited to their needs because of their inability to afford the rent we will introduce a comprehensive system of rent rebates and allowances for all of those in need. Any tenant of unfurnished accommodation who cannot afford to meet the full new rent will be able to obtain financial help which will have proper regard to his income and family commitments.
"Until now rent rebates have only been available to council tenants where the local authority have operated a rebate scheme. Under the Government proposals rent rebates will be available for the tenants of all local authorities. Under the previous system of subsidies, the system which will now be entirely recast, only one-seventh of the subsidies went into rent rebates. This Government intends to see by statute that subsidies from public funds will be directed towards those people who need them.
"In spite of the fact that the 1968 Family Expenditure Survey disclosed that a far higher proportion of households in the private unfurnished sector had incomes below £1,000 per annum than in the public sector, no form of rent rebate has been available to private tenants. It is the Government's intention to see that, in future, help is given to these tenants by means of an entirely new system of rent allowances for those tenants who need them —allowances that will be as generous as the rebates available in the local authority sector. Subject to discussions with their associations, we contemplate that the local authorities will operate
304
the scheme and that the Exchequer will meet the greater part of the cost.
"There are two further major changes we intend to make in the subsidy system. The Government do not consider that the present subsidy system for slum clearance is adequate to meet the problem and we intend to take special steps to relieve the high cost of slum clearance.
"Secondly, in those areas where there is serious overcrowding new building is often exceptionally costly. It is therefore our intention to give special assistance to those authorities who need it to meet the high cost of tackling the related problems of overcrowding and obsolescence.
"We intend to continue a major drive for the improvement and rehabilitation of older houses.
"A reform on these lines will bring the full weight of Government assistance to bear on the worst areas of the housing problem. It will mean that those local authorities with serious housing problems will be better placed to solve them speedily. It will distribute subsidies equitably where they are needed and in doing so substantially reduce a growing burden which has become wholly indefensible. It will give the citizen more genuine responsibility in choosing the housing he needs. In short, it will create the conditions in which we can pursue a housing policy which is rational, fair and compassionate."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I do not think any of us would disagree with the noble Lord on the complexity of this subject, and it was for that reason that my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, when he was Minister for Housing, required in his Department a full examination of the housing problem. I believe that a review had been completed and was being studied by him and his Department shortly before the General Election.
The Statement does not really take us very much further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement last week. There are no details. We understand that there are to be consultations with

305
the local authorities and other interested parties. I hope that Parliament, particularly the other place, will be given some idea of what are the Government proposals to the local authorities and other parties, and therefore I would ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a White Paper setting out in detail the major proposals which they have in mind. I should have thought Parliament was entitled to that amount of information.
I would not disagree with, in fact I would give full support to, the latter part of the Statement, that further sums of money are required for slum clearance and also assistance to meet the very heavy costs of rebuilding in slum areas; and of course the rehabilitation of old places. All this will certainly require, if one takes it from this Statement, new monies over and above those which have been provided for by the previous Administration. However, we are now also to have a new class of assistance: that in the private sector. I would not disagree with this, where there is clearly a case. But all this means that new monies will need to be found, and we have to consider this Statement in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement of last week in which it was stated that from £100 million to £200 million was to be cut from housing subsidies. Therefore, there can be only one construction here: that for the vast majority of council house tenants this Statement means massive increases in rent. Whether that is sound policy, I do not know, but I think that none of us should misunderstand the very great inflationary consequences of the step which the Government have in mind.
I do not intend to say anything further about this Statement. I think we need to have a White Paper, and then we can have a debate. But this Statement appears to be a sort of political smokescreen to hide the real significance that is behind it: that there are to be massive increases for council house tenants on a wide scale throughout the country, with dire consequences to inflation and to the general economy of this country.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome to the proposals in the Statement, and I would confirm what was, I
306
think, made abundantly clear in the original Statement; namely, that the next step is to have extensive consultations with the local authorities. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, in view of that, it is not sensible to go into considerable detail at this stage. What he says about a White Paper will certainly be considered, as will be necessary, at a later stage.
I think all I would say in answer to the comments made by the noble Lord towards the end of his remarks is that he will recognise, and I think the whole House will recognise, that the system we are operating at the moment will lead to a runaway burden on public funds, both for the ratepayer and for the taxpayer, and this package of proposals, which I have just expounded in the course of this Statement, sets a curb upon that. We are moving over to a fair rent system, which we have adopted from the system introduced by noble Lords opposite, and the effect of this will be that any increases that do come about will be cushioned to such an extent that not only will the tenants who are worst housed and least able to pay not be affected by them, but some of them may be better off than under the existing system.
3.50 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating that long Statement? I think all noble Lords will agree that it requires careful study, and we shall have to consider it at leisure. I do not think that anyone will doubt the proposition that the present system is in need of reform, and we shall support any reform which appears to be on the right lines. In the meantime, may I ask one or two questions?
In the first place, with regard to the private sector, the noble Lord stated that it is the intention of the Government to see that controlled tenancies progress more rapidly towards the fair rents system. Does it follow from that that the Statement refers only to those tenancies at present controlled, or is it intended that any tenancies not controlled will be brought under any form of control? Secondly, will the noble Lord agree that there is a distinction between realistic rents and security of tenure? If I may say so, the last Conservative Government failed to appreciate that. The greatest

307
hardship arises where shortage of accommodation is accompanied by insecurity of tenure.
Will the noble Lord also agree that the crux of the problem is the serious housing shortage in certain areas, and will these proposals be put into force sufficiently speedily to deal with that very urgent problem? Lastly, so far as local authority housing is concerned, will the noble Lord agree that high interest rates have put a very heavy burden on some local authorities, and will any of these proposals help the local authorities in that respect?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his opening remarks and I shall seek to deal with his various questions. The Statement deals with two groups of tenancies: first, those that are at present controlled, for which there will be a transition by progressive stages from controlled to fair rents; and, secondly, local authority tenancies which will also, for the most part, move towards fair rents. But neither of those things will happen until a system of rent allowances and rent rebates is also available, to cushion the effect of those increases on the poorer tenants with the larger family commitments in both sectors.
The effect of the whole package, as I hope the Statement made clear, will be that more funds will be available not only for the tenants in private tenancies and local authority tenancies who need the rebates and the rent allowances, but also for those local authorities who, for the reasons which the noble Lord gave, and for some others, such as high interest rates, have a greater burden to bear in clearing their slums and providing new housing in high cost areas.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Statement to which we have listened this afternoon is directed towards achieving a substantial reduction in subsidies, so far as council housing is concerned? Secondly, will he not agree that this is a form of direction by a Conservative Government to the elected representatives of local authorities?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I cannot entirely agree with that. In some respects—namely, the statutory progression from controlled rents and local
308
authority rents to fair rents—there will be statutory control in an area where there has not been statutory control up till now. But there will be a considerable amount of flexibility open to local authorities, and the way in which they modify, favourably if they wish to do so, the model scheme for rent rebates and rent allowances will be the subject of our consultations with them.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can clarify two points in his speech? The first is with regard to the limit to the average increase in rents that will be imposed in any one year. Can he give us an idea about the figure which the Government have in mind for that average increase in rents? Secondly, in connection with the transitional move from control to decontrol will tenants lose any of the protection against eviction which they now enjoy?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the answer to the last part is, No. It is a movement not from control to decontrol, but from control to regulated fair rents; and the rent which a landlord will be able to charge will be fixed by procedures with which the noble Lord is no doubt already familiar. I do not know whether that answers all his points.
LORD LEATHERLAND: No, my Lords. The other question was: what is the average increase in rents that will be regarded as the maximum?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, I cannot give details of that, because that is among the subjects which we shall be discussing with the local authority associations.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, who is going to decide what is a fair rent?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, broadly speaking, the rent officers. But in view of the scale of the operation, the very large number of houses that will be involved in this operation, there will be slight modifications from the procedure which is operating now in respect of a relatively small number of houses. But the principle is entirely the same, and the rent officers and the rent assessment panels are behind it.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, as this scheme will undoubtedly create much bigger administration, may I ask who is to bear the cost of the added administration?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not quite sure where the noble Lord thinks the extra administration will be. There will be a considerable increase in the number of rent officers, and local authorities will have to modify, and perhaps increase, the staffs who deal with rent allowances and rent rebates. These increases will be absorbed and, of course, in the long run the housing account will move out of deficit.
LORD LINDGREN: Therefore, my Lords, the tenants, the ratepayers, will have to bear the added cost of this administration which is being imposed upon them.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, some tenants will have to do so. But the point I want to stress is that the tenants with large family commitments, those in the least favourable position to pay, are going to benefit considerably from these measures, which I think all noble Lords will agree is the main object of any housing subsidy system.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can help us on this important point. Can he tell us whether the Government have made up their mind at what level of income assistance can be given?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. The Government have not made up their mind to the extent where I can quote precise figures, because this is among the subjects about which we are to have consultations with local authorities.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there will be a very widespread feeling throughout the country that this is a reform on exactly the right lines; that it is giving relief where relief is most needed, and that it will bring to an end a state of affairs in which large subsidies from the taxpayer and the ratepayer are paid to tenants who are in no need at all of assistance? Does the Parliamentary Secretary also realise that this is entirely in line with what was put forward by the Conservative Party at the last Election,
310
and that it is following logically on the lines of the "fair rents" Act passed by the last Socialist Government, which has worked so extraordinarily satisfactorily and brought about a most desirable increase in nearly all the rents that have come before the rent officers?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. I am sure that everybody realises that this is a considerable nettle to grasp, but I am also sure that the great majority of people realise that it is high time it was grasped.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not intended by the Government to bring into effect a general reduction in the Government subsidy? Is not that the purpose of these proposals? If so, unless there is a reduction in the costs of building, and of repairs and maintenance and the like, does it not follow that, on the whole, rents will be increased? Why do the Government not admit that?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not admit the noble Lord's first proposition. The object of this exercise is to ensure that housing subsidies are applied where they are most needed.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about how these proposals will affect Scotland? I think he said that he did not think it was quite practicable at the present moment, but that the Secretary of State for Scotland had given an assurance that, without these proposals, he could do what the Government propose to do with them in England and Wales. How in fact is the Scottish Office going to operate a system of that kind? May I also ask the noble Lord what is meant by his words, with regard to the Scottish proposals, "the same rate of progression of rents"? What do these words mean? Do they in fact mean increases in rents; and, if so, why do not the Government say so? Indeed, if there is also going to be fair rent substitution, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us an assurance that when they move from control to fair rents all the control satisfaction which is given to tenants at present will be maintained; that no controls will go at all, and that while there may be changes in rent the controlled tenant will still have the safeguards that he has at the present time?

311
May I also ask the noble Lord a question on the concluding sentences of his Statement? He said that the Government expected to save many millions of pounds by these proposals. Does that not mean what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has said: that there will be a very substantial increase indeed for the majority of householders—that is, the rent-payers—in this country?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I deal first with the last point? The position is that were nothing done about this, were this nettle not to be grasped, we should be faced in four years or five years' time with a housing subsidy that would impose a really tremendous burden on public funds, on both the ratepayer and the taxpayer, in giving subsidies to large numbers of people who had no need of them. The object of this package of proposals is to ensure that housing subsidy is given, and more generously than now, to those people who need it, both in the private and in the public sector, but not to those who do not need it.
Perhaps I might deal now with what the noble Lord was asking me about Scotland. I have been giving a broad statement of the principles that will form the basis for discussions with associations in England, Scotland and Wales. The number of regulated tenancies in houses comparable with local authority housing is so small in Scotland that the Government cannot establish a reliable basis for taking a fair rent level as an immediate objective in Scotland, and that is why the whole process will operate in a slightly different way in Scotland as compared with that in England and Wales.
LORD HOY: My Lords, will the noble Lord now say what is meant by "the same rate of progression of rents"?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, now that my noble friend Lord Sandford has dealt, I think at some length, with the statutory Scottish question, I think your Lordships may feel that it is about time we moved on to other business; and this, I think, would be in accordance with our normal procedure. Also, it is within my recollection that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, expressed the view that the details of this important Statement should properly and fully be debated at
312
a later date in your Lordships' House, and I feel that this might be the best way for us to proceed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Earl. I make only one point. Perhaps the noble Lord could answer this very short question: what is meant by "the progression of rents"?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the progression of rents is the progression from where they are now to a fair rent system. That is the principle that will apply, and the principle that is our first, immediate objective in England and Wales. The system is already familiar to noble Lords in respect of regulated private tenancies. It is being introduced in England and Wales in relation to local authority tenancies, but this is not precisely the way in which this same progression is going to take place in Scotland.

NEW FOREST CONSULTATIVE PANEL
4.5 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the proposed composition and terms of reference of the New Forest Consultative Committee recently announced by the Forestry Commission. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first of all say that I made a slight mistake in my Question, in that I believe that the official title is the New Forest Consultative Panel. Over the past years there have been many debates on the New Forest in your Lordships' House. I am sure Peers in all parts of the House will agree that the New Forest is probably one of the most unique areas of unspoilt countryside which exists to-day in England, and probably in the whole world. It is perhaps typically English that we continue to call one of our most precious heritages "new" when it is in fact over 1,000 years old. Although in most ways it has retained its original character, it was unfortunately founded on discord, and this unhappy state has continued to this present time. In mediaeval days, harsh legislation to prevent the poaching of deer alienated the local population, and later, as the royal desire to kill deer decreased. so

313
the need for pasturage for the commoners increased, and so the dissensions grew between Crown and people.
In fact, the modern history of the New Forest started with the Deer Removal Act 1851, when the price paid for a promise by Queen Victoria to surrender her hunting rights and agree to a reduction in the deer population was large-scale enclosures for the growing of timber. Thus started the long, running battle between the commoners and what is now called the Forestry Commission, whose clear duty it is to grow timber for the country's needs. Enclosures, however necessary for trees, are in many ways contrary to the requirements of those who live in the New Forest and those who are trying to preserve as much of the indigenous character as possible. Unfortunately, this running sore from time to time swells up and releases poisonous and disruptive forces, particularly when some area comes under what is known as "forestry conservation". I think it would be fair to say that, over the years, under successive deputy surveyors, the balance has been fairly held between the Forestry Commission and the local people. However, recently the whole problem has been greatly aggravated by the ever-increasing impact of tourism and everything it brings in its wake. This has occurred at a time when the increasing necessity for the Forestry Commission to take a hard, commercial view of its operations has once again brought old conflicts to the forefront.
The most recent plan of operation which is visualised by the Forestry Commission not only deals with normal forestry operations but also suggests methods of rehabilitation for some of the ancient and ornamental woods, which are held sacred not only by expert naturalists but by everyone who lives in the Forest. Over the past year there have been acrimonious public discussions and angry letters to the Press. Consequently, in September of this year the Forestry Commission announced, through the means of a Press release, with some surprise to local people, that it had been decided to set up a Consultative Panel with whom they could exchange views about the common problems that face the Forest. I have no doubt that the motives behind this announcement were entirely laudable. It was, however, particularly unfortunate that the announcement was made during
314
the Parliamentary Recess, giving the Government no chance to explain the aims and objects of the Panel. Thus one of my main purposes this afternoon in raising this matter is to give the Government the opportunity to fill in the background about the functions of this Panel, not only with regard to its composition but also with regard to its terms of reference.
I am sure that the Forestry Commission had fondly hoped that the setting up of such a Panel would do much to allay the fears of local people, and would in future serve to lower the temperature. The Forestry Commissioners could certainly have optimistically expected their announcement to have been received with enthusiasm by all concerned. However, this was not so, mainly because the original Press release issued by the Forestry Commission announced that consultations would take place with those interested with regard to the composition of the Panel. However, the announcement itself immediately produced a stream of requests from every type of organisation interested in or living in the Forest to be represented. Most of them were accepted. In this democratic age it is desirable that everyone should have a voice; but we are now faced with a consultative Panel of over 50 people and it is widely felt that the Panel has got to such a size as perhaps to render it completely ineffective from the day it meets.
The New Forest Association, a major interested party, on whose council is represented the majority of New Forest interests, has refused to co-operate. I am personally disappointed with this decision and particularly deplore the fact that it may have been influenced by a personal vendetta against the present Deputy Surveyor. In spite of trying to spread the net as wide as possible there are still a large number of people not yet invited who think they should be invited, and whose activities affect the Forest in a more significant way than the local women's institutes which are already included. Knowing the New Forest societies as I do, I think it is doubtful in any case whether they will all agree. Therefore I hope the Government will see that it is essential to elect from this main Panel an executive committee of manageable size who will be responsible for the day-to-day contact with the Forestry Commission. Perhaps this size

315
can be restricted to the size of the Chairman's dining room table. Further, I think it would be sensible to have a meeting of the main Panel in public on about four occasions a year. This would be sufficient not only to give the representatives an opportunity to express their views but also to allow members of the general public to come forward and raise matters which they feel are important.
I turn now to the question of the Chairman. This is the cause of some controversy at the moment. In my opinion it is absolutely right and proper that the appointment should be made by the Forestry Commission and that he should be independent. I feel that the present Deputy Surveyor's suggestion to his Chairman of the appointment of Sir Dudley Forwood is an excellent one. Sir Dudley is a man who has lived in the Forest all his life and whose interest and concern for the Forest is well known. I have complete faith in his impartiality and in his ability to enter into meaningful discussions with all interested parties. Whether or not in the future, when Sir Dudley's successor is appointed, there should be consultations with the Panel is a matter for the Commission to decide; but I feel that the appointment must in the future be the responsibility of the Commission. This is going to be a difficult job, and knowing the many different currents running through the Forest I do not think this is a post suitable to be filled by election.
My Lords, I turn now to the terms of reference. In the words of the Press Release, this Panel was set up:
"to serve as a sounding board for local public opinion on the factors which need to be taken into account in their management of the Forest."
I am sure that the Government will confirm that it is not their intention to set up the Panel merely as a public relations front. We all hope that it is intended to be a vital body whose advice will be listened to and who can have a close relationship with the management. Indeed, the setting up of this Panel may be of particular significance, as in the middle of the 20th century perhaps the time has come to take a new look at this area. No longer can it be considered only as an area suitable for the growing of hardwoods and softwoods. It is, with its 6
316
million visitors a year, one of the major playgrounds of Southern England. Indeed. its indigenous woodlands are priceless, so far as the flora and fauna are concerned; and bearing in mind that even the ancient and ornamental woodlands need proper management (as, unfortunately, even old oak trees eventually die), it would seem sensible that the ancient and ornamental woodlands should be treated on purely heritage principles for the long-term benefit of the nation.
In dealing with these areas, the most expert advice from other disciplines should be called upon. Management should continue under the Forestry Commission but with expert advice given further weight through the necessity of consulting the verderers, as is now the case. The fact is that the New Forest can be considered the first National Park ever to be created in this country. All that it lacks is official status and administration. I believe I am right in saying that there are some 12,000 acres of conifers under cultivation at the moment. Their management must continue to be the sole responsibility of the Commission.
However, with regard to the 7,500 acres of ancient and ornamental woodlands, I am sure that everyone in the Forest is delighted to hear that the new Minister of Agriculture has put a public moratorium on the future treatment of these woodlands for 18 months and on other broadleaf enclosures until he visits the Forest on the 23rd of this month. Many feel that these other woodlands should also be designated with the new category of ancient and ornamental woodlands to be managed on heritage principles. However, let it be said that there has been, after all, considerable achievement under the last Government, with the Ponies Bill and the New Forest Bill, both of which are now Acts of Parliament. All that now seems necessary is to decide on policy, not only towards the ancient and ornamental and broadleaf woodlands but also to protect the Forest as a whole from the ever-growing impact of the public and tourism.
One of the sorest points in the Forest at the moment is the fact that the not inconsiderable sum of money which results from camping, caravan and other tourist fees goes back to the Forestry Commission and thus disappears into the

317
Treasury. There is no comparative spending in the Forest on urgent matters which are vital to protect it from the full impact of tourism. There is a desperate need for money to be spent on well-designed and well-sited toilets, screened car parks, the fencing off of fragile areas and on giving help to the pony breeding societies whose pasture is being yearly eroded and fouled by holidaymakers. By all means let the Forestry Commission cash in on tourism; but let the Forest have the cash back in benefits.
My Lords, I raise this matter to-day because of the disappointment felt by many in the Forest that a genuine effort by the Commission to bridge the gap between itself and the local public seems to have got off on the wrong foot. Perhaps the Minister can now reconsider the whole matter not only with regard to the composition of the Panel but also as to exactly how the Panel is going to function most efficiently. At the moment I cannot but foresee the inevitability of a clash between the Panel and the Com-mission in the early days of its life. The question will arise: who will have the last word? Perhaps the Minister could reassure everybody by appointing himself as a final arbitrator.
I am sure that everyone in the Forest appreciates that without the Forestry Commissioners' devoted employees many aspects of the Forest life would be in a considerably worse state than they are at the moment. They feel, however, that, expert as the Forestry Commission are in growing trees, they are not perhaps the best people to initiate and implement policies to combat the leisure boom in order to retain the character of the Forest. There also seems to be the danger that the historical Verderers' Court, members of which are elected by democratic processes, is in danger of losing its identity unless it, too, is given more powers and finance to implement ideas on non-Forestry matters which will inevitably flow from the Panel and other interested parties. I am delighted to see that the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, will be speaking later. I am sure that we are all looking forward to hearing what he has to say. There is no doubt that there is a clear need for a separate department to be set up under the Forestry Commission, staffed with experts not in trees but in tourism.
As I have already said, I have raised this matter this afternoon to give the Government an opportunity to give some further background information about their intentions. Due to the fact that the original Press announcement came in the Recess, there has been two months of ever-growing gossip and mistrust in the Forest at a time when there is a great need for unity. There are, after all, five main interested parties: first, the commoners, with their ancient rights of pasturage; the Forestry Commission with their great responsibility for timber growing; the local residents, whose home it is; the tourists who come by the millions; and, last but not least, the naturalists, to whom the New Forest is a very precious area of research.
I welcome the decision on behalf of the Commission to set up the Panel, but urge them to delay no longer in explaining their long-term policy to the people of the New Forest. For unless they can gain the confidence of the Panel, and the Panel can be seen to be working for the interests of the Forest as a whole, the very existence of the Panel may only fan the flames of dissension rather than produce the harmony which the Forestry Commission and everyone else desire. Finally, my Lords, I hope that the Government will join me in appealing to all in the Forest for calm consideration of an idea which, in the long-term, can serve only to benefit the New Forest.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for having raised this question, especially those who live in or near the New Forest. I have had the privilege of living on the edge of it for quite a few years, and as a result I appreciate fully the tremendous heritage which we have in the New Forest, and the tremendous national asset which it is, from many points of view, and which we should be most reluctant to see decline or worsen.
As the noble Lord said, the chief responsibility for the New Forest lies in the Forestry Commission. I do not wish to say anything in criticism against the Commission: they have had plenty of that. In fact, I should like to praise the Commission on one ground: that they

319
have done a very rare thing in that, having made mistakes, they have learned from them and altered their policy. That is a very encouraging sign, as it is a difficult thing to do.
The Commission have a difficult problem, because under the Act under which they were set up their main duty is that of growing timber for the use of the country, and doing so efficiently so as to make profits. At the same time, the Commission are bound to consider amenity and the scenic results of their work. The whole question is one of balance, how much is allowed to amenity and how much to hard-headed commercial growing of timber. It is there, I think, that criticism has arisen, with a certain amount of reason in that in the past too much attention has been given to the commercial side, to the profitability side, and amenity and the aesthetic appearance have been often disregarded. It is unfortunate that this has happened not only on the bare hills of Wales but, much worse, in the National Parks and, above all, in the New Forest, which is a unique area. My Lords, we want to see the ornamental woodlands about which we have heard preserved as much as possible and replanted with deciduous trees. Though they are profitable, none of us likes to see these barren areas of conifers under which nothing lives or grows and which, though not on the whole unsightly, are dull to look at, when we should have the beauties of the oaks and beeches and the real English hardwood trees.
Apart from the amenity grounds there are two other aspects that we should never forget. One is the wild life and the claims of the naturalist on the Forest. I think we are beginning to realise the importance of what is known as the balance of Nature by which the whole of the wild life, animal and vegetable, plays its part in our world. If we sacrifice that not only will the wild life lose out but we shall, too. This is one of the very important questions.
The second important point, one that is sometimes forgotten. is the great effect which the broad leaf trees have on the climate, not only in respect of rainfall, about which we have known for a long time, but also with regard to the purification of the atmosphere. This is something
320
in which they play a big part, and surely it is one of the things that we in this country increasingly need. I should like to urge that in any future plans the Commission will consider replanting, and so far as possible preserving up to a certain age, the hardwood trees and that they should not be ruthless in going ahead with the cheaper and quicker-growing, and more profitable, conifers.
My Lords, there is one matter which I think indicates a certain shortage of Forestry Commission staff. One sees in parts of the Forest a tremendous overgrowth of ivy which has not been trimmed for years. This indicates a lack of facilities. Another thing (it is a little off the point but I cannot refrain from mentioning it) is the question of hedgerows. I was sorry that grants were given to farmers to destroy their hedges. Except to a very limited extent that is a dangerous thing to do, both from the wild life and from the climatic point of view, as well as in respect of its effect on appearance.
What I wanted chiefly to say this afternoon, however, is how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, about the influx of tourism in the New Forest. I presume that in the early days a few hundred visitors came every year. Now it is a question of millions, as we have been told. Someone told me that about half-a-million camping permits are issued every year, and the number of people who go through the Forest each year is enormous. I think it would be justifiable to predict that the numbers will go up and up. How are we to encourage people to enjoy the Forest without spoiling what they have come to see? This problem does not arise only with the New Forest: it arises constantly in respect of every National Park in this country, and indeed all over Europe. Some journalist writes up a wonderful place, describing it as isolated and urging people to come to see the natural beauty; and within two years large hotels are built, sites with "hot dog" stands and God-knows-what, so that the very thing the people have been encouraged to see has disappeared.
My Lords, we do not want to see the New Forest, which is such an asset, spoilt in any way or the natural life driven out; and for this reason I agree with the noble Lord. I think that the

321
Forestry Commission ought to have some planning department that would deal with the question of tourism. I motor through the Forest constantly on fine week-ends during the summer, and wherever I go I see caravans. One is only too happy to see people enjoying the surroundings, but there is the problem of the resultant litter, and the difficult question of providing latrines, and things which may prove detrimental. I do not know about the Panel which has been set up. One hopes that it will be a sort of "sounding board" for local opinion, which is very upset about the whole matter of the Forest. Whether the Panel is too big, as has been suggested, or whether it could be formed in a different way I do not know; but I urge the Government to try to persuade the Commission to look into this problem of the inundation of the Forest by visitors, a problem which is going to get worse and worse and which may possibly completely spoil the Forest. If what we have said this afternoon causes a little thought this debate will have been well worth while.
4.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I much appreciate the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and I must quickly dcelare my interest as the Official Verderer of the New Forest. This Question seems to have turned itself almost into a detailed debate, but I shall try to stick more to the terms of the Question. I think that among the people of the New Forest there is a very strong feeling which comes from a great emotion and a great love for the Forest. There are so many interests in the Forest, starting with the commoners, who regard themselves as representing one of the oldest forms of farming in this country; and we must never forget that they are trying to earn their living from raising and grazing animals. They have had a hard time from the public, who regard it as their right to come to the Forest for recreation. This was all right until the advent of the motor car.
The point I wish to make is that I think the formation of this Panel is premature. The verderers, who like to work closely with the Forestry Commission, were never consulted about this large Panel, which I must confess astonishes me. We were consulted earlier in the year about a
322
much smaller panel, and this seems to us much more like sense. Of the Court of Verderers, five are appointed and five are elected. The five elected verderers are elected by the commoners of the Forest, but many of the people who have common rights to elect a vorderer are residents and do not have animals out in the Forest, so that the elected verderers represent quite a large proportion of people who live in the Forest.
The Court was set up under the 1949 New Forest Act, so it is quite a modern body. Of the five appointed verderers, one is appointed by the Forestry Commission, another by the Minister of Agriculture, two by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, one of whom is the amenity verderer appointed by the Countryside Commission and the last is the planning verderer, appointed by the local planning authority, which is the Hampshire County Council.
It astonishes me that the Forestry Commission, who should work closely with the verderers, as laid down by Statute, should not have consulted us. Naturally, I have been approached by a good many people most of whom say that this Panel is so large that it is really not a sounding board. Sir Dudley Forwood, who is listening now, will be a good Chairman, but he will have a very difficult task. I have written to him on this point and he has written back, agreeing with me.
As the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said, the Court of Verderers is a sounding board in the New Forest and the public are allowed to come and make their presentments. The Forestry Commission attend, so that they can hear, too, and the Commission deal with some of the presentments directly. I think-that it would be much wiser, if there is to be a Panel, to have a much smaller Panel. But I would advocate that the whole question of a Panel should be postponed. I have three reasons for saying that. First, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, the Minister is coming down to the Forest shortly. Arrangements are being made for him to meet many people with varied interests so that he will hear what they have to say. I am going to meet him and I have several suggestions to make to him, with which I will not

323
bore your Lordships just now but which I think would help him and would probably take the heat out of this Panel question. And I would remind your Lordships that the New Forest is vested in the Minister of Agriculture and not in the Ministry of Agriculture—a point that is often forgotten. The Forestry Commission are his agents and they have certain powers which they can execute only with the approval of the verderers. I say all this because I think that it is important in a debate of this kind to remind your Lordships of what the machinery is.
My third reason for suggesting that the formation of a Panel should be postponed is that at the end of the month the New Forest Study is to be published. I have had a preview of some of it and it looks to me as though the Study will produce some good policies for the future running of the Forest. The Committee who have produced this Study consisted of a verderer, a representative of the Forestry Commission, a representative of the Nature Conservancy and professional planners. They were an able body, not too numerous; each member went off and did his own consultations— I think that is important—and then came together for joint discussions. I would, if I may, advise the Minister to postpone any decision about this large Panel until he has come down to the New Forest and until the New Forest Study has been produced.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that this must be about the twentieth debate on the subject of the New Forest in which I have taken part. It is important that your Lordships should appreciate not only that the New Forest is a unique area but that the people in the Forest are immensely conscious of its uniqueness and are inclined to think that the rest of the world does not appreciate the nature of the New Forest and the problems of those who live in it, commoners and others. They have some justification for this belief. It has been my experience that every single Minister of Agriculture in turn has had to be educated on the subject of the New Forest. Sometimes it has been a painful experience. I remember that my old friend, Tom Williams, latterly
324
Lord Williams of Barnburgh, introduced a New Forest Bill in 1949. He got the Cabinet to agree to put it in the programme because he considered that it was non-controversial and would go through without difficulty. It led to interminable discussions and heavy expenditure, and the final solution was due entirely to the wisdom of your Lordships, who came up with a happy solution to the problem of the relations between the Forestry Commission and the commoners and others.
I am just a little unhappy about this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, put the case very fairly. I was not surprised that he paid a good deal of attention to tourism, because he more than any other person is responsible for increasing the number of people who come to the New Forest. I do not know whether his seat is the first or the second in the list of great houses so far as the number of visitors is concerned. The reason I am unhappy—and I say this seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who is going to reply—is that although Lord Denham knows the New Forest no doubt he is unaware of the dark rumbles that are going on there. We are doing our best to inform him so that he can inform his right honourable friend. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that there is talk about a vendetta against the Deputy Surveyor. The truth of the matter, as my noble friend Lord Huntingdon made clear, is that there are strong feelings in the Forest and a real conflict of interests. For the same reason, I am bound to say that the position of the appointee for Chairman, Sir Dudley Forwood, has been made more difficult. I am a little doubtful whether in the present atmosphere he will be able to carry out his duties. Let me hasten to add that I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I have known Sir Dudley Forwood rather longer than has the noble Lord, in that I have known him for 57 of the 59 years of my life. He is a man of integrity who I am sure will do his utmost for the New Forest.
But, as the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, made clear, the fact is that this proposal is not going to work. The Minister will have to drink carefully about it. No doubt the people who live in the

325
Forest are a suspicious lot. There are ancient enmities between the King's woodsmen and the Forestry Commission, who are dedicated to growing trees. Controversy has been going on certainly all our lives, and for much longer. There is no doubt that the present Deputy Surveyor is a highly able and very dedicated forester. But the interests do conflict. It is going to be difficult to resolve this matter unless a good deal more tact is shown. I do not think that we should attribute ill motives to the people concerned, but the fact is that feelings are running very high.
It is unfortunate how the composition of this Committee was announced. I am a little shocked to hear the noble Earl say that the verderers were not consulted. He is in a special position as the Official Verderer, and it would seem to me to be only common sense, in a situation so fraught with difficulty, that the noble Earl and others should be consulted. I apologise to noble Lords who may be wondering what war I am talking about, but those of us who live in or near the New Forest are very familiar with it. I think that the first rule is to consult.
What we have to do now is to suggest to the Minister how he should deal with the situation. I am certain that in its particular form the Panel is unsuitable as a consultative body: 56 people, ranging from the representatives of the New Forest Beagles (and I make no reflection on them: I am told that the master of the foxhounds was rather surprised to be invited to send a representative) to the 20 or 30 parish councils. This is not a suitable body. Whether it could be turned into a consultative body which could recommend people, I do not know; but I attach great importance to the visit of the Minister. It is clear to me that again he must take a hand.
I make no reflection on the Forestry Commission—my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe is somebody whom we all deeply respect in your Lordships' House—but this is unusual. The more efficient the Deputy Surveyor is, the more, in a way, he is likely to run into trouble. And, of course, the Forestry Commission have their problems: they are under great pressure, because they are expected to increase their return. It is a very difficult issue. On the one hand, Mr. Mithen has his instructions; on the other hand, he
326
has to do things which may cause difficulties locally. Somehow this problem has to be resolved.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Denham (I do not think I have yet had an occasion to congratulate him on his position as a Lord in Waiting) that noble Lords on this side of the House are well aware of the difficulties that confront a Lord in Waiting replying to a debate when he is supplied with a brief which has not fully taken into account what has been said in the debate. While I would not suggest that the noble Lord should tear up his brief, I would ask him to say that he will report fully and personally to the Minister. He may have a job in getting the Minister to take this seriously. But I am glad that the Minister is following the undertaking which his predecessor, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, gave to visit the New Forest. I hope that he will succeed in solving this problem, because at the moment feelings are running high. The New Forest Association will not at present co-operate in this Panel. It may well be that they can be persuaded to co-operate, but someone must iron these things out.
I hope therefore that in giving his reply —and again I appreciate the difficulties— the noble Lord will make clear that the further information that has been given in the course of this debate will be fully taken into account by the Minister, in consultation with the Forestry Commission. When I talk about educating Ministers of Agriculture, may I say that on occasions we have had to educate chairmen of the Forestry Commission on this. Noble Lords may think that we are a curious, specialised and egotistical lot, but if we are not to have a sort of civil war something must be done about it.
4.47 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has explained to your Lordships, as probably you already knew, the great difficulty in answering an Unstarred Question, not only in that one has shot at one questions that one is not prepared for in one's brief, but also because almost invariably the Question on the Order Paper has already been answered about five times during the course of the debate by other speakers. In spite of these difficulties, however, I hope to be able to give an answer which, if it is not entirely satisfactory to your

327
Lordships, may not be entirely unsatisfactory. I am aware that there has been a good deal of controversy about the Forestry Commission's plans for treating the ancient and ornamental woodlands of the New Forest in order to conserve them in accordance with their obligations under the special legislation for the New Forest. There has also been a good deal of criticism of the felling which the Commission have undertaken in the timber enclosures.
As your Lordships have heard, my right honourable friend will be visiting the New Forest shortly in order to assess the situation for himself, and it would therefore be wrong to come to any premature conclusions about the future management of the New Forest woodlands. But whatever that may be, there is a clear need for close consultation with the public and with various local interests in the Forest. It is for this reason that, with the consent of my right honourable friend, the Forestry Commission recently announced their intention of setting up a Consultative Panel—widely representative of local interests—with the following terms of reference:
"To consider and make known to the Forestry Commission local opinion on various factors which need to be taken into account in their management of the New Forest."
The Commission have invited all the principal organisations in the New Forest to nominate representatives. These organisations include the New Forest Association, the Commoners' Defence Association, the New Forest Pony and Cattle Breeders' Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Ramblers' Association and the Hampshire Field Club. The rural district councils have also been invited, and the Countryside Commission are being kept closely in touch.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, could he say whether the Countryside Commission were directly consulted on this? The Countryside Commission have played quite an important part in financing the Verderers, and I wonder whether they were directly consulted by the Forestry Commission on what was proposed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that the plan is that the Countryside Commission will be kept informed
328
at all stages and will be kept in touch with regard to anything that the Panel advises. The views of the New Forest Verderers—who are given, as your Lord- ships know, great leadership by my noble friend Lord Malmesbury—are directly available to the Commission by virtue of their statutory relationship, and they have been invited to attend as observers. I am extremely sorry to hear that my noble friend feels that the Verderers have not been consulted as much as they should have been.
LORD SHACKLETON: He does not "feel"—they were not consulted at all.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that the Verderers were consulted in the early stages about the appointment of the Panel.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Would your Lordships like me to clear up this point? We were consulted earlier in the year about this matter. We were thinking of something similar to the Consultative Panel before the war which had six members. It has not met since the war, because I understand that there is only one living member left. It was suggested that a Panel on similar lines should be formed. I think it was probably going to have wider duties and, therefore, that the numbers might be increased a little. Certainly I never visualised—nor did the Court—anything beyond ten. We are now approaching 50 or 60.
LORD DENHAM: There may be a certain amount of misunderstanding about exactly what was intended and what was not intended. I know that the Forestry Commission would be extremely upset if the Verderers felt that they have not been taken properly into consultation. I should like to stress here that the Forestry Commission are especially concerned to ensure that the existence of the Panel will not in any way prejudice the Verderers' statutory functions. I am aware that some organisations have criticised the Commission's proposal on the grounds that the size of the Panel will make it too unwieldy to function effectively. This has been mentioned several times during the course of the debate. There has also been criticism of the terms of reference; indeed, the right of the Commission to set up the Panel at all has been questioned.

329
My Lords, I feel that these criticisms are premature. If local opinion feels that there has not been enough consultation about the Panel, I can only stress that the terms of reference are still open to discussion and suggest that the proper time and place for this discussion will be when the Panel meets for the first time. There will then be an opportunity for all the interests represented to put forward and exchange views. The membership of the Panel is, admittedly, wide and varied, but I feel that if this is a fault it is a fault on the right side. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Montagu recognises that it was proper that the Commission should appoint the Panel. I think it must be recognised that the Commission have a direct responsibility, under my right honourable friend, which they are entitled to fulfil to the best of their ability, as I think they have done on this occasion.
As your Lordships have heard, the Commission have invited Sir Dudley Forwood to serve as the Panel's independent Chairman. My noble friend has congratulated the Commission on his choice, and I am glad to say that Sir Dudley has been able to accept. The Panel will devise its own method of working. It is essential that it should represent the widest possible cross-section of interests, but for practical purposes I doubt whether it will do all its business in, as it were, plenary session. This, as several noble Lords have pointed out, would be very difficult owing to the size of the Panel. No doubt it will appoint within itself smaller working parties for different purposes. My right honourable friend has warmly approved the Commission's initiative in setting up this Panel and I think we all hope that it will be given a chance to show its value. I hope that any organisation which, in all sincerity, has not been able to support the Panel so far will reconsider its decision in the light of our assurances that our minds are not closed.
The view has been taken by some interests in the New Forest (and my noble friend Lord Malmesbury I think was referring to this) that a revival of the late Advisory Committee, with a much smaller membership, would have
330
been preferable. This Committee has not met for many years, and even if its terms of reference, which were distinctly limited, were revised, it would lack the much wider representation that is necessary to-day in the light of the many and varied pressures which the Forest has to bear.
The problems of the New Forest are complex, and it is very much a question, in deciding how it should be managed, of striking a reasonable balance between a range of interests which tend quite often to be in apparent conflict with each other. A great deal of mutual understanding and tolerance is needed if the complementary needs of the commoners, of conservation, of recreation and of forestry are to be reconciled. The setting up of the Consultative Panel will be an important step forward in this direction. The Forestry Commission will certainly not close their minds to any acceptable changes in the Panel's constitution and terms of reference which might emerge in the light of experience of its working. But the important thing is that it should be given a fair chance to prove its worth.
Those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate may feel that I have not been able to dispel your worries to a great extent this evening, but the chief value of a debate like this is not what I can tell your Lordships, but the experience, information and advice that will come from it and be available to my right honourable friend. I can assure your Lordships that, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked, my right honourable friend will study very carefully indeed the Report of this debate. It will be an appreciable time before the Panel meets. The mechanics of setting it up are by no means complete. Thus my right honourable friend will have every opportunity for reviewing, with the Forestry Commission, the constitution of the Panel.
My Lords, these problems may seem of a rather local and special nature, but they are only a reflection of the sort of problem which has often to be solved in the field of agriculture, forestry, amenity and conservation in the country at large; and I hope the spirit in which we set out to solve them in the New Forest will be a model for their solution elsewhere.

BRISTOL CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.