Lords Sitting of 2 February 1971

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

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE VISCOUNT SOULBURY
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, your Lordships will have heard this morning, with deep regret, the news of the death of Viscount Soulbury, who had been a Member of your Lordships' House since 1941. His political career was largely in another place, where he held a number of distinguished offices; but I think it is chiefly his association with the Board of Education which will be remembered, culminating as it did in 1941 with his appointment as President of the Board. Lord Soulbury, after he left another place, was for seven years Chairman of the Burnham Committee. As to-day's very generous and very appropriate obituary notice to him in The Times emphasises, it was particularly fitting that he should have been appointed in 1949 as Governor-General of Ceylon, since he had been Chairman of the Commission on Constitutional Reform whose recommendations culminated in the Ceylon Independence Act. Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with, and are aware of, the affairs of Ceylon will know that during his tenure of office Lord Soulbury was remarkably popular with all the races in that Island.
My Lords, I think that many of your Lordships will particularly remember Lord Soulbury during the period when he was a faithful and assiduous attender of your Lordships' House despite advanced age and very considerable physical handicaps. He was beloved by everyone who knew him, and I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in extending our deep sympathy to all the members of his family.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it always right that we should remember those of our Members who have given great service to this country and to their people; and it is all the more right when the individual, as in the case of Lord Soulbury, was not personally known to many of us. I never had the pleasure of knowing him, but there are those in this House who did know him and who, when I sought to find out about him, have spoken to me with warmest regard for him. It may well be that the fact that he was not so well known to the present generation in your Lordships' House is not merely because he had attained a great age and in recent years had been prevented by ill-health from coming here very often, but because he was a person who by his charm and ease of manner, and his consideration for others, did not always attract the limelight or the attention that a more abrasive character would have done. Indeed, it was this particular consideration for people that made him not only a very popular figure in your Lordships' House but also an exceedingly successful Governor-General of Ceylon. It is that particular quality of personal consideration and sensitivity to other people that makes a great figure in a territory passing from the colonial age into independence; and the fact that Ceylon flourishes now and is to-day a democracy, despite the pressures that have come on so many other countries, must be some tribute, and reflect some quality of achievement which the late Lord Soulbury had produced. Therefore it is with deep feeling that we on this side of the House echo the words of the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, my noble friends and I would wish to be associated with the tributes, the very appropriate tributes, which have been paid to the late Lord Soulbury by the two noble Lords who have spoken. My noble friend Lord Ogmore, who had some responsibility in the matter at the time, has reminded me that when Lord Soulbury became Governor-General of Ceylon it was probably one of the first of the colonial dependencies to achieve independence. Lord Soulbury not only served Ceylon but also helped to establish a pattern which was of tremendous value to other similar territories when

1113
they achieved independence. My Lords, we also should wish to be associated with the very warm tributes paid to Lord Soul-bury and with the expression of sympathy to his family.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I hope that it may be appropriate if I say a word. As one who was for many years Lord Soulbury's P.P.S. in another place I should like to add my tribute to his memory, because I saw at first hand all those qualities which have been so graciously referred to by speakers from both sides of the House.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as one of Lord Soulbury's oldest friends and closest colleagues, perhaps I may add a word or two. We were honorary fellows of the same college, where he had a very much more distinguished career than I had. He had double firsts and I had indifferent double or single seconds. He was everything that everyone who has paid tribute to him has said: single-minded, single-purposed, a gallant soldier—we both served together, he with more distinction than I did. I know, too (I was Commonwealth Secretary at the time), how successful he was in Ceylon, where he carried out the first Inquiry, and how popular he was there. I think I can sum up what I would say in the single phrase, that Lord Soulbury was what every man in public life would wish to be.

PRESTWICK AIRPORT
2.43 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: 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 plans they have in mind for making greater use of Prestwick aerodrome in view of its remark able record of freedom from fog which, as experience has shown, so often curtails the use of other aerodromes.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Prestwick Airport has been owned and managed by the British Airports Authority since 1966 and plans for its development are therefore primarily their responsibility. I understand that the
1114
Authority have made every effort to attract both passenger traffic and training flights to the airport. Neither the Government nor the Authority have the power to direct airlines to use Prestwick in preference to other airports and, in the last analysis, the use made of Prestwick Airport is a matter of airline choice.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that one of the important conclusions to be drawn from the Roskill Report is that the need for first-class international airports is not confined to the South of England? If that be conceded, will my noble friend hear in mind that in the North there is nowhere more reliable than Prestwick.
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords: that will certainly be borne in mind.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that negotiations are in progress with British Railways for the establishment of direct railway communication with Prestwick Airport, and for the provision of a station there; and can he say what stage those negotiations have reached?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand that progress is being made in discussions between the British Airports Authority, the local authorities and British Rail to improve the road and rail access to Glasgow from Prestwick.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought the original Question was: What progress has been made? Can the noble Lord help us?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean the original supplementary question?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I cannot go further than I did in the answer that I gave.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it a little progress or much progress?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, a measure of progress.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether we may expect a statement of national

1115
airports policy in general United Kingdom terms before decisions are taken on the Roskill Report?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that is rather a wider question than the one on the Order Paper.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, on this relevant question of Roskill, may I ask whether the Roskill Report does not also point out the fact that the fog conditions at Foulness are much more favourable than those at Cublington? Will the noble Lord cause the Government to bear that factor in mind?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord can certainly ask the question, but I do not think it would be proper for me to answer it.

AIRPORTS AND FOG DISPERSAL SYSTEMS
LORD BRAYE: 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 recent total close-down of all airports in England, due to fog, in which thousands of passengers were considerably delayed, whether they are still satisfied with the electronic automatic landing device; or whether they will now consider some form of fog dispersal unit, which could possibly be ignited by North Sea gas, which would enable aircraft to both land and take off.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government continue to hold the view, which I understand is shared by other leading aviation States, that an all-weather operations system using electronic automatic approach and landing devices provides the best way of achieving safe and regular operation of aircraft in very low visibility. Nevertheless, the cost of using some form of fog dispersal and the contribution it might make to the overall system is being further studied.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, if we are to continue with the electronic landing system as it is at present we shall still have delays at the airport such as those we have recently had.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not catch what the noble Lord said.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, if we are to continue without any other form of fog dispersal we shall be in exactly the same position as we are now.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I did say that the question of the cost of using some form of fog dispersal, and whether it might add to safety and avoidance of delay at airports, is being looked into. A study is being made jointly by the Ministry of Aviation Supply and the Department of the Environment into the possibility of some form of dispersal unit operated by North Sea gas. At the same time, experiments are going on in other countries—in France with the turbo-clear hot air system, and in the United States with the chemical seeding method—and my right honourable friend is keeping a watch on these experiments as well.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord may remember—or perhaps he will not—that it is thirty years since we used FIDO during the war; and it is nice to think that we are beginning to get back to 1940 in the use of these techniques. Without disagreeing with the noble Lord's view that some form of automatic procedure is the most promising, may I ask that he should bear in mind the value of a fall-back procedure? If the electronic devices or something of that kind fail, this fall-back could be very valuable indeed, and its cost might well be met by the avoidance of even a single crash. Would the noble Lord consider publishing something about the progress of the various methods of fog clearance as they are going on in other countries?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, all these factors will certainly be taken into consideration, and especially what the noble Lord has said. I am afraid that I cannot commit my honourable friend to publishing whatever emerges from the studies that are going on.

RURAL BUS SERVICES
2.50 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: 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 how many licensed bus routes have recently been discontinued, and how many are to be discontinued, and how many communities and of what population, will be affected.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this information is not available in quantified form. Bus operators generally are faced with a steadily declining number of passengers as car competition increases. Because of this, services become unremunerative and some have to be discontinued. A special problem arises in rural areas where operators are considering the withdrawal of a substantial number of unremunerative services. They have informed local authorities in advance so that the latter can consider what services are essential and whether they wish to assist them by rural bus grant. In that case the Government are normally prepared to meet half the local authorities' expenditure. It is open to smaller bus operators to apply for licences to run services, with or without grant, if the larger operators withdraw.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I would ask whether he agrees that a great deal of hardship will be caused—the public are being held over a barrel between the National Bus Company and other bus operators—in cases where the local authorities are not giving grants? I would also thank my noble friend for the assurance that the smaller bus companies could take over these routes, but could not the Government consider a three-months' period while they sort themselves out?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not clear if I have completely understood my noble friend. The Government have done everything they can to implement the 1968 Transport Act in this matter. Further, in November my right honourable friend circularised all local authorities, and he even went one step further; he told them that they could start giving grants to bus operators without reference to him. He cannot show more good will than that. The terms of reference which the local authorities have are very generous indeed.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the loneliness of some of these remote country districts in the Peak District and parts of Wales? In my Former constituency—I say this without any exaggeration—there are parts that are so remote from any hospital that the service is worse now than it was 40 years ago. I appreciate what the noble Lord's Government have done and what the Transport Act did. But it needs a concerted effort on behalf of all of us, even if it is only to get little mini-buses on these roads.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate that the land where leeks grow is very beautiful, and that we do not want too many buses to spoil it. Nevertheless, I must point out what the position is. The operating costs of a bus, I believe, are about 4s. per mile. Local authorities can give a grant, provided generally that the service meets half the operating costs. Half of 4s., as noble Lords can work out, is 2s. If the average passenger cost per mile is 6d. or 9d., then the operator needs only three or four passengers to recover his 2s., and it is then up to the local authority, the rural district or county, to make a grant.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, having regard to the fact that there are subsidies for these rural bus services, is it not remarkable that the Government do not know which services have been closed? Can the noble Lord say whether there are any cases where bus services provided to take the place of rail services have themselves been closed? If the bus companies close a service in such conditions it means that the rural parts affected are without any kind of public transport at all.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is going back to where I started. Local authorities can, if they think it necessary, give a grant to retain or restart a service. They can help any services. It is for the local authorities, rural district or county, to institute this help; they do not have to refer to the Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is the bus services that have been closed in which

1119
people are interested? The public want services that they can use.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is up to any local authority, if necessary, to ask a local operator to start a service. They can give a grant.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that that is not an effective policy? There could be a small village, with a small rateable value, which has a long mileage in that area. For the local authority to attempt to subsidise a bus service in that area would impose a staggering rate that very few ratepayers would be prepared to meet, even with a desire for additional transport.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with the fuel grant, the capital grant towards new buses and the rural bus grant, the position, I think is not too had. Normally, I assume, the county and the rural district together pay half of the grant—that is, a quarter for each authority—and the Government pay the other half. You only need to have three or four people using a bus regularly per mile and the authorities are not burdened unduly heavily. The local authorities' contribution, as the noble Lord knows, is also eligible for rate support grant.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, now that the noble Lords opposite have had eight months to sort themselves out, and in view of the wide concern not only in Wales and other rural districts, but also, and particularly, in South-East England, where train services have disappeared and bus services are now under considerable suspicion, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, could be persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who previously showed great interest in this matter, to have an early debate on this subject?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to debate this matter there are certain Wednesdays when he is at absolute liberty to put down a Motion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was inviting the noble Lord's friend.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could my noble friend confirm, or otherwise, that
1120
where the railways withdrew a service on the understanding that they would start a bus service they have an obligation to keep that bus service going, notwithstanding the number of passengers carried?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, where guarantees have been given it has always been clear that services will not be withdrawn without due consultation with all the parties interested.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that discontinuing bus services will cause further serious depopulation of rural areas?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I keep trying to explain to your Lordships that the Government are not going to discontinue any bus services. The National Bus Company have a duty to break even. If they find that they are not breaking even, they can give notice that they will close a service. If the local authorities think that the service is useful and necessary to their constituents, they will give a grant; and my noble friend, in his generosity, meets half of it.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I think my noble friend misunderstood me. What I was asking was whether the withdrawal of these services will not mean a further serious depopulation of the areas affected, simply because people cannot get to work, do their shopping, or what-have-you?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the local authorities think that a service is necessary they will support it through this grant, and the service will not be withdrawn. A bus company merely gives notice of withdrawal. If people locally think a service useful they will subsidise it, and my noble friend will then subsidise the council; and the service will go on.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it is unfortunate when the main operators of these particular services in rural areas, running right up and down the country, can make their profits on the main services but are not prepared to carry the extra cost in regard to running services in the rural areas. It is unfortunate that we should now be talking about local authorities subsidising small operators for

1121
having to run within these rural areas, and ought not the Government to give every consideration to this aspect?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not accept that the bus companies are behaving in this way at all.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, did the noble Lord hear his noble friend Lord Teviot say that the Government needed three months in order to sort themselves out? Does the noble Lord agree with that sentiment; and, if not, will he rebuke his noble friend for uttering such an outrageous philosophy?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I support Lord Teviot's Question? May I ask the Government whether they will have another look at this whole subject, on the grounds that the bus companies do not seem to be able to provide for the need to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has drawn attention and which I can certainly certify exists in my part of the country? Furthermore, would it not be desirable to draw the conclusion that the big bus companies do not seem to be able to run for the need that exists and that there might be a case for allowing very small operators to operate by private profit?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords; all possibilities are being considered. Traditional bus, postal bus, mini-bus, private car pooling, and the possibility of locally organised services—these are all being considered. The actual studies, I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, may take six months; but at the end of that time these studies will be complete. In answer to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, the traffic commissioners have power now to license small vehicles.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, while not wishing to prolong the debate on this Question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will add consultation with hospital authorities to the list he has just given the House?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take into consideration what the noble Baroness has said.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the recognition of divorces and legal separations. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the safety, health and welfare of persons on installations, concerned with the underwater exploitation and exploration of mineral resources in the waters in or surrounding the United Kingdom, and generally for the safety of such installations and the prevention of accidents on or near them. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AIRCRAFT (OFFENCES) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL
3.2 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is to confirm two Provisional Orders made under the Public Health Act 1875. That Act enables the Secretary of State, at the request of local authorities, to make Orders which require confirmation by Parliament to repeal or amend local Acts and Orders which relate to the same subject matters as are covered by the Act itself.
The purpose of the Melton Mowbray Order is to enable the Council to let any stall, standing, site or other convenience in the cattle market for any period at such rent and on such terms as they may think reasonable. At the moment the Council are restricted to periods not exceeding three years, and this does not accord with present-day practice. The Sheffield Order enables the Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from time to time to alter the charges which they may levy at their markets. The application for each Order was given wide publicity, but no objections were received. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

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

STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House will
1124
see from the Schedule to the Bill that the subjects dealt with by the enactments to be repealed fall into no fewer than seven main categories: first, Irish Peers; second, Ecclesiastical Law; third, banking; fourth, annuities; fifth, war-time and emergency provisions and the renewal of expiring laws; sixth, Acts concerning central Government finance, and seventh, miscellaneous.
The House will be grateful to the Law Commission for preparing the way for Parliament to rid the Statute Book of another parcel—the second this Session—of laws of no further practical utility. The Bill will, of course, go to the Joint Committee concerned, and the Joint Committee will carefully scrutinise the enactments scheduled to the Bill, if by your Lordships' leave it is read a second time. But I would expect the attention of the (House to be particularly directed to Part I, which repeals the provisions relating to the Representative Peers of Ireland, the right to elect whom no longer exists. Some of your Lordships will recall the decision of the House on November 24, 1966, which then approved the Report of the Committee for Privileges of this House.
I do not think there is much I need say about the rest of the Bill. The ecclesiastical enactments in Part II of the Schedule are recommended for repeal by a Committee of lawyers established by the two Archbishops, except for two which do not concern the Church of England. Those two are recommended for repeal by the authorities of the relevant denomination; namely, the governing body of the Church in Wales and the Archbishop of the West Indies. In the Miscellaneous part of the Schedule (Part IX) are some well-known Statutes, including the remnants of the Code preventing the use of children for sweeping chimneys. Your Lordships will see that the Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act 1864 is finally swept away. This, of course, has an historical significance because it represented the reaction of Parliament to the publication of the well-known book, Water Babies, by Charles Kingsley, in 1863. Your Lordships will remember the poignant story of Tom Grimes and the little boy.
There is one provision which I am sorry to say the Bill does not contain, although I should like to see it do so.

1125
That is the repeal of Section 9 of the Tenures Abolition Act 1660. Your Lordships will remember that on the Guardianship of Minors Bill the Joint Select Committee drew the attention of Parliament to the unfortunate survival of this antiquated and cumbrous legal fragment; and on Third Reading I told the House that I was considering whether we could do away with it, perhaps in the present Bill. However, the Law Commission, having been good enough to look into the point very fully, have come to a contrary conclusion. For technical reasons, with which I will not weary the House, they found that the matter could not be dealt with in this Bill. All I can say now is that the Joint Select Committee's Report will not be forgotten; the point will be borne in mind against the day when a suitable Bill comes along.
My Lords, I hope the House will approve of this Bill, and will ask the Joint Committee to examine it with usual thoroughness. Then we can see what comes of it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.9 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I think the House will welcome this Bill as another step towards the achievement of a really tidied-up and convenient Statute Book. We all must express our great gratitude to the Law Commission for the prodigious amount of study and research that must have gone into the preparation of the Schedule, covering many pages and going over a wide range of different subjects, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has pointed out. It is possibly useful to dwell for a moment upon the work that is now being done in order to achieve a new form of Statute Book which will contain the law relating to a particular subject under one heading, which will be completely divested of Acts that no longer serve any useful purpose, such as the Acts which we are repealing to-day, and which will follow on the series of already extremely useful Statutes Revised, which many noble Lords may have consulted in the Library.
Noble Lords who are interested in that publication will know that those Statutes went up to and included those for the year 1948 in a form which had been
1126
followed for many decades. Your Lordships may be interested to be reminded that as from 1948 the Statute Law Committee, through a sub-committee of that Committee over which Sir Leslie Scarman presides, have been engaged upon this massive reform of the way in which our Statute Law will be presented. I will not trouble your Lordships with the controversy that I think rages, to some extent, as to the merits of what is known as textual amendment as compared with the usual system of referential amendment which is in fact followed by both Houses of Parliament. That is a highly specialised matter which I do not think enters directly within the purview of this Bill.
I believe that in some quarters it has been supposed that the process of removing from the Statute museum pieces, such as the Statutes that are listed in the Schedule we are considering, is little more than an academic exercise. I should like to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that it is a hundred miles away from an academic exercise. The research that has gone into the preparation of the present Bill is essential in order to clear the way for the Statute Law Committee in the formulation of the new type Statute which will appear in Statutes Revised, covering the years 1949 onwards. My Lords, I thought it right to call attention to and to dwell for a moment on the importance of that work, and I do so largely to lead up to what must be my concluding remark; namely, one of deep appreciation to the Law Commission for yet another massive work of research and reform for which I think not only both Houses of Parliament but everybody in this country will be extremely grateful. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think I need say more than to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for the welcome he has given to this Bill, and also to thank him for what I might call the "trailer" for the forthcoming Government publication under the auspices of Sir Leslie Scarman and the Committee to which the noble Lord referred. This document will be called Statutes in Force, as distinct from the existing edition, which is called Statutes Revised, for which I do not have quite the same enthusiasm as the noble Lord

1127
because I do not find it a very convenient document to use. However, Statutes in Force, when it comes out—and there will be a public statement about this matter in the very near future—will be an entirely new work, constituting what I hope will turn out to be a permanently up-to-date edition of the Statute Law. In general each Act, including new Acts as they are enacted, will be in the form of a separate booklet, and the booklets will be punched with holes so that they can be kept together in a loose-leaf binder. An Act which has been repealed can then be removed, and when in course of time an Act becomes heavily amended the booklet will be replaced by a new booklet incorporating the amendments. An Accumulated Amendments booklet will be issued annually to list all the amendments not yet incorporated in the edition. Thus the result will be, when the whole proceeding is complete, that the Statute Law of England will be permanently in the shape of a loose-leaf notebook which is constantly in course of being revised and kept up to date.
Of course, no one will be able to say in advance how well the new venture will succeed, but I ant glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has noticed it and given it his blessing. I hope it will be a new departure of great value to practising lawyers and others who wish to find out what the law really is, because it is no good passing new laws if people cannot find out with ease what they say. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. Like him, I do not regard the removal of "lumber" as being wholly academic. I am sure that in the re-publication of the Statutes from time to time it is essential, from the point of view not merely of expense but of saving hours of time, to remove from the Statute Book the spent Statutes and those Statutes no longer of current effect. This can be done only by these efforts on the part of the Committee concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CIVIL DEFENCE (POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS) REGULATIONS 1970
3.16 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on December 10, 1970, be approved. The purpose of these Regulations is simple. The Post Office, when it was a Government Department, undertook at its own expense—that is to say, at the expense of the Post Office Fund that then existed—various measures to secure its "due functioning", namely, the maintenance of essential public services in the event of hostile attack. The Post Office Act 1969 changed the status of the Post Office to that of a public authority: it was put on the same footing as other nationalised industries. It was then recognised by the Government of the day that it was essential in the public interest that a Minister should be in a position to oblige the Post Office to undertake such necessary work of this sort and to reimburse it for part of the expenditure involved—an arrangement that applies in respect of other public utility undertakings.
These Regulations achieve those ends by giving the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications the power to obtain from the Post Office reports about work done, and work being done to require the Post Office to take such measures as he may specify; and to pay grants in respect of that work. The present level of reimbursement which is fixed by the Treasury for work of this sort carried out by other nationalised industries is 52·75 per cent. of the Ministerially-approved expenses of a capital nature. These Regulations apply the same rate to the Post Office. I hope that this brief explanation will suffice to enable your Lordships to approve these Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on 10th December 1970, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for moving these

1129
Regulations and for explaining their purpose so clearly. They are, of course, non-controversial and are accepted on this side of the House. There is just one matter on which I am not clear and about which I should like to ask the noble Lord. These Regulations flow from the Civil Defence Acts of 1939 to 1948, but Section 10 of the 1948 Act specifically does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore one assumes that these Regulations also do not extend to Northern Ireland. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will explain what arrangements are being made for similar arrangements in that part of the United Kingdom.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the welcome that he has given to these Regulations. It is quite true that they do not extend to Northern Ireland. The responsibility for civil defence against hostile attack in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Government there and is dealt with by them.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but can he tell me what is happening over there? This matter was also raised in the other place and an answer was given, but it was by no means a full one. I am aware that this is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland, but can the noble Lord say whether similar Regulations are going through the Northern Ireland Parliament?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, similar Regulations are not going through the Northern Ireland Parliament. I, too, have read the debate in another place on this subject, and I must say I am rather surprised at what the noble Lord says: that he is not satisfied with the answer that was given there. I thought that my right honourable friend answered very fully the questions on Northern Ireland that were put to him. But I can assure the noble Lord that the Post Office is carrying out the same duties in Northern Ireland. If it should ever happen that the Post Office decided not to carry out those duties, it is possible for my right honourable friend, in conjunction and in liaison with the Parliament of Northern Ireland, to issue a direction to the Post Office on grounds of national
1130
security; and that is embodied in the Post Office Act.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, nay I just direct a question to the Minister in regard to Northern Ireland? It must be understood that so far as the Post Office is concerned, and the obligations that are placed upon the Post Office, they cover Northern Ireland as a region of Great Britain. Therefore there is no reason for any separation.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Slater. It is true that Northern Ireland is a region so far as the Post Office is concerned, and the only reason that these Regulations do not extend to Northern Ireland is that the parent Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1970
3.22 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1970, which was laid before this House on December 17, be approved. The purpose of the Scheme is to implement, so far as the fishing industry is concerned, the changes which were announced by the Government during the autumn in the White Paper Investment Incentives (Cmnd. 4516) and it is in the context of the abolition of investment grants for industry generally that it should be viewed.
Before investment grants were introduced in 1966, the acquisition or improvement of fishing vessels attracted grant at the rates which appear in the Scheme before us to-day. The Government of the day did not make such vessels eligible for their new 20 per cent. investment grants, but they did add ten percentage points to the rate of grant for fishing vessels. What we are now doing is restoring the rates of grant to their original level—as they were in 1966. In the case of inshore vessels—that is to say, those of less than 80 feet in length—the rate will again be 30 per cent., and for deep sea vessels, it will be 25 per cent. This, of course, is what my right

1131
honourable friend announced in another place on October 27 last.
The main purpose of this Scheme is to give statutory effect to these new—or, more accurately, restored—rates of grant. We are following the general policy laid down in the White Paper on investment incentives which was debated in your Lordships' House before Christmas. With that fairly short description, I commend the scheme to your Lordships and hope that it will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Amendment) Scheme 1970 be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his very short explanation of this Scheme. One can perhaps understand it when the noble Earl says that what we are doing is restoring the grants to where they were. What he means by "restoring" is cutting, because that is exactly what this does. It cuts the grant by 10 per cent., and it means, of course, that the building of fishing vessels is going to be much more difficult. It was my privilege in another place to put up these grants by 10 per cent.; and indeed for a period to increase them not only to 40 per cent. but to 45 per cent., as a special inducement to the fishing industry to re-equip itself. In a way, the Motion which is before your Lordships' House to-day is rather a tribute to the Labour Government, because it is saying, "You did so well in your term of office that we, the Tory Government, can now cut the grant by 10 per cent.". That is exactly what the Scheme does, and we have to consider it in that light.
Obviously, it is going to be extremely difficult for those who want to do so to enter the industry. Indeed, every argument that I heard when I was responsible for this particular department was that individual owners could not invest in the industry unless they had a substantial grant for building purposes. Your Lordships will remember that last week, when we were debating the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, many of your Lordships who sit on the Government side of the House paid remarkable
1132
tributes to the work done by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in connection with the extension of the fishing industry in those parts. Not one noble Lord had anything other than a good word to say for the work that had been done. As a consequence of the Government's action, certain repercussions have taken place there, in addition to other parts of the country.
When I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, whether the Government proposed to impose those cuts on the fishing industry inside the Highlands and Islands Development Board's area, the noble Baroness in reply said:
"… the reductions in grant for fishing boats will apply to this area. The Highland fishermen receive grants from the White Fish Authority or the H.I.B., and loans from the H.I.D.B. The Board have still to consider how to operate their second five-year fisheries development scheme, and may well propose to increase their loans to compensate for this particular provision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/1/71, col. 1049.]
If one examines those words for a minute or two, one sees that the noble Baroness was not sure what these cuts were going to mean. She said, "Even though we impose cuts, perhaps some method will be devised which will permit us to soften the blow by extending the loans". So apparently the Government are not certain what effect this will have on this industry.
When the argument was being put forward before it was said that if skippers wanted to buy a boat they would have to have the grant which the Government of the day were providing. According to the Scotsman of January 26, a meeting was held about this particular proposal of the Government which, quite frankly, does not meet with any approval or commendation from any section of the industry. There are two things involved here. It involves not only the fishermen, but also the boat builders, and no one will deny that these grants have improved considerably the trade of the boat building industry. It says in the Scotsman:
"The reduction in grant means that a skipper who wanted to buy a 50 foot boat might have to find £.8,000 deposit instead of the former £4,000."
I need not convey to your Lordships what a burden this will be on the individual owner who wants to go into this industry.

1133
Indeed, there are many who want to do so, as reflected in the figures returned by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
This report in the Scotsman goes on to say:
"Though most of the boatyards around the Scottish coast are busy at present, long-term prospects are not bright. The grant cut is the measure causing immediate concern, and its implications are likely to be raised at a meeting of the Scottish Fishing Boat Builders' Association."
So I give your Lordships proof of the effect of this proposal on this particular industry. Later on in the same report it appears that one boat builder says,
"We are busy because we got orders for three boats before the alteration in the grant-and-loan scheme, but we have not been asked to quote for a new boat since mid-December and I understand that some yards are down to their last boat."
So this cut has had this effect immediately. Indeed, if we were to regard even the evidence of individual boat builders as being perhaps a little doubtful, then let me quote to your Lordships what the Authority says—and again I quote from the Scotsman of the same day:
"The Scottish committee of the White Fish Authority confirmed in Edinburgh yesterday that there had been a slowing-down of applications for grants for new boats since October 27, when the new scheme came into operation."
I hope that I have proved to your Lordships that this Motion is not at all welcomed by the fishing industry in any part of the country, and certainly not in the whole of Scotland. It will mean a diminution in the fishing industry: it will mean a lack of expansion in the Highlands and Islands Development Area which was so strongly praised by your Lordships last week; and it will certainly mean a curtailment of boat building in the boatyards of this country. Altogether, I think that this is a thoroughly bad proposal. Indeed, when we talk about 10 per cent. being cut off the grant, in fact it represents 25 per cent. of the present grant. A number of people find it difficult to understand that a Government who assert that a 10 or 15 per cent. increase in wages is reprehensible, can come to the House with a proposal to cut a grant by 25 per cent. and think that that is acceptable.
3.34 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said with interest and indeed great respect, for who would not? The noble Lord spent a number of years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that it was under his auspices that the grant was put up to the level from which it is now coming down. I can therefore well understand the noble Lord using, so to speak, every argument in the book to complain about its coming down, and I would be the first to recognise that the fact of any grant coming down is bound to be not acceptable to those who are affected.
The noble Lord knows the fishing industry well. I fully accept that they are concerned that this grant should come down. One knows that this is unpleasant and that it is bound to pinch somewhere on certain feet. But I think that possibly the noble Lord made a slightly "strong" case on this aspect. This matter of course goes right back to the different philosophies of the last Government and of the present Government, because there is a feeling about the fact that this Government believe on principle that grants which are given a blanket application are not necessarily the best way of helping an industry. It is for that reason that in this case the grant is being reduced. But for all that, even though it is being reduced, the Government are still giving a considerable grant. The grant is still to be at 30 per cent. for inshore vessels and 25 per cent. for vessels engaged on deep sea fishing. This is a quite substantial grant, coupled with the fact that of course the fishing industry is in a better position on some points than is ordinary industry. One particular point of which I am bound to remind the noble Lord, and which he knows perfectly well, is that the fishing industry is allowed a 100 per cent. free depreciation which is not granted to other industries as a whole.
So although this is a reduction in the rate of grant which I acknowledge is, as a reduction, unacceptable, I hope that the noble Lord will at least grant that the Government are concerned about the fishing industry; they are concerned that it should succeed; they are concerned in so far as it is given special treatment

1135
from the point of view of grants, of depreciation and also of other loans which are available to it specifically to help newcomers to the industry. While I accept the noble Lord's arguments in the spirit in which they are meant, I hope that nevertheless he will feel content to agree this Order.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I say that the argument used for reduction of the grant is the opposite to that used by noble Lords opposite only a short time ago. Indeed, the noble Earl's honourable friends in another place always assured me that by giving 40 or 45 per cent. I was being too mean; that they required every penny of it. I just note the difference.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON CASTING INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER 1971
3.36 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1971, laid before the House on January 14, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the main purpose of this Order, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry proposes to make under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, is to replace the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1967, so that the income obtained from the Levy may be increased. The Order continues the imposition of the Levy on the iron casting industry to finance scientific research to be carried out within the industry by the British Cast Iron Research Association. The proceeds of the Levy will continue to be collected by the Secretary of State and issued by him to the Research Association.
My right honourable friend is satisfied that the Research Association does require an immediate increase in its income if its programme of research is to be carried on at the required level and that the Levy should therefore be increased. The income from the present Levy has been virtually constant, and rising costs have already obliged the
1136
Association to cut back its activities and reduce its staff. My right honourable friend is conscious of the role played by the Association in the iron casting industry, and he is satisfied that the British Cast Iron Research Association should not be allowed to suffer now because of insufficient income. In preparing the draft Order he has consulted and has received support from representatives of the industry and of the foundry workers both to the proposal to increase the yield of the Levy and to the suggested new methods of calculating the charges payable.
My Lords, I do not feel this Order is one which is likely to cause controversy, and I therefore thought that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if I kept my remarks, in moving this Order, as brief as possible; but if there are any points which your Lordships would like to raise I shall be only too pleased to do my best to clarify them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1971, laid before the House on January 14, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.39 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I think the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for explaining so clearly the purpose of this Order. I do not desire to say anything on its merits. My only reason for rising to my feet is that, as the House may be aware, this is one of the Orders considered by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House. That Committee, in reporting upon it, thought it proper to draw attention to one small, technical feature of the Order which your Lordships may wish to consider further.
Your Lordships may desire that I should say just a few words as to the subject-matter of the Report. It relates to Articles 10 and 12. Article 10 provides that the Secretary of State may call upon those concerned to furnish certain returns and other information, and to keep records. Article 12(1) contains a penalty provision and imposes criminal penalties, recoverable by summary procedure, for a failure to furnish that information or make those returns, or keep those records. For the purpose of the matter on which the Special Orders Committee reported the relevant words are

1137
that a person who is said to have failed to comply with the notice shall,
"unless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5 for every day during which the failure continues."
I think I am right in saying that that is a form of penalty which has been not infrequently unfavourably referred to as containing an undesirable feature. The undesirable feature is that the maximum penalty to which the transgressor may be liable under that form of wording varies, or may vary, according to the accident of the time at which the hearing takes place. The normal form of penalty provision, I believe, is that in the event of the continuing failure the fine per day begins as from the date of the conviction; in this case it begins before the date of the conviction. If the case comes on, say, two months after the failure begins, then if the transgressor cannot prove that he had reasonable excuse for failure he may be fined an extra £5 for each of the days in that two months until the case comes on. If it comes on in ten days, there is a maximum of only £5 for each of those ten days. Therefore, the maximum penalty depends on something which may be in the nature of an accident, and the Committee felt that was a very undesirable form of penalty.
I do not know whether the noble Earl would desire to give further consideration to that point, or whether he is able to furnish your Lordships' House with some answer to the Special Orders Committee's point which they overlooked. However, that is the point, and I would ask the noble Earl whether he would make some observation with regard to it.
3.44 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I know that this has been a point which has concerned him. Taken at its face value, it looks as if a person who has not completed his form will be fined £5 for every day upon which that form remains unfilled; but, of course, this is in fact only a maximum penalty and is not a mandatory penalty. The onus is placed upon the person concerned to say to the courts why that form was not filled correctly, or was not returned. It is then up to the courts to decide whether there should be any penalty, or what that penalty should be.
1138
With regard to this specific Order, it is in fact laid down in the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 that this is to be a maximum penalty. Because it is laid down in that Act it appears in the Order. That Act was produced in 1947 under a Labour Government in which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was Solicitor General, and I assume that it probably had his approval when it was drafted. However, this is the reason why it has appeared in the Order; and in view of the fact that since 1947 up till now, which is a period of some 24 years, the penalty has not been increased, I should not have thought that it was one that would cause very much concern. I think I am right in saying that there have been no occasions on which the penalty has been used.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this Order is one which clearly is of considerable importance for the cast iron industry. I think it is most valuable that the income of the Research Association should be increased as a result of the Order. There is, however, one point I should like to ask the noble Earl: will this Levy, when it is paid out to the Cast Iron Research Association, attract the Government grant which is usually given to these research associations?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the answer to that question is, Yes, it will attract the Government grant. This grant will, in fact (I hesitate to say it after the last Order), be reduced from 40 per cent. to 35 per cent. Before the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, comments upon that, I would merely say that because the amount that is being collected by the Levy will be greater, the actual grant paid will be greater. Therefore the rate of grant, although reduced, will nevertheless result in a greater sum of money being available as grant.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the rate at which the grant is going to be paid now on a diminishing scale? Is it going to decrease each year?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it has decreased under the present system; what happens in the future I could not possibly say.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' permission to speak again, may I thank the noble Earl

1139
for what he has said and for the full way in which he dealt with the point raised by the Special Orders Committee? The House may remember that I said that it was possible that there were points which had escaped the notice of the Special Orders Committee; obviously that is the case. Those points equally escaped the notice of that member of the Special Orders Committee—namely, myself—who raised the point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

COINAGE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be now read a third time, perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking the House for permitting me to postpone the remaining stages of this Bill and the Report stage of the Attachment of Earnings Bill, which follows, in order to enable me to sit upstairs in the Appellate Committee. As your Lordships now realise, this was an emergency measure necessitated by the illness, unfortunately immediately afterwards fatal, of my noble and learned friend Lord Upjohn. I may be sitting in the Appellate Committee again to-morrow, depending on the state of Cabinet affairs. If I am not on the Woolsack to-morrow, the House will understand why, as the appeal is not yet complete. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 [Compliance with order by employer]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4) to leave out "one shilling" and insert "five new pence". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to explain both the Amendments on the Paper. They are entirely consequential on the fact which now appears, that the Bill will not pass until after the day on which the Decimal Currency Act 1969 comes into force. Clause 7(4) of the Bill enables an employer, when making a deduction from a debtor's earnings in order to comply with an attachment of earnings order to deduct
"one shilling or such other sum as may be prescribed by order made by the Lord Chancellor towards his clerical and administrative costs".
Provision is also made for converting the reference to one shilling into a reference to five new pence on and after the appointed day for the purposes of the Act of 1969. As it is now clear that this Bill will not pass until after that day, the reference to a sum of money in the old currency and its conversion into the new can be dispensed with. My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 13 to 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Enactments repealed]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): When the House was last in Committee on this Bill the Committee divided on Amendment No. 51. As fewer than 30 Lords voted I declared the Question not decided, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52, and the House was resumed. The House is now again in Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52, and the first Question before the Committee is that Amendment No. 51 be agreed to.
LORD ROYLE: I have some inhibitions about making a second speech on the same Amendment—to leave out line 40 on page 6—but I owe it to the Committee to say a few words with regard to it, in view of the circumstances which prevailed on Monday of last week at well after 7 o'clock in the evening. When a Division took place, 20 noble Lords voted in support of my Amendment while I think nine voted against, so that it failed to be carried by only one vote. Here we are again on the same Question, and I must say one or two words if only because of the fact that only 29 of your Lordships were able to stay that evening to listen to the arguments.
This Bill extends the provisions covering the opening of shops on Sundays, and throughout the proceedings on this Bill, and particularly during the Committee stage, some of us on this side have expressed doubts and objections to that extension. We have discussed the subject in general, but we are now dealing with the retail meat trade in particular, and my contention is that under the terms of the Bill meat shops should not be permitted to open on Sundays.
1142
There is a further Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and others, which has roughly the same intention as mine.
Sections 60 and 61 of the 1950 Act provide that butcher's meat shall not be sold on Sundays, and it is proposed in the Bill that those sections shall be repealed. Section 63 deals with delivery, so that it is in exactly the same category. The other sections which will be deleted by my Amendment are concerned with exemptions, and deal very largely with the sale of kosher meat and with the sale of meat to ships. Therefore, if my Amendment is carried it will be necessary—and this I realise to the full—for those matters to be put right on Report stage. I am taking the simplest possible line by moving that the whole of line 40 in Schedule 3 to the Bill be deleted.
The 1950 Act consolidated the Retail Meat Dealers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act 1936, which meant that butchers' shops would not be open on Sundays. In 1936, and for years before, there had been great agitation by the meat trade that their shops should not open on Sundays. They succeeded in getting a Member of another place and a noble Lord in this House to take that Bill through, so that it became the law of the land. But, just as the meat trade objected in 1936 to shops being open on Sundays, they object strongly to their shops being open from now on. Of course in 1936 the situation was rather different from what it is now: there was then a greater emphasis on Sunday observance than there is to-day. But, as I said before, this is not a question of taking cans off shelves. Carcases have to be turned into chops and steaks, and the trade is very anxious that butchers' shops should not be open on Sundays.
The only other argument I want to use is in regard to inspection. In 1966 this House, along with the other place, carried an Amendment to the Regulations covering the inspection of meat. That was introduced in order that local authorities could restrict slaughtering in private slaughterhouses to five days a week, because it was impossible to find sufficient inspectors to ensure that regulations relating to hygiene and other matters were observed if slaughtering took place at weekends. If it was agreed that it is impossible to inspect meat in slaughterhouses on Sundays, then the same must

1143
be true in regard to the opening of shops on Sundays. If that argument applies to slaughterhouses, it surely applies also to shops.
The meat trade is surrounded by weights and measures regulations, and by hygiene regulations, and the best people in the trade are obviously very happy to accept those regulations for their own protection. But the Bill provides that the shops shall be open in spite of the fact that it is impossible to find inspectors to go into them, which is a very important aspect. In view of the fact that there is no public demand to purchase meat on Sundays; that the trade itself is completely opposed to its shops opening on Sundays; and that there are inspection difficulties, I feel that I can ask the Committee to support me in this Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: When we debated this Bill in Committee on the last occasion, the argument I adduced against it—
LORD DERWENT: If the noble Baroness will forgive me interrupting, I do not think the Amendment has been put yet, has it?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that we are in fact engaged in debating whether Amendment No. 51 shall be agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I apologise. I was not quite clear.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: As I was saying, when we debated this Bill in Committee on the last occasion and on Second Reading the argument I adduced against it was on humane and health grounds. I felt it had taken Parliament perhaps a century to recognise that the workers in shops should have protection; and now, in 1971, we are seeking to introduce a measure which would take that protection from them. The protection in this case was to ensure that workers in shops and elsewhere, wherever retail distribution was conducted, should be assured of only a six-day working week and should not be called upon to work on Sundays. We failed in so far as we managed only to get support for an
1144
Amendment limiting the number of hours which the worker worked on Sundays to those before 12 o'clock.
This Amendment deals with one particular category of workers, the butcher and his assistants. My noble friend is too modest; he was a butcher, and he was a great worker. He did not like to recall to the Committee, perhaps because he feels so virile, just what the working conditions of the butcher are. By pure coincidence, I was in my butcher's shop this morning, and I looked at the magnificent man who was chopping away at these things. He had a red face and blue hands, and was working in a temperature in which I, with a very thick coat on, shivered. I saw him and his assistants, when they had finished with one piece of meat, go into the huge refrigerator, where they dissected the carcase. All this calls for great physical energy and expertise to be exercised in a very low temperature, because (and here is the special case) it is deliberately kept low in order that the meat shall not deteriorate. So we cannot compare the conditions of a butcher with, for instance, the conditions of a draper.
Added to this, of course, there were eight women (I counted them) patiently waiting; eight women quite rightly indulging in a running commentary on butchers, on the price of meat and on the price of other household articles. I would add as a doctor, that the incidence of accidents in butchers' shops is quite high, and that is understandable. The butcher has to use very sharp instruments the whole time, and he is cold. But he is not doing this in a laboratory; he is not doing this in an operating theatre; he is doing this in a shop, where he is subject to all the chatter of the customers. This must inevitably increase the nervous strain of his job. Surely this man deserves Sunday morning in the warm, in comfort with his family. He should not be subjected to a measure which will compel him, because competition is so great, to work on a Sunday, as well as on the other six days of the week, in those conditions which I have described.
As my noble friend said, it has taken us years, inside Parliament and outside Parliament, to introduce the Shops Act to protect these workers; and yet here we are, in 1971, and particularly in this privileged House, introducing this retrograde

1145
measure. Apart from that, of course unless this Amendment is accepted we shall also be sanctioning the use of child labour on Sunday mornings. Noble Lords may say that a boy brings the papers. All right; we accept that. But this is a widespread sanction of child labour in every field where food and other commodities are distributed; because here, specifically, in the Shops Act it prohibits the delivery of meat on Sundays. If this Amendment is not passed, small boys (and girls, it may be) who not only have five days at school, where they are supposed to work well, and who are probably errand boys or girls on Saturdays, will be called out to deliver meat. Surely to-day we cannot accept this retrograde measure; and although this Amendment deals with only one aspect of the matter at least it will be seen that these people, because of the conditions of their work, should have special protection.
4.5 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I cannot speak with the specialised knowledge which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has on this question, or with the great knowledge which the noble Baroness has on all the health aspects; but I should like to make one point. In many countries where I have lived and worked, and where the meat trade is not kept under such good regulation as it is in this country, the result is often rather disastrous to those who have to consume the meat, and I believe that this is responsible for a great deal of what is known as "Gippy" tummy, Balkan tummy, Warsaw tummy, Paris tummy and all the other tummies which are to be found around the place. Therefore, I should like to support the noble Lord in what he has said, and I think we should be careful before we diminish the control over this trade in this respect.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I am just recovering from the immense emotional impact of the speech of my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I felt that I was listening to Lord Shaftesbury defending chimney sweeps.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is a great compliment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: It is indeed meant to be. But I wonder whether it is exactly applicable to this situation. Lord Derwent's Bill
1146
suggests that people should not be prevented from doing certain things on Sunday. My noble friend Lord Royle says that if the shops were to open, nobody would buy the meat; that the customer does not want it. If that is so, they will not do it. I simply cannot understand what all the fuss is about. It seems to me a "work-up" on really a false premise. In principle, it is desirable that people who want to buy things should be given the maximum opportunity to do so, and that people who want to sell things should be controlled from exploiting other people. Our law already does this. The shop worker is protected from exploitation. Nobody has to accept a job where they have to work on Sundays. The family butcher, the family salesman of anything, is not obliged to enter into this competition. If it is true, as my noble friend Lord Royle says, that nobody is going to buy the meat anyway, then my noble friend Lady Summer-skill's little boys will not be exploited. I believe that we want to look at this with a rather more reasonable attitude, as a measure which allows freedom without enforcing abuse.
LORD PLATT: I shall support this Amendment, and the only reason I rise to speak at this moment is to correct an impression which I think the noble Lord, Lord Royle, may have made inadvertently when he referred to noble Lords "on this side of the Committee", meaning, presumably, the Opposition side. This is not a Party matter at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made clear to us on Second Reading when he said:
"Thus, while welcoming Lord Derwent's initiative in introducing this Bill, the position of the Government at this stage must be one of neutrality".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/12/70, col. 1133.]
I hope that noble Lords who agree with me that in many respects this is a bad Bill—that it is not something we should vote for just for the sake of getting rid of a certain amount of nonsense in the present state of affairs—will not hesitate to go into the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In line with the Government's declared policy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred, I intervene, not to discuss the merits of the noble Lord's Amendment, but merely to help fill in some of the

1147
background to enable your Lordships to reach a decision. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, underlined what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, had to say; that is, that this is not a matter in which Party interests predominate at all. There is a very difficult clash here, I suppose one of the oldest in politics, between the interests of a particular group of people—with a special and legitimate interest which was effectively explained by the noble Lord, Lord Royle—and the interests of the consumer, of the public as a whole, on whose behalf Lord Donaldson, with his former connection with the Consumer Council, was speaking.
The provisions of the Shops Act, Sections 60 to 65, which are the subject of Lord Royle's Amendment, are those that concern retail meat dealers' shops in England and Wales. The effect of the present legislation, the 1950 legislation, is to prohibit the sale and delivery of butcher's meat on Sundays. There are some exemptions concerning Jewish butchers and meat required for ships or aircraft, but these are incidental to the main prohibition.
Noble Lords will recall that earlier in the Committee stage last week, we had an interesting debate on an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, in which he sought to preserve the special position of the fish fryers under the Act. Although this is a "meatier" subject, Lord Royle's Amendment is similar to that moved on behalf of the fish fryers by Lord Ingleby. It is aimed at preserving the special position of one class of shops in relation to the proposed provisions of the general law which otherwise would permit the sale of that particular commodity.
As in the case of the fish fryers, what has to be proved to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and his supporters, is whether a special case can be made out for treating butchers separately. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, has given some reasons why, in his view, there should be special provision for butchers. He is right in reminding the Committee that butchers have been treated differently ever since the Act of 1936, the Retail Meat Dealers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, which first created a special exemption from the Sunday trading law for retail butchers' shops.
1148
The butchery trade is a specialist one requiring trained staff and, as a result, the payment of higher wages than for most other shop assistants is likely to be incurred by Sunday trading. Moreover, under the Bill as it is at present drafted, some butchers might feel themselves obliged to open to meet competition from shops selling meat purely as a side line. Again, as in the case of the fish fryers, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, we have to keep in mind that there is no obligation to open. No one is requiring butchers' shops to open; they would merely have the freedom to do so if they felt that there was a sufficient demand for their goods.
The question that remains to be answered, therefore, is whether shops legislation should be used as a medium for protecting particular trading interests. It could be argued that there is no logical reason for treating butchers' shops as basically different from other categories of specialist shops. It may have been arguments on these lines which led the Committee to reject Lord Ingleby's Amendment in respect of fish and chip shops.
Perhaps I may say a word about the question of inspection which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, when moving his Amendment. The noble Lord felt that if butchers' shops opened on Sundays they would be vulnerable to difficulties as regards hygiene unless they were inspected. The fact that weights and measures inspectors, or shops inspectors, would not normally be available on Sundays is not, I am advised, likely to be a decisive consideration. At the moment, butchers would not expect local authority inspectors to visit their premises every day and the fact that inspectors would not be available on Sundays does not seem, on the face of it, to introduce any particularly novel problem. Butchers' shops would not be in a unique position if they were open on seven days each week and the process of inspection could take place only on five days. An instance would be that of restaurants, which are open all the time, though inspectors call in only during the days when they are on duty. In the last analysis, I do not think that the Committee will feel that it is on an argument of this sort that a decision will turn. It really turns on the

1149
deeper question, whether the shops legislation should be used to safeguard the position of individual classes of traders; and second, if it should, whether or not a sufficiently strong case has been made in respect of butchers in this Amendment.
4.18 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I apologise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Royle, for inflicting a second speech on your Lordships; but I agree with him in thinking that it is necessary. May I say this regarding Amendment No. 52? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, agrees with me. If the Committee agrees with him on Amendment No. 51, then Amendment No. 52 will fall. If the Committee agrees with me, I take it that Amendment No. 52 will not be moved. In any case, it is faulty in drafting, but I will not discuss that point now.
Let us see what we are really talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, says that people in the meat trade, the butchers—I mean a man who is mainly a butcher—does not want to open on a Sunday. I entirely agree. The butcher will not open on a Sunday because it will not pay him. People do not go to their butcher to buy a joint on a Sunday. Competition from someone else who opens on a Sunday will not stop people going to their butcher. It is not like shopping round in various grocers' stores. One goes to a particular butcher because one likes his meat better than that of another butcher; or because the price is right or because you like his face.
Another reason for not opening on a Sunday is that butchers will not get their skilled cutters to work on Sunday. The cutters are paid a very high wage, and they would have to be paid double or treble wages to work on Sunday, and if a butcher did open on a Sunday, I am convinced that he would not sell enough meat to make it worth while. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, did not say to-day (although he said it the other day and it is a point that he might have made again, but perhaps I persuaded him on the last occasion) that this will induce the big stores to open their meat departments. Apart from meat, the big stores can, in effect, sell any food they like on a Sunday
1150
now. There are one or two items that they may not sell; but even those items may be sold if they are sold as part of a meal to be taken away. So it remains a matter of butcher's meat. The big stores will not open on Sundays, for reasons which I think Lord Sainsbury hinted at last week: that they would have to pay their staff so much, that in any case it would be difficult to get the staff to work on Sundays, and that it would not pay them to open. If the big store which sells all kinds of food does not think it worth while to open now, it will certainly not think it worth while to open in the future simply because it will be enabled to sell a piece of meat on a Sunday.
So I do not think that there is the slightest danger of butchers' shops, as such, opening on Sunday. But when this legislation about butchers was first passed in 1936 (and virtually consolidated in the Shops Act 1950) things were very different. In those days grocers were grocers; greengrocers were greengrocers: fishmongers were fishmongers, and butchers were butchers. But now butchers sell food other than meat. Quite a number of grocers sell meat; butchers sell tinned fruit, and sometimes eggs; and fishmongers do not sell only fish. Nowadays, butchers, with the exception of the small family butcher, sell all kinds of things.
All these shops are entitled now to open on a Sunday; but very few of them do because there is a limited demand for shopping on Sunday. In every area there are nearly always one or two food shops open. The hours chosen by the shopkeepers to open vary according to the number of customers they expect. Others do not open because there is not enough business. Very often, nowadays, grocers will keep in the refrigerator the odd cutlet or chop, as well as fruit and vegetables. What this Bill is trying to do is to end the present nonsense that a customer who goes into a shop is never quite certain what he may buy on a Sunday and in many cases the shopkeeper is never quite certain what he may sell. All this Bill tries to ensure is that when a shop opens to sell food on Sunday—there are not many of them; and this Bill will not increase their numbers—it can sell any food.

1151
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that this is a consumer matter. Nobody is going to do an enormous amount of business, but there will be the odd customer who will want something. Why should it not be sold to him simply because the meat trade, as such, does not want Sunday trading? What we have heard from Lord Royle, who feels very deeply on this subject, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is tending to take us back almost to the days of our grandfathers. I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that there was faulty drafting in one or the other of these Amendments? If so, could he indicate where it is?
LORD DERWENT: If one takes out Sections 61 to 65 there will have to be inserted another—I think the one dealing with kosher butchers. The Bill will have to be re-drafted; and we could deal with this question perhaps on the Report stage. I do not think it is necessary for the Committee to exercise their minds on this matter now.
LORD ROYLE: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on this point. I said earlier that this was a question of a simple Amendment which I knew could be put right with regard to the exemptions like kosher meat and aeroplanes and ships. The first thing I want to say is that when this debate is over I think that I shall go to the headquarters of the National Federation of Meat Traders and suggest that my noble friend Lady Summerskill be made an honorary member. I have never had such strong support in anything I have done. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, I did not say that no one would buy on a Sunday. I believe that some stores will open on Sundays; that perhaps the meat department of a
big store may open. If that happens, then the small butcher round the corner will feel compelled, for the sake of his business, to enter into competition with the store. This is what is going to happen once the door is opened, and before long we shall see almost the wholesale sale of meat on Sundays.
To the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I may say that I am sorry that I slipped up with regard to neutrality, because I appreciate very much the support he gave my Amendment on a previous occasion. I do not want to say much more. But if an individual wishes to buy food on a Sunday—say, for an unexpected guest—as Lord Derwent has already mentioned, there are many items which may now be sold on Sunday, so that the would-be buyer can go to the grocer who is open on a Sunday and find there something for a Sunday lunch. Not only that, but people who live in areas like Hampstead have only to walk a few yards to buy anything they like from a kosher shop on a Sunday. I am not a bit impressed by the arguments used by Lord Derwent, and I must divide the Committee.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord said that if somebody sells meat on a Sunday in one shop, then the shop down the road will be forced to open. I do not believe that this necessarily follows. It is quite common for a particular grocer to open his shop on a Sunday, but this does not force his competitors to open—because often they do not think it worth while. Why should butchers be so different in their nature from grocers? They open or do not open according to whether or not it pays: and it is not going to pay a butcher to open his shop on a Sunday.
4.30 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Crook, L.

Henderson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Henley, L.

Arwyn, L.

Diamond, L.

Hoy, L.

Brockway, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Jacques, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Champion, L.

Hamnett, L.

Leatherland, L.

Chorley, L.

Hankey, L.

Lindgren, L.

Collison, L.

Hanworth, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Maelor, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield L.

Merthyr, L.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Moyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

White, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

St. Just, L.

Williamson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wright of Ashton-under-Lyne, L.

Platt, L.

Slater, L.

Poltimore, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Meston, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

George-Brown, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Avebury, L.

Grenfell, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs.

Aylestone, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Robbins, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hatherton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Buckton, L.

Hood, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Caccia, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Serota, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ilford, L.

Shannon, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Jessel, L.

Sherfield, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stonham, L.

Daventry, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Davidson, V.

Loudoun, C.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teynham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Willis, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mansfield, E.

Wise, L.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Ellenborough, L.

Mersey, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JACQUES: Amendment No. 52 is consequential on Amendment No. 28 which has been accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("to 65") and insert ("and 61").—(Lord Jacques.)
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment is not quite right. I accept it now, but it will need to be slightly amended on Report.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 6, leave out lines 42 to 44.—(Lord Derwent.)
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

ROYAL MINT: REMOVAL TO WALES
4.40 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the changed circumstances, they will review the decision to move the Royal Mint from its traditional home in London to South Wales. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I should start by apologising to the House, because I had this Question down for debate some months ago, but on that occasion as I came in from the tea-room I found that the House had escaped me and gone home. However, I think the matter is of some importance; I decided to keep the Question on the Order Paper, and I am happy to bring it to the attention of your Lordships' House to-day.
Perhaps first of all I can give your Lordships a brief history of the background of the affair. In April, 1967, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Royal Mint would be transferred from its traditional home in London to new and modern buildings in Wales, and that the present Royal Mint, which has been at Tower Hill for over

1155
700 years, would be closed. The transfer was to be arranged in two stages, to be completed by 1973. Stage one has already been carried out, and the new Mint in Wales, which has so far cost £3½million, is already in production. A number of reasons were given for the transfer, the most important of which were as follows: first, that the world demand for new coinage, plus our own decimalisation programme, would create a huge need for enlarged capacity; secondly, that the Mint on Tower Hill was antiquated and short of space for development, the cost of modernisation would be too great, and even then the capacity would not be adequate to cope with the expected new world demand; thirdly, that Llantrisant in Wales was in a development area, the move would help to reduce local unemployment and was in line with the general Government policy of decentralisation.
Those were the reasons which were put forward, and they were accepted by all parties at the time, although, quite naturally, some doubts were expressed—and continue to be expressed—by the workers at Tower Hill. At that time there was a different Government in office, and there was some doubt and some criticism of the proposals made by Members who support the present Government. However, the overwhelming and seemingly irresistible argument was the first that I have mentioned: that of capacity for production.
At the time it seemed particularly strongly based. There was a world boom. The order book at the Royal Mint was full to overflowing. A number of factors were responsible for this big upsurge. For example, the American Mint was closed, or virtually closed, for rebuilding, and orders were thus being diverted here. Secondly, a number of newly independent countries required fresh coinage. Thirdly, we were changing our own coinage from silver to cupro-nickel, and we had decimalisation to look forward to. However, my Lords, in the event this world boom was short lived, and by the beginning of 1968 most overseas orders were completed and production had to be throttled back. So the first and most important reason for the transfer of the Mint from Tower Hill to Wales had really been wiped out. There was no more a
1156
world boom. Output in 1968 did not increase; it simply managed to hold its own at about 1,400 million coins.
A most significant fact was that in 1966 our own Royal Mint produced about 75 per cent. of total orders throughout the world, but by 1968 this figure had already fallen drastically. In 1968, figures for export were only half the 1967 figures. At present, the programme for the minting of decimal coinage is almost complete and there are few export orders. The Mint at Tower Hill is running at about one-third of its capacity, or less, while there seems little prospect for work at Llantrisant when the programme is finally complete in a few weeks' time. Thus in the past two to three years the main argument for moving to Wales has been, as I say, wiped out. It is regrettable, but world demand has not come up to our expectations and, on the basis of present orders and future expectations, the Royal Mint at Tower Hill would be completely capable of fulfilling all contracts.
Of course, the important question is this: is it merely a temporary decline in world demand, or will it continue? This is clearly a crucial question. It has been argued, with some justification, that the demand for world coinage follows a pattern of troughs and peaks and the present sharp decline will be arrested. There was a peak in 1952, which fell away to less than half in 1955, to rise once more to a higher level in 1961. The last Government argued that this pattern would continue, and they based that view on "the evidence of economic and demographic trends". That evidence, we were told, indicated that, in spite of fluctuations, peak demand and average demand would continue to rise.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has studied this "economic and demographic" evidence and whether he could tell us what it is, where it came from, and why it has never—up until a few months ago, at least—been quoted in evidence. Let us assume that the present position is only a temporary dip in the chart and that the figures will start to rise again. I will add, incidentally, that there is as yet no sign of this—not even a tiny glimmer of light on the horizon. Nevertheless, let us assume that to be right. What guarantee have we that

1157
the conditions of 1966, when we produced the vast majority of world orders, will be repeated?
One of the most significant developments in the past two or three years seems to have been overlooked. The virtual monopoly of our old position has been challenged. The American Mint has been modernised and reopened, and is now challenging for world orders. New Mints have been opened in France and Australia. Other countries are considering doing the same. So we have to face the fact that competition is becoming fierce, and will become fiercer yet. We do not need to be afraid of it—we have the best craftsmen in the business, with generations of experience behind them—but we should be whistling down the wind if we imagined that we could ever again be in a position to claim three-quarters of the available orders in the world. It just cannot happen.
If we were to take a realistic assessment of the situation to-day, if we were starting from scratch, what kind of Mint should we go for? What kind of operation would give us the maximum viability in the long run, on the basis of present world trends? We should go for a medium-sized operation—one which was capable of making largo runs but which was also geared to small runs too and which could fulfil small orders on an economic basis. We certainly should not want to go for a huge plant which depended on massive production.
We have just such an operation at Tower Hill, one we are proposing to close down and we are proposing to disperse the skilled craftsmen on which really the Mint depends. The building at Tower Hill is, admittedly, an old-fashioned one, but in 1966 something like half-a-million pounds was spent on modern presses, and a further half-a-million pounds was spent on overhead spacing of rooms. And it managed to turn out in that year a record figure of orders—a figure which is unlikely to be repeated. So, old-fashioned or not, it cannot be so antiquated as some would have us believe. As for space, I understand that the Government owns land around the Tower Hill site and has recently acquired more. But, even so, I doubt whether this land would be necessary, because, as I have indicated, the
1158
present Mint at Tower Hill could carry out all that is necessary and no vast extension seems to be likely to be required in view of the decline in world demand, which seems to be reasonably permanent.
Therefore, what I am saying in brief, my Lords, is that a decision which seemed right in 1967, seems to be wrong—and very wrong—in 1971. I am not here to start a fight between the Welsh and the Cockneys, and I do not want to make invidious comparisons between the workers at Tower Hill and those at Llantrisant, but I think we ought to accept the fact that the men at Tower Hill have a long history of association with the Mint and have developed not only special skills but a special kind of spirit. They are not simply electricians or toolmakers, or trained men of other kinds, who can move easily from one factory to another: they have a special expertise which is associated with coinage. And it goes without saying that if this transfer finally goes through we must lose some of that special skill and spirit—something that cannot be replaced. We shall be losing something, and this, in itself, will not help our fight for world orders.
The last Government were generous in their offer to fit all skilled men up with a job at Llantrisant and to give financial assistance towards house purchase and moving. But the last Government, and the present Government, can consider themselves fortunate that not all the men who were covered by this offer accepted it, for had they gone down there there would have been very little work for the Welsh people on the spot because of the decline of orders. The men concerned had these grave doubts and did not go—and for very good reason. They took the view that if the decline in the world demand for coinage continues there will not be enough work for the people already working dawn in Wales, let alone those people who might go from Tower Hill. And some of them might find themselves in a position that, having moved from London, they then found that they had to be laid off. This certainly would not help the unemployment situation in Wales.
So I come back to this basic point. It is difficult, I know, for Government Departments to go into reverse, but there seems to have been an error in estimation here. In these circumstances, and in view of the many doubts, would it not be reasonable to hold a fresh inquiry into the whole business, and to ascertain, in the light of present and future prospects of coinage demand, whether the move can be justified—because the situation seems to have changed? It will help nobody if the policy is wrong. It will not help the country; it will not help the export trade; it will not help the men at Tower Hill, and it certainly will not help the people at Llantrisant. It does not make sense to send a non-developing industry to a development area at enormous cost in materials and wastage in human terms. There is a case for reconsideration, and I ask the Minister to make that reconsideration.
I would ask him also to remember, as I know he does, that we are not talking simply of coins; that a large number of human beings are involved here, and for a long time now many of those human beings have been living in a state of uncertainty about their future. They face special problems because many of them are classified as civil servants and the redundancy payments for which a worker in private industry qualifies may not apply to a skilled worker at the Royal Mint. He may have to wait until the age of sixty before getting a pension, or a payment in lieu of pension.
Some men came to the Royal Mint from Woolwich Arsenal when it closed, on the understanding and with the hope that they would have long-term employment. Are they to be two-time losers? There is the position of the coiners, the specially highly skilled men. They have been told that they might be able to safeguard their pension rights by transfer to other Government Departments. But in most cases the transfer would involve the taking of semi-skilled work, at semiskilled rates. And as their pensions are calculated on the rates of pay for the last three years of service, they would stand to lose considerably. The same applies to certain shift workers. So there is a case here, too, for urgent consideration
1160
in order to remove some doubts from the minds of these men.
I know that the Minister, had he had his own way, would pursue a generous policy. But it is not just a question of generosity; it is also a question of wisdom. I have spoken to some of these men, and I have read some of the correspondence between their representatives and Government Departments, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that these workers have been made the victims of mistaken policy, of a piece of overestimation; and they are naturally bitter about it. They are victims also of a policy which sees them as units of labour, by people who talk of labour mobility. I often wonder what goes on in the heads of these miraculous planners and experts, whose record, I must say, in economic terms in this country does not seem to be a particularly successful one. Do they really expect middle-aged craftsmen to be mobile, to pull up roots and move around like pawns in some economic game? Would they themselves do it?
I should like, finally, to ask the Minister the following questions. If this transfer goes through, can he give the workers a firm date for the closing of the Royal Mint, so that they know where they are? Secondly, can he give firm assurances that workers made redundant will be treated not less fairly than those in private industry? Thirdly, can he give an assurance that men who transfer to other Government Departments, and who may be forced to accept semi-skilled and lower paid work, will not lose financially in terms of their eventual pension?
4.55 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Willis; and, as usual, the way he has presented his case is most interesting, very factual and compassionate. My intervention will be a short one because it is my duty merely to make a statement of the situation as the official Opposition sees it. The decision concerning this move was taken by the previous Government after very long and careful deliberation. I remember that when the Statement relating to it was repeated in your Lordships' House it was warmly welcomed by those Members of the House who come from Wales. In fact, there was no dissenting voice, as Hansard

1161
shows—neither from those likely to be affected by the move into Wales, nor from those who were concerned with the workers at Tower Hill. This decision of the previous Government may well also be, so far as I know, in line with the policy of the present Government—to decentralise and to spread employment throughout the country, particularly to those areas where the opportunities for work are not as good as they are in the Metropolis.
I must say that I spend a large number of hours on committees and organisations telling people that there is a great, pulsing world outside London and that there are many opportunities which should be provided for the people who live in various parts of the United Kingdom, particularly those which in the past have not had a very good record for work. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Willis, read just this week the statement in the Press that certain trade unions from South Wales were seeking an opportunity to talk to the Minister for Wales on the question of further employment. I notice that he said that it was changed circumstances which made him feel that there was a reason to reconsider the original decision.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on several points, but I am not sure that he has completely made out the case of these changed circumstances. He will know as well as I that we live in a system where we are subject to slumps and booms, and as I understand it there is not at present any sign of people at Llantrisant, certainly, being without employment—but this is subject to any reply the Minister will give us. As the noble Lord knows, employees who lose employment in the circumstances he has described come under the scheme for redundancy payments. The questions he has put are very pertinent, and I hope they will receive a very full reply.
My Lords, I would certainly not want my noble friend to feel that there is any lack of sympathy for the workers at Tower Hill. I am sure that he knows this to be the case from our side of the House. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister who is to reply, because I am certain that he will deal with this point and several others that have been raised. But I should like to repeat that,
1162
so far as Her Majesty's Opposition is concerned, we stand to the decision originally arrived at by the previous Administration.
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, naturally anyone must listen with great sympathy to the case that has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Willis. Where one is dealing with transfers of workers, whether they are transferred out of London or out of South Wales, one recognises that there are many human problems and one must think of them with sympathy. But I must say that, having listened to Lord Willis, one would almost suppose that nothing had yet happened at Llantrisant and that this matter was still an open question on which no concrete action had ensued. This, of course, is far from the case. In fact Llantrisant is in full production. I am told that peak production was reached last September; and there is a fine new factory there, with new plant and machinery.
It is a very considerable public investment, which is already working, and a considerable amount of money and effort has been put into training workers in South Wales in these new processes. So we are not speaking of a decision that has not yet been implemented. The first phase of the move from Tower Hill to Llantrisant has already taken place; and if it is the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, suggests—and I do not for one moment dispute his argument—that the position in the market for coinage, and particularly in the export market, is at the moment less active than was perhaps calculated in 1967, that does not mean that there is not work to be done. If any adjustment has to be made, surely the adjustment should be in modifying the second phase.
May I draw the attention of your Lordships to the employment position at the present time at Llantrisant? I am told that there are some 147 staff and 354 industrial workers now employed there. Of the staff, approximately 70 of the staff are local persons; others have moved from London to give their expert advice and skill. On the industrial side, out of the 354 workers now working at Llantrisant, 325 are local. Therefore, as I have said, they are already trained

1163
and doing the job. As I understand the position, if stage 2 were fully carried out it would involve some 250 staff and some 550 industrial workers. I am not sufficiently conversant with the immediate prospects to know whether stage 2 needs to be modified in any way. All I am saying is that stage 1 has already been carried out. There is this very fine new factory complex, and from the point of view of those of us who are concerned with employment in South Wales it is extremely important that we should keep it.
The Llantrisant factory is just South of the Rhondda Valley, and anyone who knows South Wales will know that the Rhondda Valley has been a problem, so far as employment is concerned, for many years. Therefore we rejoiced unreservedly when we heard that the Royal Mint was to be transferred to South Wales and was to bring there a new industry which would provide skilled work in modern conditions within reasonable travelling distance of the Rhondda Valley.
If those who had come from London had been asked to live in the Rhondda Valley, I could have understood that they might have hesitated. Those of us who are familiar with the Welsh valleys appreciate that, although they are not beautiful, the hearts of the people who live there are warm, and there is a very close community life—though, of course, it might not appeal to those who have come from London. However, I believe that those who have made the transfer from London have for the most part been able to settle happily in new housing and in pleasant surroundings—and that applies particularly to the children. They are only some eight or nine miles from Cardiff, so that they have ample opportunities for shopping and entertainment, and so on. They are not by any means in the wilder parts of Wales.
It seemed to all of us who are concerned in any way with South Wales that the transfer of the Royal Mint was a tremendous encouragement, after years and years of our trying to find suitable modern employment for those for whom the coalmining industry no longer offered opportunities. At the present time, we still have more than 5 per cent. unemployment in the Rhondda and Pontypridd exchange area, and therefore, although
1164
we are delighted to have the employment which the Royal Mint has already provided, it will be appreciated that we are anxious that there should be, if possible, further expansion there and further opportunities.
The Royal Mint is not isolated. There are other modern factories on this estate, and therefore there are other opportunities. But we feel that the Royal Mint is a very important element in the opportunities provided in Llantrisant. There is discussion as to whether or not there should be a New Town in Llantrisant. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to say anything about that. I have a notion that perhaps his Administration is not quite so keen on New Towns as we were. But, be that as it may, it is an area to which I think one can go with satisfaction for one's work, and with the pay and conditions available.
So I can only repeat that, while we have great sympathy for the individuals concerned at Tower Hill (and it is always difficult when one has a period of change of this sort), nevertheless I think it is fair to say that the burden of unemployment which has been carried for a generation or more in South Wales is such that the people at Tower Hill should have some imagination and sympathy with their fellow workers in the South Wales valleys. The rundown of the coalmining industry and the rationalisation in the steel industry have meant that, despite all the effort that we have put into South Wales within the last few years, we have been running very hard indeed to keep in the same place: because, however much industry one was able to introduce, all the time one has had the outflow of people from the coal and steel industries, in particular, and also, to some extent, the transport industry—the railways and the docks—which is so much dependent upon the heavy industries.
We have had a rundown in all our basic industries, and therefore I hope that no one will begrudge us this particular industrial opportunity that has been offered to us. Were it the position that nothing had been done, I think there would be far greater cause for my noble friend's plea; but in fact, as I have said, a substantial start has been made. People have been trained; the plant is there, and the people are working there, and in my

1165
view it would be a retrograde step to reconsider this move.
5.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Royal Mint. It is the second occasion on which he has attempted to raise this question, and I think perhaps his case has lost some of its strength by virtue of the time that has passed and also by virtue of the fact that we now have in this House the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has just made a most powerful speech. I know that the noble Lord has raised this matter because he has sympathy with some of the difficulties of the workers at Tower Hill, but in the course of my speech I hope to satisfy him on some of the points which he has raised.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given very careful consideration to suggestions that the decision to move the Royal Mint to Wales, which was announced in April, 1967, should be reconsidered. Indeed, a review was carried out by the present Government as soon as we came into office and we concluded that the decision made by the previous Government was right and that the transfer of the Mint to Wales should proceed.
May I now come to some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and first the one on which he placed the greatest emphasis; namely, the argument in relation to exports. He claimed that the Tower Hill Mint is capable of coping with the lower volume of export orders which he predicted. The pattern of export orders is naturally not static but it is possible to detect a general trend. The Mint undertakes coinage for some sixty countries. We must take into account the fact that some countries have had two or three re-coinages within a matter of ten years, and it seems fair to assume that re-coinages will continue to make a considerable contribution to demand. In terms of total world orders, demand has about doubled every six and a half years, and increases in population and rising standards of living are likely to support this trend. The use of coinage is far
1166
higher in developed than in developing countries, and this also suggests an expanding world market in the future.
The Estimates Committee, which looked very closely at the Royal Mint's affairs in 1968, reported that in their view the Royal Mint's estimates of this upward trend might be considered modest, and certainly nothing of significance has occurred in the sphere of coinage since 1968 to invalidate that view. It is significant that although export orders handled by the Royal Mint and its subcontractors fell to about 700 million coins in 1968 and 600 million in 1969, the figure for 1970 was over 850 million, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that this is more than a tiny glimmer of light.
It has been suggested that the long term will show a decline in export prospects now that some newly independent countries have Mints of their own. The fact is, however, that although a few customers of the Royal Mint have built Mints of their own, most of these rely on imported blanks. The effect on the Mint's export trade could be in part a switch from coin to blanks rather than a total loss. Moreover, none of the new Mints is large enough to deal with a recoinage in reasonable time, and re-coinages have always accounted for about half the Royal Mint's exports.
It has also been suggested that the Royal Mint has failed to undertake any proper market research and that its forecasts are mere expressions of hope. On the contrary, I can assure the House that considerable market research has been undertaken by the Royal Mint, and also by one of the private mints with which the Royal Mint co-operates, and by Messrs. Thomas De La Rue International Limited, who act as the Royal Mint's agents in many parts of the world. On this evidence the Government consider that there are reasonable grounds for optimism about export prospects, and there is no reason to suppose Chat domestic demand will not also continue to grow. Of course demand will fluctuate, as it always has, but the Government are satisfied that there will be enough work over the years to keep the Llantrisant Mint busy.
May I turn now to the argument that the valuable skills which have been built up at the Tower Hill Mint are being

1167
dissipated and that the lack of skill at Llantrisant will make it impossible for the new Mint to maintain a successful export effort. I should like to pay tribute to the workers at Llantrisant. They have done a fine job in producing some 3,000 million decimal bronze coins in a little over 18 months, which is substantially better than the management had expected. Nor does the reject rate for coins at Llantrisant differ significantly from that at Tower Hill. The management are satisfied with Llantrisant's ability to cope with normal exports, most of which are round coins that do not present significantly different problems from those of the United Kingdom decimal bronze. There is, of course, the difference that most export orders are much smaller than large decimal production, but dealing with this is mainly a matter of organisation.
There remain the shaped and other special coins. Clearly, skill in this work cannot be achieved overnight, and the Government accept that much valuable skill still resides at Tower Hill. However, the plan always has been to transfer work in stages and on the whole to leave the more complex jobs until last. Past evidence on the ability of the men at Llantrisant to learn new skills encourages the Government to believe that, given time, they will master these higher skills also, although, of course, the transfer of a few more craftsmen from Tower Hill would be helpful. I cannot give the noble Lord the precise date for which he asked for the closing of Tower Hill. This will depend on stage 2 at Llantrisant, and we are still considering, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, suggested we should, what stage 2 should comprise and when it should come into operation. Now may I finally say a few words about the human problems involved?
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He will appreciate that the problem facing some of the workers at Tower Hill who do not want, for various reasons which the noble Lord will understand, to go to South Wales is an acute one, not helped by the overhanging uncertainty about what stage 2 will consist of and when the Mint will be closed. May I ask the noble Lord whether he could give any
1168
possible date when the review of stage 2 will be completed so that the uncertainty overhanging these workers can be ended?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give any specific date. I should have thought, however, that for certain reasons the longer Tower Hill continues the more satisfactory it will be for some of the workers there. So far it has been possible to run down the programme at Tower Hill in a gradual way, and I should have thought that was greatly to everybody's benefit.
If I may turn now to the human problems, the move to Wales must have consequences for individual members of the staff and their families. The Government appreciate the problems that arise, but these must be balanced against the economic and practical arguments, and also against the social consequences for the people in Wales if the move were cancelled. Vigorous efforts have been made by the management to find alternative jobs for Tower Hill staff who do not wish to move to Wales. So far there has been no compulsory redundancy at Tower Hill, nor is any expected in the immediately foreseeable future.
Some 220 of the present staff on Tower Hill were recruited after the decision to move to Wales was announced and were expressly informed at the time of their appointment that the employment offered was strictly temporary. If it were necessary to introduce compulsory redundancy at Tower Hill it is this group who would be affected in the first place.
The noble Lord asked about redundancy terms. Those who leave Government service on redundancy are at present enabled to draw benefits for which they are eligible either under the Superannuation Act or by analogy with the Redundancy Payments Act, whichever is the more favourable. But in the meantime representations have been made by the trade unions that better terms should be forthcoming. The treatment of civil servants who may become redundant is at present the subject of negotiations between the Civil Service Department and the National Staff Side and Trade Union Side. Royal Mint staff will benefit from any improvement in any new terms which may be agreed centrally. A deputation from the trade unions at Tower Hill saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer on November 19 last and pressed for an

1169
improvement in the redundancy terms. In his reply the Chancellor expressed the expectation that the new arrangements would meet most of the points which were causing concern to the Tower Hill staff. He pointed out that compulsory redundancy was unlikely at Tower Hill in the immediately foreseeable future, so it should be possible for the trade unions to await the conclusion of the central negotiations without any harm to the interests of their members. But he undertook to look at the position again should the situation change.
The noble Lord also asked me about pensions and whether Royal Mint staff who transferred to other Government Departments will be able to maintain their pension entitlement. The payment of pensions is governed by the Superannuation Acts, which provide that the qualifying figure is the average pay over the three years preceding the formal date of retirement. It is not, therefore, possible to guarantee that Mint employees will necessarily retain the same pension entitlement on a change of employment within the public service. Every effort, however, will be made to place staff in jobs carrying a rate of pay commensurate with their pay in the Royal Mint. In calculating pension entitlement, service in the Royal Mint will be aggregated with service in the department to which the Mint employee transfers, provided that service is continuous.
To sum up, the view of the Government is that it is right to concentrate production at Llantrisant which is in a development area and where there is new machinery and room for an efficient layout of all processes. The necessity of replacing the premises on Tower Hill, which are congested and out of date, was recognised nearly a quarter of a century ago when output was very much lower than is now required.
The Government have every sympathy with the men on Tower Hill who face difficulty because of the move. But the detailed review that we undertook immediately after coming into office convinced us that the transfer of the Royal Mint to South Wales should go ahead and we remain of that view. Further inquiry would serve no useful purpose and would only create uncertainty where none should now exist.

RHODESIA: PROPOSED DEPORTATION OF MR. CLUTTON BROCK
5.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the case of Mr. Guy Clutton Brock who has contributed so successfully to multiracial development in Rhodesia, and whether they will now condemn the attempt by the illegal régime to deprive him of his Rhodesian citizenship and their proposed action to deport him. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name, which concerns the case of Mr. Guy Clutton Brock. I should like to make two glozes on the wording of the Question. First, I refer to Mr. Clutton Brock's contribution to multiracial development. I should have preferred to use the word "non-racial", but "multiracial" is more generally understood. It is as a person who is a non-racialist that Mr. Clutton Brock has contributed so greatly. Secondly, it is open to argument whether he has been successful. I have no doubt that his experiments have been highly successful and have pointed the way to a degree of non-racial development which held great hopes; but, alas! those hopes so far as Rhodesia is concerned are being frustrated.
In order to explain the reason why I have asked this Question I need to dwell a little upon Mr. Clutton Brock, the man himself. In raising this matter, I am fully aware that there is little that Her Majesty's Government can now do, but what they can do, and what I am asking them to do in my Question, is to express their condemnation. However, it is necessary to explain what sort of a man Guy Clutton Brock is in order to judge the nature of the action that is now taking place.
I am raising this matter from personal knowledge of Guy Clutton Brock. A member of my family has worked with him, and I know him myself. Other noble Lords in this House know that he is a man of the most passionate moral integrity. He is basically a man of peace; he is a profoundly religious man, though he is not associated with the orthodoxy of any particular Church. Before the War, when he was only 30, he became

1171
virtually the creator of the London Probation Service. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will be able to speak with knowledge of this work. During the War he was one of the great community leaders in the East End, and thousands will remember his courageous work in Bethnal Green. At the end of the War he was put in charge of the Youth and Religious Affairs Section of the British Control Commission in Germany, under Sir John Birley. He resigned subsequently to take up work with the Council for Christian Reconstruction in Europe. I shall not dwell further on this.
When he returned to England in 1948 he turned down a number of important jobs. He could have had a successful and prosperous career. He was offered a senior post in the Prison Service. Instead he chose to become a farm labourer, and he went to work under conditions which were fairly rough in order to learn about basic farming techniques, because he had been so appalled by the conditions of starvation in immediate post-War Europe that he felt that the most important contribution he could make at that time was to seek to know how to grow food and to take his contribution of knowledge into parts of the world which would benefit.
In 1949, he went to the St. Faith's Mission Farm. He built up at St. Faith's over a period of ten years, particularly under the protection of the Bishop, a remarkable institution which became widely known throughout English-speaking Africa, especially among Africans, as the symbol of practical inter-racial achievement. It demonstrated a workable alternative to the pattern of apartheid, of separation. I will not dwell on the episode when he was detained in prison in 1959. I only know that at that time, when he was in prison and when his wife was exceedingly ill, he was offered the alternative of immediate release—which he refused—provided he guaranteed to leave Rhodesia, or of staying in prison. I do not want to dwell on this point. My knowledge of it comes from those who were concerned with him.
When he was released he moved to pioneering general rural development in Botswana, in Bechuanaland. This was a combined farm, school, clinic and store development. I will say a little about this because it measures the potential
1172
of his importance. Mr. Clutton Brock took the view—and there are many others in the world of development who take this view—that the masses of the people will find their livelihood in the rural areas, and that however desirable great capital investments may be, it is the finding of a good and tolerable life in the rural areas that will be of such profound importance to Africa. Other noble Lords will know the different philosophies as between Tanzania and other countries with regard to the importance of rural development; and the Botswana experiment, in which he worked so closely with Seretse Khama, in Bechuanaland as it then was, a country where there was under-employment in the rural areas, was of great potential significance and a great success. And, so far as I know, some of the work in Botswana is continuing.
He then returned to Rhodesia, and the Cold Comfort Farm Society was formed in 1965. Mr. Clutton Brock became its treasurer. The objects of the Society are:
"To promote understanding, friendship, co-operation and development among people through undertaking practical projects designed to increase production from natural resources."
It is a non-racial, co-operative farming project. The trustees of the Society at last June were Lord Acton, the Right Reverend Kenneth Skelton, then Bishop of Matabeleland, and Mr. Jack Grant. Since the farm is situated in a European area, it was necessary for the trustees to appoint a European member of the Society to hold a controlling vote in the general meeting. That was in order to comply with the provisions of the Land Apportionment Act.
In due course the farm was bought, and the Society now has about 40 members, 25 Africans and 15 Europeans. It has attracted visitors from all over Rhodesia, from Britain and from outside; and there is a continuous flow of applications for membership from those who would like to take part in its activities. Membership has to be restricted to those the land can support. In 1967, the premises were twice searched by the security police, and all the records were taken away and held for about four months. In due course they were returned, and no charge was laid. In 1969, the Land Apportionment Act was replaced by the Land Tenure Act. This changed the nature of the

1173
Cold Comfort Farm Society from being "European." Under the Land Tenure Act it became "African". Section 2(3) of the Act reads:
"A controlling interest in … a body of persons shall be deemed to be held by … Africans if the majority of the members thereof are Africans."
This section seemed to be almost specifically aimed at the Cold Comfort Farm Society. The Act divides Rhodesia into European and African areas. I do not want to go too deeply into Rhodesian politics, but this illustrates the nature of what is going on, that even according to official figures most of the people living in the European areas are African.
Mr. Clutton Brock, who belongs to no Party (there have occasionally been sneers that he was a Communist, but nothing could be less true than that, and I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House would think ha was), has been pretty fearless in expressing his views. He stands for a principle. He has worked with those Africans who also stand for principles. Mr. Didymus Mutasa, the Chairman of the Cold Comfort Farm Society, is an example. He is a former civil servant who is immensely highly spoken of by his former superior officer in the South Rhodesian Civil Service, but he was arrested and is detained indefinitely without trial.
Last December the régime notified Mr. Clutton Brock that they intended to deprive him of his Rhodesian citizenship under Section 15 of the Citizenship Act and to expel him. It is not possible for a régime such as the present one in Rhodesia—I concede this—to tolerate a man of Mr. Clutton Brock's qualities and principles. Other noble Lords may wish to speak about the part he has played in relation to the Tangwena tribe when he has sought to act as an intermediary between them and Salisbury. Of course he will now be removed, and will be unable to give his services. Nor will he any longer be able to stand outside the prisons, when condemned men have been executed, giving comfort to their families.
Your Lordships will know that I do not often speak with strong feelings of indignation in your Lordships' House, but to me this symbolises a matter of such profound importance in terms of human dignity that I feel that, even though the
1174
Government—and I acknowledge this—are powerless to act, it is right that they should condemn the act of the régime. The situation is different from that in 1959. At that time there was a legal Government in Rhodesia. Some of us may not have liked what it did, but the Ministers at that time were in not such a simple position. To-day the position of the noble Marquess who is to reply is clear. He is, I regret to say (and it is no fault of his), powerless to intervene, but he is in a position to express the feelings that I hope and believe all your Lordships share about this case.
5.34 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for asking this Question to-night, and for the way in which he has presented it to the House? I am glad that I am able to be here just to say a word or two. May I apologise to the House, as I have apologised to the Minister, that I was not able to be here earlier in the day.
I find it very difficult to express my feelings about Guy Clutton Brock. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has paid a tribute to him which must have moved all of us. I refrain from calling him a great man, because that would be the last description that he would desire. I do not think I can think back in the last fifty years to a man who, in his own life, has served his fellows and has so courageously stood by the deepest principles of life to a greater degree than Clutton Brock. I am a humanist and I do not accept his views of religion, but I am compelled to say that to-day one cannot see the example of such men as Clutton Brock (or indeed of many representatives of the churches in Rhodesia and in Southern Africa who have so bravely stood for the equality of human beings of all races) without paying our tribute to them, and appreciating the inspiration which has led to their actions.
I think we should bear in mind that when Clutton Brock began his experiment of an inter-racial community in Rhodesia, he did not do it only because he wanted to establish a small closed community to express his own principles. He was also motivated in two ways: the first to which the noble Lord, Lord

1175
Shackleton, has referred, was his deep conviction that hunger in the world required that there should be a new basis of food production. Not only in Rhodesia but also in Botswana he made his contribution to the creation of a new society in Africa, based not so much on massive industrial development but, at the roots of life in the villages, on new farming methods. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right when he says that that experiment has made its contribution to the thinking of Tanzania, which is beginning its construction in a similar way.
But not only was Clutton Brock concerned to give that example of the importance of food development in a world that was hungry, he was concerned to give an example within Rhodesia itself of the possibility of white and non-white races living together in constructive co-operation. When, in the 'fifties, he began that experiment, he had some hopes that it might find reflection in the society of Rhodesia itself, but in that he has been temporarily disappointed. However, with quite extraordinary courage, despite living in a State which has penalised co-operation between the races, he has maintained his activities. He has recently been magnificent in his championship of the African people who have been driven from their territory and exiled in order that their land might be given to Europeans. If he has now been deprived of his Rhodesian citizenship, that is not a condemnation of Guy Clutton Brock but a condemnation of the State of Rhodesia for regarding a man of that character as unworthy of being a citizen of its territory.
I wish to conclude by saying that I hope Her Majesty's Government will not merely express condemnation of this action, but will make the experiment carried out by Clutton Brock a symbol of the kind of society that we wish to establish in Rhodesia. I also hope that it will be made clear that we stand for racial equality, that we stand against the conception of a white race which is superior to an African race, and that we stand against a society where one-twentieth of the people claim to have the right to govern the vast majority. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make this wrong which has been done to Clutton
1176
Brock another reason for standing by the principles which their own Party first proclaimed and that they will decline to recognise a Government which denies elementary human rights which must be the basis of civilisation if we are to live in a world of harmony and peace.
5.44 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my two noble friends have probably said all that can be said about Guy Clutton Brock. My only reason for intervening is that it was my privilege to work with him over 30 years ago, when he was brought out of the Prison Service, where he had been eminently successful in the field of prison reform, and put in charge of the organisation and construction of what was then the London Probation Service.
It is not often that we in your Lordships' House give up a whole debate—if this is a debate—to discussing one individual. But I am glad that we are doing so to-day, because Guy Clutton Brock is a person who recognised years ago that the ultimate problem which was going to face mankind throughout the world would be concerned not necessarily with economic systems or with power, but with the relationship between the white peoples and the coloured peoples. When he left the Probation Service and went as head of Oxford House, many of us thought that he would ultimately find his way into the Church. I am sure that if he had decided to take that course we should have found him on the Bishops' Benches in your Lordships' House. It is not for me to say whether he served a far greater purpose doing what he has done in the last 20 years.
His offence is nothing more than that he has succeeded in creating a multiracial society, small though it be, on a farm known as "Cold Comfort Farm", which in the first instance he alone created, where white and black people have learned not only to live together but to live together in harmony.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend on one point, which is an important factor in relation to Guy Clutton Brock? He always sought to avoid taking too paternalistic a view—I know this from his Bechuanaland activities—and my noble friend said that he alone created Cold Comfort Farm. I

1177
fully acknowledge that he was responsible, but Guy Clutton Brock always sought to get away from that direction.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I accept that from my noble friend, but people with ideas so often create, and I feel that that society was very much the brainchild of Guy Clutton Brock. He succeeded in creating a multiracial community in Rhodesia, which has made a very valuable contribution to the understanding of a most difficult problem. My noble friends have both said that Guy Clutton Brock would not claim to be a great man. I am reminded very much of the words of Lord, Tennyson, who said:
"In me there dwells no greatness
"Save it be some far-off touch of greatness
"To know well I am not great."
I think that those words sum up Guy Clutton Brock very well indeed.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, raised the matter of the Tangwena Tribe on Wednesday of last week and, I think, managed to get a promise from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that their position would not be forgotten in any negotiations with the Rhodesian Government. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the contribution which Guy Clutton Brock has made in that field. Many of your Lordships know that the Tangwena Tribe are a very small tribe who, not surprisingly, were in Rhodesia long before the first Europeans. The land they occupied was ultimately sold to Europeans, following the passing of the Land Apportionment Act of 1930. The Tribe ultimately disregarded the notice to quit and their Chief was charged on two occasions, and was convicted for not obeying the order. The only point I want to make is that it was through the help and advice of Guy Clutton Brock that the Chief appealed to the High Court, with the result that the conviction was quashed on the ground that the Tribe occupied the land before it was alienated to Europeans. Subsequently, of course, in 1969, the present régime issued a proclamation demanding that the Tribe leave the land; and, as many of your Lordships know, ultimately their huts and buildings were razed to the ground. But if Guy Clutton Brock goes from Rhodesia, then the help that he has been able to give will be lost.
1178
I feel, my Lords, that Guy Clutton Brock is a man whose only concern is the welfare of the wider community. The noble Marquess has been invited to express concern, and he has been invited to express condemnation; but I would ask him, further, whether it is possible, through channels which certainly are not known to me but which I presume are there when one Government does not recognise another, so that they can get through to each other, for something to be done so that Guy Clutton Brock is not deprived of his citizenship and is not deported from Rhodesia.
5.51 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I add about two sentences to the discussion on the rather sad Question that we are discussing to-day? What we see, my Lords, from this deprivation of the citizenship of such a man as Guy Clutton Brock is the continuing decline in the moral political climate in Rhodesia. Every step that this illegal régime has taken, like the separate housing plans, brings them nearer to apartheid. But what is ironic about this illegal régime is that, just at the lime when South Africa is beginning to feel a wind of change—not the kind of wind of change about which Mr. Macmillan spoke when he came back from Africa, but a wind of change in the world in protest against them—just at a time when South Africa is beginning to feel the pinch of protest and criticism, Rhodesia is beginning to go slowly down the downward path towards apartheid.
5.52 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I, too, should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend's request to Her Majesty's Government. We all recognise the realities of the situation but, nevertheless, those of us who have over the years followed the career of Guy Clutton Brock would feel it lamentable if we did not, on such an occasion as this, bear witness to the work which he has done. I do not think that any of us would pretend that he is necessarily an easy man to get on with so far as authority is concerned; but, after all, what is society without the great eccentrics? We need the leaven in the lump, we need the salt which has not lost its savour—and he is one of those personalities.

1179
Of his character and integrity we have already heard from other noble Lords who have had a much closer knowledge of him personally than I myself have had, but I have followed what he has done over the years. I made my very modest contributions to the funds of St. Faith's years ago, and I know the work which he has done. I know also of his wife, Molly Clutton Brock, who has done the most devoted work for disabled children in Africa. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said, the whole essence of the work which the Clutton Brocks have done is to help people to help themselves. It has been always a co-operative community, and one of its greatest values, to my mind, was not just the emphasis laid upon agricultural work, important as that was, but also the emphasis laid upon the need for people to take their fate in their own hands and, by working together, try to solve the problems which face them both as individuals and as communities.
I feel that we in this House should at least bear witness to the truth as we see it. I was brought up a Welsh Calvinist; the noble Marquess bears an illustrious name in the Catholic Church—and may I say how very much I have always been moved by the work the Catholic Church has done in Africa, particularly in the field of race relations? It has been among the most courageous of all the Churches in Southern Africa in speaking up for the necessity for human beings who share the same faith but not the same pigment to work together. I hope very much that we shall let it be known what we feel about a régime that is determined, by one means or another, to break up this multiracial or non-racial experiment, however one wishes to speak of it. We cannot discuss the whole attitude of the present régime or of society in Rhodesia to race relations, but if any of your Lordships have any doubt about the attitudes that have persisted over the years I suggest that they do a little research and read the verbatim report of the Salisbury City Council when the University was being established in Salisbury. If noble Lords will do that, they will not be surprised at the action which the régime is now trying to take against Guy Clutton Brock. Although there is little we
1180
can at least speak out, and I hope very much that the noble Marquess will do so.
5.57 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may add just a word to this debate before the noble Marquess replies. I do not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Clutton Brock, or of having been associated with his work. Therefore, I am quite ready to accept from noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite who have spoken that Mr. Clutton Brock and his work are extremely good things. But the aspect that disturbs me a little is that it appears that the noble Marquess who is to reply is being invited to express concern, and even perhaps condemnation, about a case of which only one side has been heard. It seems rather to have been presented to the House that if the work of Mr. Clutton Brock and Mr. Clutton Brock personally are both excellent, anything which is not to his taste must therefore automatically be bad. There are very few stories that I have ever heard in my life which do not have two sides to them. I have no idea what the noble Marquess is going to say—perhaps he may put some other side. But it seems to me that if Her Majesty's Government are asked to express condemnation, and if we in your Lordships' House are asked to support it, we ought at least to know the full facts of the case.
My Lords, if I do not know Mr. Clutton Brock, I do know, and from my own practical experience, a good deal about life as it is lived in Rhodesia by the people, both white and black, who make up the community of that country. I know from that experience that life as it is lived by the average citizen in that country is somewhat different from the way it is alleged to be lived in the light (or perhaps I should say under the cover) of the political smokescreen which is invariably drawn over Rhodesian affairs and which is just about all we in this country are allowed to know about them. If I may say so with the greatest respect, and without the faintest hint of hostility to the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, or anybody else who has spoken, that political tinge has been very evident in all the contributions I have so far heard on this Question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes any further

1181
—because he is putting us in some difficulty—it is of course for the House, if it wishes, to express a view contrary to the very clear line of my Question. I think it is a pity (because the Rhodesian régime is not without some voice in this country) that this perhaps has not been expressed. But I do not think that it is fair for the noble Lord himself to suggest that we who raised this matter—and I have very carefully eschewed politics as much as possible—should also provide a defence to what I believe is an indefensible position.
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, I should not dream of criticising noble Lords opposite for not presenting it; but as I said before, when Her Majesty's Government are invited to condemn, and this House to support the condemnation which noble Lords opposite or anywhere else are entitled to make, we should know both sides of the case. I am not attempting to put both sides; I am merely saying that there could be another side. I say this because affairs involving Rhodesia are almost invariably politically tinged—I put it no stronger than that. I must return to what I hoped would be accepted as a factual statement and not as some kind of biased opinion: that I seem to have heard a tinge of the political aspect running through the presentation of the case so far. I merely wanted to say that there is another side to life in Rhodesia other than the political side about which we hear so frequently.
I have nothing further to say except that my own path is shortly to lead me in the direction of that country and it is that which prompted me to intervene. I have been interested in this matter, and I shall be delighted to accept the noble Lord's offer—because I heard it, unfortunately for him. It should be at least interesting to find out what may be the other side of the coin; and, if necessary, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to return to this matter on another occasion.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for putting down this Question on this very sad and important subject and also thank all the other noble Lords and Ladies who have spoken
1182
in this debate. I will try to give as full an answer as I can to the noble Lord but I think that he will appreciate that my reply will inevitably be comparatively short. This is not because we have any lack of sympathy with his Question—indeed, by far the reverse—or that we regard it as being of no importance. The reverse is completely the case. But, to be quite frank, there is comparatively little that one can say at this stage.
My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made it clear in replying to Questions in another place that the Government deplore any action which undermines racial harmony in Southern Rhodesia. We have therefore watched with concern the actions taken against Mr. Clutton Brock and the Cold Comfort Farm Society. The noble Lord has told us, as have other speakers, of Mr. Clutton Brock's great personal qualities, of his humanity and of his achievements not only in Rhodesia but also in Botswana and, in times gone by, in his work with the Probation Service. I have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Clutton Brock myself; but I am convinced by what I have heard to-day and by what other people have told me that all this is completely true. We have also been told of his work for the Society and it is, I think, absolutely clear to the Government and to noble Lords that this Society has been a successful experiment in racial cooperation, and Her Majesty's Government naturally regret any action that hampers its work or attempts to destroy it.
Mr. Clutton Brock, who is one of the founders of the society, is a man, we have heard, who has stated his opposition to violence as well as to racial discrimination, and his work in Rhodesia and his example as a Christian are both widely respected and admired. But the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said—and he is perfectly right in this—that Her Majesty's Government have no power in Rhodesia to intervene in cases of this kind. From the information that we have, it is very difficult to understand why Mr. Clutton Brock should be considered a threat to Rhodesian security. Admittedly, Her Majesty's Government—and possibly all noble Lords are in the same position—do not have access to all the facts in this case; but on what we do know and on what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton,

1183
has told us, the Government cannot but condemn the way in which a man of the standing of Mr. Clutton Brock has been deprived of his citizenship and deported from a country in which he has made his home for the last twenty years.
The Government are pursuing the only course which appears to offer hope of improving the racial situation in Rhodesia. I am referring to the fact that we are at present attempting to find out whether or not we can establish a basis for negotiating a settlement in accordance with the Five Principles. It may be suggested that actions such as those recently taken against Mr. Clutton Brock indicate that there is no chance of such a settlement. We do not accept this view. I do not agree with those who argue that these actions should be regarded as a reason for giving up the search for a settlement. We should be doing less than our duty if we failed to explore every path along which a solution to this problem might lie and which would ensure justice for all the people of Rhodesia.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on November 3 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.