Lords Sitting of 16 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 Coventry.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT CIRCULATION
LORD SORENSEN: 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 copies of the House of Lords Official Report (Hansard) are delivered to Peers, are otherwise circulated and are sold; and what is the annual cost of publication.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, on average, 460 copies of the daily parts of the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT, 220 of the weekly edition, and 165 of the bound volumes are delivered to Peers; 2,280 copies of daily parts, 330 of the weekly edition, and 270 of the volumes are circulated for official use, and 930 of the daily parts, 310 of the weekly edition, and 350 of the volumes are sold. The cost of publication of all editions of the Report, including indexes, is estimated at £90,000 for the latest financial year.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether he does not think that some economies might be effected in this matter? Can he also say whether the charge to the general public is designed to cover the total cost of printing, including the free copies? Lastly, does not the number of copies sold to the general public indicate a depressingly minimal amount of interest on the part of the public in this historic Assembly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain whether I got all the noble Lord's supplementaries. In reply to his last supplementary, all I would say is that, depressing though he may find these statistics, they are rather better than
478
those for another place; and, what is more, if we could restrict a little the length of our speeches and some of our supplementaries the cost of producing Hansard would fall, and I think also the sales might increase.
LORD SORENSEN: Surely the noble Earl does not think my Question has been worthless.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would not agree that public interest in the affairs of the House of Lords might be stimulated if the Lobby correspondents were allowed into the Prince's Chamber?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is a somewhat different question. But I am open to suggestions as to how interest in your Lordships' House might be stimulated.
LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, does not the noble Earl suggest by his answer regarding the restriction of supplementaries that one should perhaps remove the sauce for the benefit of stodge?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl is looking for ideas for increasing interest in your Lordships' House, may I suggest that he considers proceeding with the reform of this House?
LORD STONHAMMy Lords, would the noble Earl consider discontinuing the issue of intern indexes? Sometimes we sit for two or three days only and then an index is issued for that period. It seems a quite unnecessary waste.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think it is really for me to consider that; but I shall be glad to pass on the noble Lord's suggestion to the appropriate quarters.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, surely by suggesting to this Chamber the restriction of speeches and of supplementary questions which are asked of various Ministers relating to pertinent subjects, the noble Earl is not seeking to restrict freedom of speech. Surely we do not want that, even in this Chamber.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer is that I was not suggesting anything of the sort, and I am surprised that the noble Lord should think that I was.

THE INDIAN OCEAN AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA
2.41 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the Geneva Disarmament Conference the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean and South East Asia.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the neutralisation of an area so vast, so varied and so hard to define would present such difficulties that I think it would be unattainable in practice. Measures of the sort proposed by the noble Lord are, however, primarily a matter for the countries most directly involved, many of whom are not members of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament; and the Conference has generally been concerned with measures of a world-wide rather than of a regional nature. In short, the answer to the noble Lord's question is, "No".
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. When he says that this is a matter in the first place for the countries concerned, is he aware that both India and Ceylon have asked for the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean? Further, is he aware that Malaysia has asked for the neutralisation of South-East Asia? Would not these proposals, made to the Geneva Conference which is a world-wide body, help us to solve constructively the difficult problem of South African arms?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that the problem of South African arms is slightly different from the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. I was trying to convey to the noble Lord that, although the question of the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia is obviously of great importance, I did not think that what he calls the Geneva Conference was the right body to put forward to discuss this matter, for the simple reason that countries such as Ceylon are not members of it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that the Conservative argument is that the presence of Soviet ships in the Indian Ocean is a threat to our route around the Cape? Does he not think that if we achieved a neutralisation of the Indian Ocean, it would not be necessary then to argue about South African arms?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am well aware of what the Conservative argument is on this mater. All I was trying to say was that I did not think that the C.C.D., sitting in Geneva, was the right body to deal with it. Without going into any detail on this matter, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that the Commonwealth Study Group is being set up as a result of the Prime Ministers' Conference in Singapore, and I should have thought that this was one of the points that will be sincerely discussed.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, irrespective of the desirability or undesirability of these proposals, would not the noble Marquess consider it better that the Disarmament Conference should be left to deal with disarmament?

NAVIGATION OF FOREIGN TANKERS
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 steps are being taken to ensure that foreign oil tankers in British waters improve their navigational techniques to avoid a recurrence of colliding with a lighthouse in open sea.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, improvement of navigational techniques depends on training, equipment, and regulation. Following the "Torrey Canyon" affair the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation proposed amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, including proposals for carriage of specified navigational equipment. So far not enough countries have accepted these amendments for them to be brought into effect. When they come into operation, the United Kingdom has powers to require that all foreign ships

481
calling at her ports shall comply with them. A comprehensive Maritime Training Guide has been produced by a Joint Committee on Training of the IMCO and the I.L.O. and has been circulated to all member countries. Such training should reduce the risk of human error.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, and remembering what IMCO are doing, would be agree that if the standard of competence of the steerage of foreign tankers is such that they collide with lighthouses in the open sea, as was done a fortnight ago, there seems an urgent need to control that standard of competence if our busy coastlines are to be protected?
LORD DRUNIALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I could say two things on that. The first is that this is really a matter for international co-operation. The second is that in point of fact the ship in question was carrying a Decca navigation receiver, which is one of the pieces of equipment that was recommended in the amendments that I suggested, and the collisison was due to human error.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.47 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is to enable the Consolidated Fund Bill, if it reaches this House to-morrow, Wednesday, to be taken through all its stages that day and so receive the Royal Assent later that evening. It is a Bill which is urgently required, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to the procedure we intend to
482
adopt. In the past, the Consolidated Fund Bill has often provided an opportunity for a debate on economic affairs. The Government are not trying to evade such a debate by taking the Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages to-morrow, and they will make time available in the future for such a debate when one is considered necessary.
Moved, That, if the Consolidated Fund Bill is received from the Commons, Standing Orders Nos. 36 and 42 be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Bill before the Lord Bishop of Durham's Motion on Wednesday the 17th of February, and of taking the Bill through all its stages on that day.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the statement that has been made by the noble Earl. We are quite ready to meet the wishes of the Government in this matter. We shall have consultations through the usual channels for an appropriate moment for a debate upon economic affairs. Certainly my noble friends on this side of the House would like a little longer in order to be able to discern what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this Bill allows us to discuss a number of questions? In the past one subject has been chosen. While we cannot amend the Bill, does not this mean a restriction on the right of Members of this House to discuss issues which could be raised on this measure?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been customary in this House to take the Consolidated Fund Bill very differently from the way it is treated in another place. Here it has on several occasions been used as the basis for an economic debate, but I do not recollect it ever having been used for anything wider than that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill which, as the Title implies, is a measure of law reform, but I think in this case something, more. It is a Bill the principal object of which is to help what are called "limping marriages"—I apologise for the term. It is the convenient but somewhat disagreeable jargon term we use for the unhappy situation which arises, alas! all too often, when a man or a woman is regarded by the law of one country as of married status, when the law of another country regards him or her as single or, worse still, as married but to a different partner.
This is a situation which can always arise in theory where there are two inconsistent laws relating to marriage and divorce in two separate territories. At the best, it gives rise to acute misery and frustration, often to innocent third parties—for instance, children. At the worst, it can give rise to criminal prosecutions for bigamy, as happened, as your Lordships will remember at the beginning of this century to the then Earl Russell. In theory it can arise even between different portions of the British Islands or the United Kingdom, since for the purposes of divorce law Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales are three separate territories. The Bill which I now bring before the House is designed to reduce the number of limping marriages. It is designed to enable us to ratify _the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations. As I shall be showing, it goes a little further than is strictly necessary for that purpose. Its main provisions here before the House are based on the recommendations
484
of the two Law Commissions—the Law Commission and the Scots Law Commission—and I render my customary thanks to the labours of these two bodies on our behalf which are none the less sincere for not being couched at greater length.
The possibility of a limping marriage depends on two conflicting factors in the laws of different countries (and, I hasten to add, in the case of the United States of America of fifty different States, since the law of divorce in the United States of America is fifty-fold and not threefold as it is in the United Kingdom). These two factors are the differences in the substantive law of divorce, and differences in the criteria which different divorce laws apply to give jurisdiction to their courts. The resulting confusion creates a situation in which the courts of one country will not grant recognition to a decree of dissolution pronounced in the courts of another. All countries which recognise divorce at all apply some criteria, which for want of a better generic term I call criteria of link, between one or both of the parties to a marriage and the country whose courts have jurisdiction to pronounce decrees affecting its status. A French couple, for instance, residing and domiciled in France could not normally succeed in obtaining a divorce recognised in France by proceeding to the Isle of Man and getting a divorce there.
The criterion which English law and Scots law have always applied is the somewhat refined legal concept known as domicile, which is a difficult and complicated test of mixed law and fact, which I need hardly remind your Lordships differs profoundly from residence and also from nationality. To this fundamental test applied by the common law of this country there have been several statutory additions in recent years. Other countries have different rules, some basing their jurisdiction on nationality, some on residence, others on a combination of different factors. There is, in truth, no uniformity and, as I have pointed out, the confusion is rendered more complete by the fact that some countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, can be sub-divided for this purpose into a number of parts.
These differences of criteria reflect themselves in differences in the extent to

485
which divorces are reciprocally recognised as putting an end to the marriage. For instance, a "domicile" country may not recognise the divorce in a "residence" or a "nationality" country, or vice versa. Some countries demand reciprocity of recognition; sonic do not. Indeed, the permutations are infinite because some unhappy couples may have to have the same status in three or more countries for different purposes.
I would say that all this clearly makes international agreement imperative, and some time ago The Hague Conference on Private International Law undertook the preparation of an international Convention. I hope your Lordships will be glad to hear that in the negotiation of that Convention the United Kingdom delegation played a prominent part. The Convention was finally opened for signature on June 1 last year, and it was signed on that day as one of the last acts of the previous Administration. So far I believe we are the only signatories, but the Dutch, I am told, are also on their way. The present Government have carried on the work of the previous Government and desire to ratify the Convention, which will require some amendments in our own law which this Bill is designed among other things, to achieve.
In the meantime, while all this was going on, our own judge-made law has been moving. As a result of the decision of the House in its judicial capacity in a case known as Indyka, it moved in the direction of greater liberality in the recognition of foreign decrees. That was good; but, unfortunately, with greater liberality came greater uncertainty, and that was bad. Another object of the Bill is to retain the liberality but to restore certainty. This was the reason for referring the matter to the Law Commission, who have recommended the Government not merely to fulfil the requirements of the Convention but to go a little further—and we have done so at least in two respects, to which I now turn.
The first respect in which we go further than the Convention is that the Bill applies to all overseas countries and not merely to parties to the Convention. That is because this is not simply an essay in international solidarity: it is an attempt to reduce human unhappiness and to inject a little more clarity and certainty
486
into our own law. The imagination quails before any attempt to apply two codes of recognition, one applicable to the parties to the Convention and the other to non-parties. By universalising our criteria we avoid this unnecessary complexity. Secondly, by Clause 1 of the Bill. English and Scottish courts are to recognise divorces granted in each other's courts and elsewhere in the British Isles, notably the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. At least in theory they need not do so now, and we think they should. We also hope that the Legislatures of Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will reciprocate, and we expect they will. As they may wish to do so by their own legislation, I may have to make one or two technical Amendments in Committee.
Clauses 2 to 6 contain the real nub of the Bill, since they deal with overseas divorces and separations. The requirements laid down for recognition are as follows: first, that the divorce should have been valid in the country where it was pronounced; and second, that the divorce should be recognised if either spouse was habitually resident in (or, in the case of a "domicile" country, domiciled in) or else a national of the country of the court pronouncing the decree. Clause 4 deals with cross proceedings and legal separations which subsequently ripen into divorce, as in some countries they do. In some, in fact, it is the only road to a divorce.
Clause 5 implements Article 6 of the Convention, which provides an easy and practical presumption regarding proof of facts required to give the court pronouncing the divorce jurisdiction. Clause 6 of the Bill preserves recognition of foreign divorces based on domicile or based on existing statutory recognition, but with these exceptions it puts a stop to further changes in the judge-made law. This is a move towards codification which can be taken now since the rest of the Bill moves towards greater liberality of recognition.
Clause 7 implements Article 11 of the Convention by removing an inconsistent provision of our judge-made law. Clause 8 envisages certain exceptions to recognition. These are three in number. The first is where the original marriage did not exist or had already been brought to an end. The second saves the principle of

487
natural justice. The third is the exception of public policy, which obviously requires explanation, but at the moment I think I need say no more than that it reproduces the exact language of the Convention and is designed as a safety net against gross injustice. Clause 9 is technical, as is the most part of Clause 10 except, perhaps, for subsection (3), which covers dependent territories which have developed citizenships different from our own; and subsection (4), which applies recognition to existing divorces with a saving for vested property rights obtained as the result of a judicial decision.
There are possible Amendments which could be discussed on Committee, and I think I should point out that there are one or two things that the Bill does not do. Your Lordships may have noticed a decision of the divorce courts some time ago which gave recognition to the Muslim practice of Talak in this country by an extra-judicial proceeding. The extent to which this is altogether satisfactory without recourse to the courts of this country obviously calls, I should think, for discussion. I do not myself know quite what the answer is, as there are powerful arguments on both sides. What I feel is that it needs Parliamentary discussion, and if some noble Lord would put down an Amendment about this to raise the subject we could discuss it in Committee if it was thought right.
I should also like to emphasise (although this is of the nature of the Bill and is inherent in it) that the Bill does not affect the substantive law of divorce in any part of the United Kingdom; that is to say, the substantive law of divorce here will remain as it is under the newly enacted law. Nor does it affect the jurisdiction of the courts here to grant a divorce. It is concerned with the recognition of divorces granted elsewhere. In those circumstances, my Lords, I commend this Bill to the House. To some extent I fear that it is an act of faith, because we do not know how it will fare in another place. But I hope that there, as here, it will have a welcome from all Parties, and that Members will co-operate to see it on the Statute Book this Session, remembering, as I hope they will, that it is designed to help unhappy people in the tangle they have got into by the inconsistencies of different legal systems.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down I wonder whether I could ask him if there will be any provision in the Bill for facilities in relation to the enforcement of payment? I imagine that quite a number of these divorces and legal separations which the Bill seeks to recognise will have in them money payments. Will there be facilities for enforcement?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords the Bill is simply a Bill about status, and the question of reciprocal enforcement will, I fear, have to be discussed in other contexts. I am only too aware, in reply to the noble Lord, that the situation about mutual and reciprocal enforcements even within the Commonwealth, let alone in foreign countries, is most unsatisfactory, but it cannot be dealt with in this Bill and is no part of the Convention to which this Bill gives effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the great clarity with which he has explained the purposes and the features of this most important Bill. As I listened to him, I found myself so entirely in agreement with everything that he said that my own task in answering from the Opposition Front Bench must, I think, be considerably curtailed. I would just add, if I may, one or two points, one of which can be said to be not wholly unconnected with the question which my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has just raised. The noble and learned Lord did not point out, and the House might like to be reminded, that one feature of the Bill, contained in subsection (3) of Clause 8, is to exclude the application of the Bill to any order for maintenance, custody or any other ancillary matters in the proceedings. The noble and learned Lord—quite rightly, if he will allow me to say so—pointed out that this is a Bill which deals wholly with status, and it is perhaps useful to add that matters such as maintenance, custody, and so on, are in terms specifically excluded from the ambit of the Bill.
My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill as a measure of major law reform. As

489
the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it has as its objective the relief of suffering in the cases of a great many unhappy people who do not know what their marital status may be because, in effect, of an accident of international law. I would add this, if I might, to what the noble and learned Lord said. As the result of the state of existing English law, not only is there uncertainty as to whether "A" is married to "B" in England; but that question may be resolved only years and years later after the overseas divorce has taken place. The English law recognises a divorce pronounced in a foreign country if the parties, at the date when that divorce was pronounced, were, in the English sense, domiciled in that foreign country. As the Law Commission pointed out, there have been some slight changes of that principle but it still is broadly the principle upon which the jurisdiction of English courts to recognise foreign divorces is based.
The persons, "A" and "B", might have been married overseas 30 years ago; they might have been divorced overseas 20 years ago. Twenty years after that divorce the question may arise in England, when they have settled in this country and when property rights or something like that are involved, as to whether that divorce, pronounced over 20 years ago in an overseas country, was a valid divorce or not. I would add that to what the noble and learned Lord said. It is another consideration which, I should think, reinforces the cogency of the argument that one should do everything one can to make for certainty as to the marital status of persons conceivably involved in these questions of a conflict of law.
The noble and learned Lord told the House that a number of points may arise on Committee which your Lordships may wish to investigate further. It would not assist to go into them in any detail; but may I mention one which I think arises on Clause 5(1)(b)? In terms of Clause 5(1), the English courts will not recognise a finding of fact on which a foreign divorce is pronounced unless both parties took part in the proceedings. There is., however, a saving provision that even if both parties did not take part in the proceedings or appear in the proceedings, nevertheless the English court is given a discretion to recognise that foreign finding of
490
fact if in its discretion it thinks it appropriate to do so.
Is that really quite a satisfactory position if one envisages the sort of case that I instanced a moment ago stretching over a period of 30 years? Twenty years after the foreign divorce was pronounced it might be necessary to try to ascertain as a fact whether the divorced parties had appeared in or taken part in those proceedings 20 years before, whether a person had had notice of them, and so on. Records may have disappeared years before, and it is, in my view, making for a state of uncertainty to leave the law in that position. The Law Commission recommended—and one sees the force of the argument that they adduced—that that situation should be dealt with as it arises by the English court as a matter of discretion. I would respectfully offer this criticism: that that does not make for certainty; that people may be uncertain as to the position years after the divorce was pronounced, when it may be a matter of great importance in this country to ascertain whether or not that divorce was valid. That is a matter which might be looked at in Committee.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the Pakistani system of divorce by Talak. He said that maybe some noble Lord might wish to put down an Amendment to the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill, possibly retaining something of the present jurisdiction vested in the English courts to decline to recognise the efficacy of a foreign decree if it was unfair or pronounced under a system of law which was unfair in all the circumstances. That is not quite an accurate statement, but it is broadly sufficient for the purposes of the point I wish to make. On a personal note, I hope that the House might welcome the suggestion that the noble and learned Lord who puts down that Amendment, if an Amendment be put down, might be the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who shortly is to join us and to w1ose arrival his many friends look forward with great anticipation: because not only is he the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division but he is the learned Judge who gave judgment in that case.
That case was simplicity itself, but your Lordships may like to know a little more about it. A doctor who had stared

491
life as an Indian but who became a Pakistani and who was resident in England but retained his Pakistani domicile, married a lady who was Indian and who had been resident in India but was now resident in England. They were married at an English register office in England, and the ceremony was followed by a religious ceremony in accordance with Pakistani law. Differences having arisen, the husband then followed the Talak procedure of divorce which required that he should say: "I divorce you, I divorce you. I divorce you". And that is what he did.
The question before the court was: was that a valid divorce? By Pakistani law it is valid—provided, at any rate, that an arbitrator subsequently tries without success to bring the parties together. The learned President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division found that in those circumstances the divorce was a valid divorce. In the course of that judgment, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, Lord Simon of Glaisdale embarked on an extremely interesting and useful discussion as to the principles on which the British courts would decline to follow what seemed to be an undesirable result of the application of an unfair foreign system. It was suggested in that case that the jurisdiction might be available. The noble and learned President said that in those circumstances it was not.
Clause 8, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, contains, as it were, the residual powers necessary to enable the British courts, if really it revolted against the conscience that it should have to do otherwise, to decline to follow a decree pronounced in a foreign court. He referred to paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that clause. The wording there is:
"if its recognition would manifestly be contrary to public policy."
Those are words which I know that lawyers always view with some hesitation, because it seems to impose upon the courts the duty of deciding the very difficult question, often highly controversial, of where public policy lies. I myself think that the Law Commission were right in recommending to the Government, and the noble and learned Lord
492
was perfectly right in accepting that advice, that nevertheless that test should be embodied in this clause. The words are "manifestly contrary to public policy". I should have thought that the presence of the word "manifestly" rather eases the task of the English court which is called upon to apply those words.
I warmly welcome the advice given by the two Law Commissions in their Report that the Bill should not be limited to countries that were contracting countries in terms of the Hague Convention. They have applied the provisions of the Bill to divorces pronounced in any country, and, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, they did not retain some of the restricting provisions at present embodied in the Hague Convention. I am sure that they were right to do so. I think the result is that we have an extremely valuable measure to consider this afternoon in the Bill which is before the House. I should like to conclude my observations by warmly associating myself with the expression of thanks that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor uttered to the members of the two Law Commissions.
3.20 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must confess that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introduced this Bill I was under the impression that the provisions were going to be much wider than those embodied in the measure. Recognising that the Divorce Reform Act, which I contested at every stage in its passage through this House, was coming into force this year, I realised that there was a great injustice which still had not been remedied. Throughout the passage of that Act I pointed out to the House that the women who would particularly suffer were those who were not guilty of any matrimonial offence but for whom there was no adequate provision in the Bill; and I said that they must have further consideration by this House. Unfortunately, no further legislation was introduced.
I also recognise that these women suffer in another way; that is, that outside the Commonwealth maintenance orders of all kinds are not reciprocal; they are reciprocal only within the

493
Commonwealth. I accept the fact that perhaps I was over-optimistic in believing that here was a measure coming along in 1971, when the Divorce Reform Act was being operated, which would at least remedy one injustice. I can only say now that, although I welcome the fact that this Bill will improve the status of many people involved in divorce, nevertheless it does not contain a provision which could well have relieved so many unfortunate families; namely, those who have been involved in divorce and the wage-earner has gone to another country where the allowances are not reciprocal. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will, in his compassion, think of these people. I had hoped that there would be a clause in this Bill which would meet their case; but apparently there is not. So still we wait. I hope that this will be the beginning of more legislation which will relieve all those people for whom the noble and learned Lord obviously has great compassion.
3.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Members of this House who have taken part in this debate, and I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for the kind words with which he welcomed the Bill. I think he did right to point out that, quite apart from the hardship of the limping marriage, there is the uncertainty created by the long time which can elapse before the true situation is even discovered. The noble and learned Lord raised a number of points which may be considered on Committee, but I should like to give one or two thoughts about them.
The first point related to Clause 1(b). He pointed out, quite rightly, that after a long time records might be lost; and he suggested that the discretion given by that paragraph was perhaps too uncertain to meet the needs of the case. This is something which I think we should like to discuss on Committee, but I should like to place the countervailing argument before the House. By a curious coincidence, when I left my office to come to the Chamber this afternoon I was in process of signing a letter to a Member of the other place relating to a woman who wanted to know, rather as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, wanted to
494
know, what we were doing for wives who had been deserted in England, the defaulting husband having gone elsewhere.
In this case the defaulting husband had gone to Canada, where he had obtained a divorce valid according to Ontario law. I cannot say, because I do not know enough facts, whether or not that divorce would be recognised. But the wife in question claimed (and again one cannot tell, without hearing both sides, whether the claim was justified) that the divorce had been pronounced entirely without her knowledge. She came to ask her Member of Parliament for legislative provision for her, so as to establish her rights. I had to tell her that the difficulty did not reside in any absence of legislation in this country. The problem resides in the fact that the husband has gone off to a country over which this country has no jurisdiction. That is a practical problem which can be dealt with only by international agreement for reciprocity,
Suppose you took away the discretion in Clause 1(b) to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred. The effect would be (assuming that the Ontario divorce in this case was one to which recognition would otherwise be given) that the court would have no hold on the husband at all, and no alternative but to recognise as valid the ex parte divorce in Ontario. The result would be that the wife would have no remaining hold of any kind on her husband. So the uncertainty, to which the noble and learned Lord quite rightly referred, as a result of conferring a discretion in Clause 1(b) may not be the worse evil. This is one of the things which I think we shall have to consider; but I will take further counsel, if I may, about the point raised by the noble and learned Lord and try to come armed in the Committee with a more positive answer than I have been able to give in one direction or the other.
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the Muslim Talak. I should have said in my opening speech that this is not the only type of extra-judicial divorce at present being pronounced in this country. There is the Beth Din get; and there is also, I believe, a Greek Orthodox divorce which takes place in a Greek Orthodox ecclesiastical court in

495
this country. I think this gives rise to considerable problems on both sides of the fence. The arguments are very evenly balanced, but I feel a certain hesitation—without criticising whether the substantive customary law under which these things may take place is just or unjust—about ending an English marriage pronounced in a register office by a process which takes place in England but is not judicial.
There are very strong arguments the other way, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—whom I hope we shall welcome shortly and to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred—set them out with great cogency in the decision he made. I have also been instructed about such divorces by the Registrar-General's Office. They are not as rare as I had hoped they were, and all I can say at present is that I think we must discuss the situation in Parliament. Whatever conclusions we arrive at—personally I am very reluctant to put on Whips in matters of this kind—I think we must argue it out in this House and in another place, even if it takes a few moments of our time; because it does give rise to issues of public policy which I think need to be ventilated in the light of the way things are going now.
I am glad that the noble and learned Lord supported what I said about the residual public policy saving in Clause 8. I think that, without that saving, the sort of situation which was inherent in the learned President's decision, and in the Qureshi case to which I referred, some of these reciprocal recognitions would become intolerable. Injustice would be caused particularly in the case of a divorce in which one of the parties, usually the wife, is given no positive say at all, either because it is obtained by subterfuge or because the inherent divorce law does not give her any right to avoid being divorced.
That brings me to what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said. I hope she will accept that I sympathise with both parts of what she said, because she raised two quite separate points. The first related to the recent divorce law, which provides in the last sub-paragraph of Section 2(1) for unilateral divorce after
496
five years' separation. I warned the other place at the time the Bill was going through Parliament—the previous Parliament—that I thought it would cause injustice; and I still think that it will. But, to begin with, I do not think that we can deal with that issue except by Private Members' legislation, because in these matters the Government cannot put on Whips.
Secondly, I do not think that we can alter the law so soon after it has come into force. It has been in force, I think, for about six weeks, and this is perhaps too soon to amend the law even in the light of experience. I do not want the noble Baroness to think that I do not sympathise, because I tendered exactly similar advice in another place to that which she has tendered to the House with much greater vigour and skill, and I was very sorry that the sponsors of the Bill did not make some amendment of it. We have made one or two countervailing changes in the law which may limit the amount of injustice caused. As Chairman of the Rules Committee, I insisted that special notice should be given to any wife against whom this type of remedy is sought to advise her of her rights and to alert her to the danger of letting a petition go through without resisting it. I think I was entitled to do that, and the Rules Committee very kindly agreed.
The other point the noble Baroness raised was about the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. Here I must tell her that it does not matter how many laws we pass in this country to achieve this: if a wife is deserted and goes abroad, or if her husband goes abroad and does not obey a maintenance order obtained here, there is no law in other countries to give her her rights. What is wanted is an international convention for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders; but in the absence of such a reciprocal convention, Parliament here is powerless. We have no power to enforce orders in the jurisdiction of another independent country, so that we must press on so far as we can with private international law on the lines of such a convention; but it would need a fresh convention, with different subject matter, in order to take the matter further.
My Lords, I hope that, with that explanation, I can now put the Question. I would again say that I am very grateful

497
to those noble Lords who have spoken and for the kind reception this Bill has had.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Abolition of prerogatives of the Crown as to wild creatures, and franchises derived therefrom]:
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out line 7 and insert ("except royal fish and swans").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Bill as introduced Clause 1(1) proposed to abolish:
"any prerogative right of Her Majesty to wild creatures (including royal fish but not including swans) …"
As amended in Committee by the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, the subsection would abolish:
"any prerogative right of Her Majesty to wild creatures (including sturgeons but not including whales or swans) …"
The Amendment which I now move would amend the subsection so as to abolish:
"any prerogative right of Her Majesty to wild creatures except royal fish and swans".
My purpose is to remove the ambiguity caused by the use of the expression "whales" instead of "royal fish" and to treat sturgeons in the same way as other royal fish. The ambiguity is briefly this. It is doubtful whether the expression "whales" in the subsection would cover porpoises and dolphins. This ambiguity and defects in the Bill have been brought to our attention by the Law Commission, and the Amendments which I have the honour to move have been drafted by them to cure the defects. They leave untouched the main purpose of the Amendments carried in Committee by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who authorises me to say that he strongly supports the Amendments which I am moving.
I will not weary the House by reviewing the ancient authorities so entertainingly brought to our notice in the earlier
498
stages of this measure by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. Those authorities include Chief Justice Coke, Blackstone and Matthew Hale. My conclusions from the authorities would be that the right to royal fish extends beyond whales, in the modern sense, and sturgeons and probably covers in England cetaceans generally. It is undesirable, by naming one species of cetacean in the clause, to give rise to doubts about others. As the House knows, the instructions issued by the Department of Trade and Industry require the Natural History Museum to be notified about stranded whales, porpoises and dolphins.
The doubt is not only legal; it is also zoological. Dr. Fraser, whose interesting article in The Times has been mentioned in earlier debates, is unable to say whether a naturalist would regard whales in this subsection as extending also to dolphins and porpoises. For these reasons, I propose in my Amendment to restore the words "royal fish". Nor is there any reason why sturgeons should be singled out and excluded front the category of royal fish as if there were something offensive about them.
The House will be most grateful to the Law Commission for drawing attention to these defects in the Bill as it stands and for drafting the necessary Amendments, after making all proper consultations. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who I think is detained by public business in his own county, authorises me to say that he heartily commends these Amendments to the House. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I cannot pretend that I feel violently emotionally moved by the arguments, to which we have just listened, either for or against the Amendment. But as I sought to indicate in the course of our last debate, I am all in favour of clarity and certainty. In addition to that, if I may declare a personal interest, it is that I have a great affection for dolphins and porpoises. I do not know on what it is based—I suppose broadly speaking on their shape and antics and the role which they play in our whole natural history make up.
The noble Lord has said that he has received the advice of the Law Commission, which I always respect, and I hope

499
that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will agree that the Amendment really does not involve the controversy that arose when the previous Amendment was moved in Committee to these particular words. I would simply say, therefore, that I hope first, out of loyalty to dolphins and porpoises, and secondly, in the interests of clarity, that the House might feel able to support the noble Lord in the Amendment that he has moved.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I supported my noble friend Lord Cranbrook when he moved the original Amendment, on merits and not on form. In fact, I raise with him the question whether the use of the term "whales" was either legally or zoologically quite right. On the substance of the Amendments, the whole point is that the cetacea, particularly the porpoises and dolphins, are valuable scientific material, and may become even more important than they have been, because so many creatures are now being poisoned in one form or another in the sea owing to causes of which we are still quite ignorant. We cannot afford to sacrifice valuable scientific material in the shape of this large group of mammals, which are likely to have more value for human health and what is happening to ourselves than fish or molluscs. I felt that it was not satisfactory that material of this value and interest, when these creatures got stranded, should be left just lying about on the foreshore, with nobody apparently having any right of property in them or rights over them.
It does not worry me that we find a Statute going back to the 11th century that can be used to give them this necessary protection, any more than it worries me or diminishes my pride and pleasure as an Englishman in the New Forest when I think that its preservation is due to one of the Norman sovereigns. If, as part of his obsolete forest law, he happened to give protection to these creatures, well and good. May I conclude by saying not only that I am satisfied that these Amendments give effect to all that those interested in the matter, and particularly the Natural History Museum, have in mind in supporting them, but we are grateful for
500
having the Amendments put in such neat and proper legal form.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, I should like to put in a special plea for those amiable creatures, the dolphins, who have been supporting my family for 200 years, though, according to the Garter King at Arms, without any authority whatever.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise only to give a rather sour welcome to these Amendments and to explain my own position in the matter. As I tried to point out in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is completely in error in thinking that any of these Amendments will make the smallest difference to any porpoise, whale, dolphin or sturgeon in the world, because what is done with them when they are stranded on the shores of the British Isles has no relation whatever to the ancient laws of which the noble Lord is so fond, but only to an administrative practice which could be stopped to-morrow. I do not take back a word of the criticisms of the Amendments which were ultimately carried in Committee, because those criticisms happen to be completely correct law and the Natural History Museum do not know enough law to put me down. However, the Amendments were carried. A very distinguished predecessor of mine said that law reform takes place by consent or not at all, and went on into a tremendous indictment of Parliament, which he quite rightly accused of being mainly responsible for the absence of law reform in this country. I, standing in the shoes of the late Lord Campbell, largely share his view.
However, I was then faced with a difficult situation, because no sooner had the Amendments been carried than the Law Commission—who were of the same opinion as myself with regard to the original purpose, that, like the holy water on Mount Athos, "It'll dae ye nae harm, it'll dae ye nae guid"—uttered what, but for my dislike of puns, I should call a series of wails about the awful mess which the actual form of the Amendment would cause. I need not go into the reasons, some of which were put forward by my noble and learned friend who proposed the Amendment. I was then in a difficulty, because the Law Commission wanted me to tidy the thing up, and I refused to have any part or lot in it

501
because I thought it was a nonsense—and I shall go on saying it was a nonsense until my dying day. But I did not want to leave everybody in the lurch, so I put them in touch with my noble friend who was largely responsible for the nonsense. He courteously suggested that he would propose the Amendments for me. Therefore, with a rather sour welcome, I wish to say that they are wholly acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I believe that technically I have the right to reply, but I do not think I need make much use of it because my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has accepted the Amendment, and that was really the object of the exercise. I may say that I do not think there is anybody anywhere who has a greater respect and admiration for my noble and learned friend than I have: I merely think that he is sometimes wrong.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, Amendment NO. 2 is consequential. I beg to move.
Page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 23 and insert ("The partial repeal by this Act of section 2 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 extends").—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is also consequential. I beg to move.
Page 3, leave out lines 17 and 18.—(Lord Conesford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registration of Food Shops]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("than") to second ("or") in line 13 and insert
502
("chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery, ice cream (including wafers and edible containers, ice Jollies and similar products)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment, to bring the language here into line with that used in the Schedule. My Amendment will completely disappear, of course, if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, but we shall have to see what happens. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I just say that I hope this Amendment will fall because Amendment No. 2 will be accepted. For the moment I am happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This matter was mentioned briefly in Committee. I acknowledge that this is rather a clumsy clause. It is not popular with local authorities because it will give their staff extra work, and many of them are short-handed. It was put into the Bill to give some teeth to the present law. The penalties provided by the 1950 Act are in modern times quite absurd: they are £5 for a first offence and £20 for a subsequent offence. Although we have talked in this Bill mostly about food, those penalties apply just as much to other goods that are not supposed to be sold on a Sunday, such as motor cars. A £5 penalty for somebody who on a Sunday sells illegally a couple of Aston Martins is really no deterrent. This provision was put into the Bill, in so far as food shops were concerned, to be some deterrent. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, moved an Amendment bringing the maximum monetary penalties up to what is suitable at this modern time, and I suggested then that if the House agreed to those penalties this rather cumbersome clause on enforcement would be unnecessary. I have had conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I hope he agrees with me that Clause No. 2 is not now necessary in the Bill, owing to the Amendment of the noble Lord which the House accepted in Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Amendment of s.59 of Shops Act 1950]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("Trading)") insert—
("(i) in line 1 leave out the word "foregoing" and
(ii)")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together because they deal with the same point. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, moved an Amendment to increase the maximum fines. It was mentioned at the time by my noble friend Lord Windlesham that perhaps these were not entirely in accordance with the scales that appear in other Bills. He did not like the odd fives, and so on. I had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, about it, and I think he agreed that he and I would be perfectly ready to accept what the Home Office considered to be suitable fines, provided that they were "biggish" ones. So for a first offence, instead of the £25 maximum suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I am moving to put in £50. For subsequent offences, instead of £250, I am moving to insert £200. This brings them more into line as regards actual figures with other Acts of Parliament.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("two hundred and fifty") and insert ("two hundred").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is consequential on an Amendment that was passed in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) In section 55 of the Shops Act 1950 (delivery of goods) after the word "Goods" insert (including butcher's meat)".").—(Lord Derwent.)
Clause 8 [Short title, citation, contruction, commencement and extent]:
3.55 p.m.
LORD MAELOR LORD MAELOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert ("or the Principality of Wales")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this particular Amendment I find myself in a rather peculiar position. As a rule, the purpose of an Amendment is to change the content of what is proposed to be adopted. My Amendment does nothing of the kind. I have much sympathy with the sponsor of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, because he wants to do away with so many of the anomalies which are in what I would describe as the silly Act of 1950. That Act is full of anomalies. It allows me to go to a chemist's shop to buy razor blades on a Sunday if I tell the chemist that I want them for cutting my corns. But if I tell him that I want them for shaving purposes, he cannot sell them to me. We know that in practice he does sell, knowing full well that the local authority—quite rightly—will not prosecute him for breaking the law. Anything which leads to dishonesty should be scrapped on the grounds of morality.
I am not going to speak on the contents of the Bill at all, so I shall not be in conflict with the sponsor of the Bill in that respect. My speech will be devoted entirely to Wales, and as a Welshman I hope to capture the sympathies of your Lordships' House. This House is noted for its generosity and magnanimity towards minority views. According to Clause 8 of this Bill, it will not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I know that the reason for this is that Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own peculiar legal system. Wales does not enjoy that privilege. Strangely enough, it was a Welshman, sitting on the Throne of Britain, who was responsible for this. That was King Henry VIII, and he had the best intentions. His purpose was to secure for the people of Wales the same legal

505
privileges as were enjoyed by the people of England. That was a clear example of a man doing the right thing in the wrong way.
I want to impress upon your Lordships' House that the people of Wales are a nation apart. We are fundamentally different from the English and come from a different stock. I am not saying that we are better than the English—I would not dare say that here this afternoon. I might say it in North Wales, but not here. However, I am emphasising that we are different from the English. In case anyone doubts that we are a separate nation, let me remind your Lordships of one or two facts.
First, we have our own language—one of the oldest languages in the world—the language, I understand, that was spoken even in the Garden of Eden. At home, I speak nothing but Welsh, and Welsh is my medium for worship. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, told me on one occasion that he was surprised to hear me say this, and suggested that we should all speak English. As your Lordships can see, I can speak a little English, at any rate. The fact that we have a language of our own confirms our claim to nationhood. We have our own literature, which is entirely incomprehensible to any but the Welsh. In the Lobby I met a compatriot who had gone into the Vote Office and asked for the Report on The Reform of Local Government in Wales, and he was given a Welsh copy. He did not understand it, because he cannot speak or read Welsh. I am sure an Englishman cannot read that Report.
We have our own traditions and it is this fact that has prompted me to move the Amendment. These traditions are mainly cultural, and can be traced to the influence of religion. They do not have counterparts in England. What horseracing is to the English the Eisteddfod is to the Welsh—but what a difference!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Clyw, clyw fy machgen.
LORD MAELOR: Without being in any way hypocritical, I believe that I can claim that the Welsh are a religious people. I do not measure that by church attendances. I am anxious to emphasise that our traditions and way of life have a religious basis. It is interesting to note
506
that Wales is entirely Nonconformist. Even the Episcopal Church is Nonconformist in Wales. I should not be surprised if the right reverend Prelates—some of them—would like to see that happening in England, too. That privilege is enjoyed in Wales. Roman Catholics are Nonconformist there. Every religious denomination in Wales is Nonconformist.
This brings me to our attitude towards Sunday. Speaking generally—I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the Anglicised parts of the Principality—we in Wales cling tenaciously to the idea of a workless Sunday. Small shopkeepers, like the rest of us, wish it to be a day of rest. Anyone who has spent a holiday in Wales must have appreciated this. Shopkeepers who do not desire to open on a Sunday will be compelled under this Bill to do so in order to retain their customers. The supermarkets (whatever the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, may say on this), I am sure, if I know them, will be obliged to follow suit. The people of England like this. If so, let them have it, and good luck to them! I am not going to oppose this Bill so far as England is concerned, because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is speaking on behalf of the English nation. But I am speaking on behalf of the Welsh nation, and I am asking your Lordships to respect my point of view as I am respecting yours. Here I am, offering even to support the Bill if it is confined to England; but I cannot do so if Wales is brought in.
I do not wish to detain the House at this hour, but I should like to suggest to the sponsor of the Bill that it would be good strategy in the interests of this Bill for him to accept my Amendment. What I am about to suggest is not blackmail but merely a matter of tactics. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows, this Bill cannot become law until it passes through another place. In the other place there are 36 Members of Parliament representing Wales. I would not presume to know the views of all those Members on this Bill, but I do know that many of them would definitely vote against it. Therefore, if Wales is not included in the Bill when it goes to the other place, those Members will probably not be interested in it—indeed, I am sure they will not be—and their vote will be neutralised. I am referring now to those Members who would definitely vote against the Bill.

507
They will absent themselves from the Lobby on that occasion. They will not be interested. They will say, "This is a Bill for England, so why should we concern ourselves about it?" It would handsomely pay the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I am sure, if he agreed to my Amendment. In the light of all I have said, I am moving my Amendment and, if necessary, must divide the House on the issue.
4.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this is a difficult moment for me. I am normally, along with my colleagues, forbidden to stand at this Dispatch Box to speak on matters connected with Wales. My noble friend Lord Aberdare is the only one who can discuss these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, and others from Wales. But I think I should intervene on this Amendment. The noble Lord said two things that particularly caught my ear during his speech. He said that the Welsh were different from the English—and he certainly proved that in his speech; and he said that the present law on Sunday trading contained many anomalies. The effect of this Amendment would be to place Wales in a very different position from England. Wales would be left with the present law, complete with all its anomalies.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, if it reached the Statute Book, would make a whole range of improvements and rationalisations in the law which would, as the Bill is drafted, apply to England and Wales. This has been the pattern of not only the shops legislation but a great deal—the overwhelming volume—of other domestic legislation. If for certain reasons Northern Ireland or Scotland are excluded, the legislation does apply to England and Wales. It would be very difficult to justify, despite the very amusing speech we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, why in this particular instance the shops legislation should suddenly, after all these years, cease to apply in Wales as regards opening hours on Sundays. Although, of course, it is true that in parts of Wales there is a stronger sabbatarian tradition, I am advised that the present law, which permits a good deal of trading on Sunday,
508
has not led to any objections over the past 21 years since the Shops Act went on the Statute Book. Indeed, such representations as my Department have received on the subject of Wales have been from holiday resorts keen to obtain greater flexibility, rather than greater restriction. So, although I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will have listened with great sympathy to, and will have been entertained by, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, he has not really made out a case as to why legislation in this particular instance should be limited only to England.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, will not press this Amendment because of one additional reason I shall give. I sympathise with much that he had to say. One day I promise myself I shall bring in a Bill for Home Rule for Yorkshire, so I know how he feels about Wales. There is, however, another point here. I am advised that it is impossible to accept the noble Lord's Amendment because this Bill deals with only Part IV of the 1950 Act—which deals with Sunday Trading, I agree, but it is only a small part of that Act. The Amendment would create an enormous number of anomalies, because in other Parts of the 1950 Act many of the sections apply to Sundays and weekdays. So the effect of this Amendment would be that it would create certain difficulties about Sundays, and even more difficulties about weekdays. It would not be clear whether the other Parts of the Bill which affect Sundays and weekdays would continue to operate, while some parts of Part IV of the Bill would not continue to operate in Wales. I suggest that, if the noble Lord wants to take Wales out of shops legislation, he should introduce a Private Member's Bill taking it out of the Act of 1950 altogether. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. I am not being rude, but I think it would make a nonsense of the original Act.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, married as I am to a Welsh speaking Welshman, I cannot bear to sit here and see my noble friend unsupported. I would say only this to him. I understand what he means, because I know the culture of Wales very well. But, of course, he should have been here on the other

509
stages of the Bill, when we opposed the whole principle of permitting people such as those whom he described, shop assistants and others, to be compelled to work on Sunday morning. I must confess (and I shall tell my husband of this) that I cannot understand how he applies his Christianity, his Christian principles, to the people who work in North Wales and not to those who work in England, because the principle here is entirely the same. The noble Lord should have been here on other occasions, when we embraced all the shop assistants and applied the principles which to-day he has expounded regarding them.
Certainly if my noble friend decides to divide the House I shall vote with him. I have no intention of repeating the speeches I have made on other occasions. I will say only, as I said then, that I am shocked that this House should think of introducing legislation of this kind when it has taken a hundred years to establish the right of shop assistants to have one day in the week to rest. I congratulate the noble Lord, but I think he would have only a moral victory.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I should not like my noble friend Lord Maelor to think he has no support from a fellow Welshman—"Ac Yma Hefyd!". But, with all due respect, I would say that if he divides it is out of a nostalgic, perhaps a little chauvinistic, patriotism. I shall stagger into the Lobby with him to see that he is not alone against the hosts of Anglo-Saxons who will vote against him but, nevertheless, I take the constructive logical position of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. One of the things for which we struggled for years was to get the shop assistant a period of free time. Therefore, without delaying your Lordships, I feel that just for the record I should make out a case for supporting my noble friend on the grounds of nationality. If he divides the House—and I sincerely hope that he does because he has some support here—I will move into the Lobby to support him. There! I have my voice on record so that when he gets back home he will be all right.
4.12 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, married as I am to a non-Welsh speaking Welsh woman, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, will not mind my explaining to him why, if he presses his
510
Amendment to a Division, I shall not feel able to support him in the Division Lobby. As a former Minister for Welsh Affairs I agree entirely with all he says about Wales being a different nation and having in many respects a different way of life. I also bear in mind what he said about the differences between Welsh Wales and the rest of Wales, but I am bound to say that from my experience of Welsh Wales I cannot go all the way with him there.
I can call to mind at this moment a seaside place deep in Welsh Wales where I have seen on a Sunday a greater proportion of shops open and serving the public than 1 ever remember seeing in any English seaside place. I would respectfully submit to the noble Lord that, if he wishes to stand up for his greatly respected Sabbatarian views, he should proceed not by pressing this Amendment, which, as my noble friend Lord Derwent has explained to him, will really make rubbish of the Bill, but by persuading his fellow Welshmen in Welsh Wales that, whatever the business attractions of being open on Sundays, they should in fact close their shops on Sundays.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, if my noble friend divides the House I shall go with him, for one simple reason. I am opposed to the Bill—every word of it—from beginning to end, and if there is one section of our community who are to be exempted from the terms of this Bill, namely Wales, then I shall be happy that at least one part of the United Kingdom does not come within the scope of this Bill.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, if I am allowed to speak again I must say that I have been greatly encouraged by the support that I have received. Indeed, I had a shock when I came into the House a quarter of an hour ago, because the first words I heard the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, say were these: "To exclude whales". I thought "Oh, my goodness! he is dealing with my Amendment", until I heard him add, "and swans". May I just say this. My Teller is a Scotsman, so Wales and Scotland will be united this afternoon, and I am glad of that. We have beaten them so many times at Rugby and football that I

511
am glad to think we shall be together to-day. But I must divide the House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I was alerted to the Biblical interest in it by the allegation that Welsh was spoken in the Garden of Eden. I shall be looking up the Holy Writ with interest, to find the source reference of this point. In respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has just said, I would point out that in my maiden speech I spoke on the subject of cruelty to whales. There was some doubt among the people to whom I mentioned this as to whether I was speaking of the mammal or the Principality; and I now feel moved that we should not take steps which might be interpreted as cruelty to Wales, without the "h".
What I want to say more seriously is this. I think that the issue of conscience, and how conscience is expressed, is difficult to establish in relation to the particular Bill that we have before us. It seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said is the one thing which those who have a strong conscience in this respect should bear in mind. I myself was born in Scotland, in a country where Sabbatarianism was very strong and in certain parts still is. I wholly respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, but I shall find it
difficult to go into the Lobby with him because I cannot feel that this is a particularly appropriate way in which to express this issue of conscience. I profoundly hope that there will be no type of intimidation which will prevent those who feel in conscience bound that they should not work on Sunday from adhering to their principles. I hope that they will be under no coercion to work on Sunday. It is not clear in my mind that by supporting the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, I should in fact be supporting people who have strong consciences and who may be in a minority or a majority in different parts of the country.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Royle, is not aware that this Bill does not apply to Scotland, and if he does not wish to see the effects of the Bill if it is passed into law I am sure we shall be delighted to welcome him every weekend in Scotland. He would then not have to spend a Sunday in either England or Wales. That would benefit both British Rail and Scotland.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Duke.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 92.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gray, L.

Poltimore, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hamnett, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Hatherton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Burntwood, L.

Ingleby, V.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Glasgow, E.

Maelor, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

Moyle, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Birdwood, L.

Crathorne, L.

Abinger, L.

Birk, Bs.

Crook, L.

Amherst, E.

Boothby, L.

Daventry, V.

Amory, V.

Boston, L.

Denham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Atholl, D.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Dundonald, E.

Auckland, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Eccles, V.

Audley, Bs.

Carnock, L.

Effingham, E.

Avebury, L.

Cawley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Champion, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Berkeley, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Essex, E.

Falkland, V.

Lindgren, L.

Rhyl, L.

Fortescue, E.

Listowel, E.

Ridley, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rockley, L.

Gowrie, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Greenhill, L.

Mersey, V.

St. Just, L.

Greenway, L.

Meston, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Grenfell, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Molson, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monson, L.

Shannon, E.

Hankey, L.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henderson, L.

Norwich, L.Bp.

Stamp, L.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Howe, E.

Ogmore, L.

Strang, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Platt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Jessel, L.

Rank, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Killearn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Willis, L.

Leatherland, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Leathers, V.

Reigate, L.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Transactions for which shops may be open on Sunday.]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("food for human consumption") and insert ("meals or refreshments").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. This is the part of the Schedule that deals with food for consumption on the premises—restaurants, cafes and so on. The phrase "meals or refreshments" has created no difficulty under the present Act, and as there have been different times of closing on Sunday for those serving meals or refreshments on the premises it is considered desirable, in order that there can be no misunderstanding, that the wording of the present Act, in so far as this particular paragraph is concerned, should not be altered. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 4, leave out from ("including") to ("intoxicating") in line 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had originally expected to put down a similar Amendment to my Amendment No. 1, in order again in the Schedules to change the language used to that which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and I found to be preferable. Then I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, had put down the Amendment which has just been carried. Therefore, it did not seem necessary to go into this long rigmarole
514
of "sugar confectionary, ice lollies" and so on, because of the change of language to "meals or refreshments". I felt this for two reasons: first, because soft drinks and ice cream and ices certainly would come under the word "refreshments". Then I asked myself where on earth would what are commonly called "sweets" be sold for consumption on the premises. It seemed to me that this could only be at cinemas, theatres and so on, and that that would be fully covered by paragraph 3. I therefore put down this Amendment whereby that paragraph would read:
"The sale of meals or refreshments (including intoxicating liquors) for consumption on the premises at which they are sold."
I do not think anything more than that is necessary. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, unless my noble friend Lord Windlesham has any comment, it seems to me that this Amendment simplifies the language. I think it achieves what is necessary, and I am perfectly prepared to accept it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, so far as the Government are concerned, there seems no objection to this Amendment.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD STRANG): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 10. I ought to inform the House that if this Amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 8, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 together. I know that noble Lords opposite object to my Amendment No. 13, but perhaps they will agree that we should settle the whole question of the first of these Amendments. Both Amendments deal with the same matter. Except for one important point, I am here re-drafting; that is to say, doing away with the existing paragraphs 2 and 3 and making one paragraph. I hope that noble Lords will agree to the drafting part of the Amendment.
But there is this other important aspect. During the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment was moved, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury (who I regret is not here to-day), to the effect that food shops should close at midday. That Amendment was put forward on the ground, among others, that this was a compromise solution—between what and what I never quite understood. I blame myself that perhaps the Committee did not fully realise what they were doing. For more than 40 years food shops have been able to open on Sunday from midnight to 8 o'clock at night. As your Lordships know, many of them do not open. Of those that do, most open for an hour or two in the morning, some in the afternoon and occasionally they open in the evening.
No difficulty has been created by this situation. No large number of shops, any more than large stores, have opened. Why that situation should be changed now, I do not know. Shops are allowed to open now with no bad effects. I do not see why any difficulty should be created now when there has been none in the past. In addition, if the Bill remains unamended, anybody coming home from abroad, or whose car has broken down and who cannot get to a food shop by midday, if he has nothing in his larder at home he will not be able to buy any food of any kind on a Sunday. At the moment food can be bought everywhere. This has created no problems. It has not created very much trade on a Sunday. I know of delicatessen shops which do not open on Sunday mornings, but which do open in the late afternoon or in the evening when there is a public demand for them. Why should we go
516
back on this arrangement? As I say, it has created no problems, and I see no reason why problems should be created in the future.
I say that food shops can stay open until 8 o'clock at night. This has never been tested in law. There are several people at the Home Office who think that people with shops are entitled to open from midnight to midnight on a Sunday. The whole argument on the Committee stage was that shops should not open after midday. I believe this to be entirely unnecessary. The shopkeeper knows what time of day he ought to open. Some shops which are open in the afternoon never open in the morning because there is no public demand. This applies particularly to main roads. People need food. Why, for the first time ever, so far as I know, this change should be suggested, I do not know.
The other argument (put rather in this form) was that shops will be able to sell many more things on a Sunday than may be sold at the present time. We argued this on Second Reading. It is absolute nonsense. On Sundays you can sell, for consumption off the premises, meals or refreshments. I repeat what I said before, that the courts have found that anything which can be eaten on the premises is a meal or refreshment. Certain things cannot be purchased. They are limited in number. Flour and tea are included because they have to be added to before they can be consumed on the premises. While the purchase of certain goods is not allowed because taken alone they cannot be consumed, you can on a Sunday buy goods provided that they are part of a meal. Thus, you can buy your flour or tea if you buy your butter and bread with them. Then it becomes a meal and it can be sold. This happens all over the country now. The 12 o'clock rule will mean that from 12 o'clock on a Sunday nobody in England will be able to buy any food. What our tourist trade will think about that, I shudder to contemplate. After all this time it is an absurd proposition.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to leave out this suggested 12 o'clock closing, which was brought in on the Committee stage. My purpose is to allow your Lordships another look at this question, because I do not think I explained it properly on the last occasion.
4.40 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Amendment. It is an attempt to negative an Amendment which was carried at Committee stage. The issue was then fully debated, and at that stage it was settled by a Division in which more than 60 of your Lordships took part. I do not accept that the Committee did not know what it was doing. I shall certainly try to make sure that the House knows what it is doing on this occasion.
We have been told that the main purpose of this Bill is to clarify the law in regard to Sunday trading. It will clarify the law in regard to Sunday trading whether this Amendment is carried or not; there will be no difference so far as the clarity is concerned. But if this Amendment is carried, then the law will be left in an illogical and untidy state. We shall be in the position that shops which are compelled by law to close at midday on one weekday a week, the early closing day, will nevertheless be able to open all day on Sunday. In the view of the opponents of this Bill that is illogical, and that would be the position if this Amendment were carried. The issue before the House at the present time is not whether people who are out on a social occasion on Sunday should be able to buy meals and refreshments; cigarettes and tobacco; sweets and chocolates; ice cream and drinks; or petrol and oil, and all the other things that people buy when they are enjoying leisure on a Sunday. The issue is whether the grocer, the butcher, the supermarket and fried fish and chip shops should be open all day on a Sunday. That is the issue of the Bill. As the Bill stands at present, the grocers, the butchers, the supermarkets will be able to open until 12 o'clock; but if the Amendment is carried they will be able to open all day.
Let us take the case of the butcher. At the present time a butcher cannot open at all on Sunday. The question before the House is not whether a butcher should be open or closed, the question is whether a butcher should be open for half a day or a full day. If the Amendment is carried he will be open for the full day; if the Amendment is defeated then he will be limited to half a day. Surely that is a compromise. I am surprised that the noble Lord should say
518
that he did not understand where the compromise came in. Indeed, the whole spirit of the Amendment in Committee was for reconciliation and compromise. We know that the trade associations, particularly the specialist trade associations—the grocers, the meat traders, and the fried fish traders—are all against any extension of Sunday trading, and have said specifically that they are against this Bill.
We also know that the National Chamber of Commerce is against this Bill, and certainly against this Amendment. We know that the Co-operative Movement is against this Bill, and certainly against this Amendment. We know that the trade unions concerned are against this Bill, and particularly this Amendment, because they do not want an extension of Sunday trading. We also know that the Federation of Consumer Groups circularised the groups to ascertain the wishes of consumers. They expressed their wishes in reply to questionnaires which were summarised, and the summaries were submitted to the Crathorne Committee. In the words of the Crathorne Committee, the survey indicated that the chief demand was for the sale of groceries during part of Sunday.
The Amendment which was passed at the Committee stage was a compromise, in the sense that it was an attempt to meet the needs of consumers who said they wanted grocery shops open for part of Sunday; and consequently the Amendment provided that not only grocery shops but all other food shops might be open for part of Sunday. Surely that is a compromise. It was an effort to try to reconcile the wishes of the employers, the employees and the consumers, and it was a very fair compromise. But we who oppose this Bill have gone even further. We have another Amendment, No. 19, which will allow any local authority—not just holiday resorts—where there is a demand, to extend the hours for food shops to any hour after 12 o'clock. So what we are asking your Lordships to do is to accept 12 o'clock as being a reasonable hour up to which the full range of food can be sold but to allow the local authority in any locality where there is a further demand to assess that demand and to decide whether food shops should be open later; and, if so,

519
until what time. Surely that is a fair and reasonable compromise. Indeed, we could not compromise any more without capitulating fully.
If this attempt at reconciliation and compromise is thrown out, as it would be if this Amendment were approved, then that will stiffen opposition to this Bill. When its opponents see that their opinions—and even a reconciliation of their opinions with those of others—have been rejected, then they will certainly stiffen their opposition to this Bill. The opponents of this Bill—particularly the National Chamber of Trade, the cooperative societies and the Co-operative Movement—not only have Members in Parliamentary constituencies, they have organisations there, and they will make their opinions known to their Members. On the other hand, if this attempt at reconciliation and compromise is accepted, and the Bill stays in its present form, it is very likely that the opposition to this Bill will be weakened, and it will be accepted as a fair and reasonable compromise of the wishes of those who are in the trade and of the consumers who use the trade.
At this late hour I appeal to the noble Lord to consider that position; to consider the withdrawal of his Amendment. I have to give notice that if he cannot withdraw it, then we shall certainly divide the House on what we regard as the major question.
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, may I read from the Crathorne Report, paragraph 136, where the Committee came to the conclusion
"that the special character of Sunday ought to be preserved as far as practicable as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he chooses."
Let us be entirely honest with ourselves on this matter. Do we ourselves value not having to work on Sundays? Do we value having Sunday as a day of rest and worship? Do we value Sunday as a day we can spend with our families? Do we value Sunday as a day when we can take our families on outings? Do we value it as a God-given break from our normal weekday routine? If we do, let us be very careful before we pass an
520
Amendment which will have the effect of taking other people's Sundays away from them. Many of the workers in the food trade are women, and many of them are married women. If we pass this Amendment they may be tempted away by high wages for Sunday working, and the result will be that they will not be with their families on Sundays.
If the stores are allowed to open all day for the sale of food, surely the next anomaly that people will raise will be, "Why should we be able to sell only food? Why should we not be able to sell other goods which are in our store?". Perhaps we shall then have another Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill. I ask your Lordships to consider this Amendment very carefully, so that more families will not lose the Sundays that they can spend together.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the last speaker, and I rise to make one point against the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, with whom I usually agree. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that people returning from abroad would arrive home with nothing to eat because shops were closed at midday on Sunday. The noble Lord also mentioned the tourist trade, but in my opinion tourists do not go out on Sunday afternoon and buy food. If they want food they buy it on any other day of the week and stock up. If people are travelling about they usually go to a public house or a restaurant. Therefore I cannot agree on that point, and I feel strongly that, so far as possible, Sunday should be maintained as a day of leisure. I oppose the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am at risk of repeating what I said earlier, but I would point out that this Amendment is really putting back what we have already agreed to; therefore we have every right to say again what we said before. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—and most of us have the greatest respect for all that he says—is on the Government's side of the House, while most of the speakers against the Bill have been on the other side. Therefore I rise to support the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, in case all those noble Lords who will come in if we divide on this Amendment think that this

521
is simply a Party political issue, which I cannot see that it is in the slightest degree.
I would also say that, whereas the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and other speakers have quite rightly put the point about Sunday's being a day of rest and that it is not desirable to extend Sunday trading, I was greatly impressed with the argument that the more Sunday trading is extended over the seven days of the week, the more will food cost until finally it costs seven-sixths of what it costs to-day. That is because people will not buy more food; they will simply buy it on more days of the week, and the people who sell food on Sundays will probably be paid at higher rates. Therefore I cannot support the Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, in view of the fact that my next two Amendments will fall if this Amendment is carried, may I also say a word? I agree with noble Lords who have spoken that it must be considered extremely unfortunate, to say the least, that when an important major topic has been discussed in Committee and has gone to a Division and been decided, an Amendment which goes completely counter to what was agreed earlier should be put down at Report stage. What has happened here is that this Amendment has been presented to us as, more or less, consequential on Amendment No. 2, since this paragraph refers to sales in shops registered with the local authority. Many of us agreed with Amendment No. 2, since the principle of registration of shops with the local authority was one which it was far better to eliminate. But the deletion of Clause 2 does not make it necessary, consequentially, to delete paragraph 2, because if Amendment No. 12 were accepted instead it would simply delete the words,
"at shops registered with the local authority",
and the sale of food would, with certain exceptions, still be restricted to the hours until 12 noon. That is the course which I should prefer, and I support my noble friend.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said when this matter was debated in Committee on January 25. It is a crucial Amendment. The arguments for and against have been
522
very persuasively put by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and there is no need for me to try to balance the pros and cons. All I need do is repeat that the position of the Government on this matter is one of neutrality, and leave it to your Lordships to decide.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I am entitled to reply. As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about reversing a decision taken by the Committee, I may tell him that that is frequently done if there is only a small majority on the first occasion, particularly if one feels that the House should have another look at it. There is nothing unusual about it. I am rather astonished at the speeches. To listen to them, and particularly if one listened to my noble friend Lord Ingleby—this is the only subject on which we ever disagree—anyone who knew nothing about this matter would think that shops were not now allowed to open all day on Sunday. But they are, my Lords, and all these prophecies of doom about how all the supermarkets and other shops are going to open and how everyone will be forced to work on Sunday really do not bear any relation to life.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, admitted, people work on Sunday because they want to. You cannot force them to work; you almost have to get down on your knees and beg them to work, and you must then pay them very highly. I agree that if they open it is possible that food will cost more, but although the shops which now open for a few hours can charge more, most shops cannot sell at increased prices. But why we should say that if a shop opens on Sunday it must shut at 12 o'clock, when for the last forty years it has been opening in the afternoon or the evening or at some other time, I simply cannot understand.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that that does not apply to a large number of the shops concerned? For example, butchers' shops cannot open at all on Sundays now.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I was coming to the butchers, because of the noble Lord, Lord Royle. The only real addition under this Bill to food which can now be sold on Sunday—it is not

523
only affected by this 12 o'clock rule—is butchers' meat. We have argued that issue out and decided it by a big majority. There is no reason why butchers in particular should be left out of the Bill. I think that butchers will not open on a Sunday. They do not want to do so, and they will lose money if they do. But, apart from the butchers, my Amendment will effect practically no change from what the law is now. A few extra articles that cannot be sold now will be able to be sold, but the bulk of the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert:
articles can be sold now and will continue to be sold. It has been possible since 1928 to stay open till 8 o'clock, and before that a shopkeeper could stay open as long as he liked, so why we should take this retrograde step now I cannot imagine.
5.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 53.
("(i) food for human consumption (including chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery, ice cream (including wafers and edible containers), ice lollies and similar products) or drink (including intoxicating liquors) or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink;")—(Lord Derwent.)

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dulverton, L.

Molson, L.

Airedale, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monson, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Essex, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rea, L.

Atholl, D.

Glasgow, E.

Reigate, L.

Audley, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Ridley, V.

Balerno, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rockley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grenfell, L. [Teller]

St. Helens, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Boothby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Hacking, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

Stamp, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Buckton, L.

Jessel, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Carnock, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Tenby, V.

Conesford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teynham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mersey, V.

Willis, L.

Daventry, V.

Meston, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Amulree, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

St. Davids, V.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandys, L.

Beswick, L.

Hamnett, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Blackford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Brown, L.

Hoy, L.

Strang, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ingleby, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Burntwood, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Chester, L.Bp.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Clwyd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Merthyr, L.

Wolverton, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Moyne, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert ("and peat, plant food, stakes and tree ties necessary for successful and normal cultivation")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment I should like to remind the House that I moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage. At that time I explained that the purpose of the Amendment was to assist garden centres, which in the opinion of many people are a social necessity and are part of the leisure industry, by allowing them to be able legally to offer not only plants and shrubs but also the peat and other items that go with the planting of those shrubs. I pointed out at that time that 50 per cent. of the business of garden centres was carried out at weekends. My noble friend Lord Derwent advised the Committee to reject that Amendment on the ground that it was far too wide and that it would allow the sale of garden machinery, which in his opinion would be unfair trading.
I have gone back to my advisers on this subject—they are the Horticultural Association—and I now move this Amendment which limits the things that the garden centres may legally sell to "peat, plant food, stakes and tree ties". All of these, in my opinion, are very innocuous, in the sense of their value. Their cost per plant is well under £1, and for that reason their sale cannot, I think, be considered as an example of unfair trading on a Sunday. I feel that the acceptance of this Amendment would help remove an anomaly in the existing law. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: On the face of it, this sounds to be a sensible Amendment but I am afraid that I must resist it on the same ground as before. The sale of tree ties, and so on, does not seem to be a matter of great importance, but these are examples of goods that are sold in a variety of shops which are not allowed to open on a Sunday. I do not like to mention the names of shops specifically, but there are well-known shops, like Boot's, which sell such items as garden implements, tree ties and peat. They cannot open on a Sunday. It therefore seems unfair that these goods which, unlike plants and shrubs, are not grown on the premises should be sold by the nursery
526
gardens. I think that this Amendment is a very narrow one but my advice is that its acceptance would lead to a considerable number of protests concerning unfair trading. I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask whether it would be legal to include these goods in the price of a plant or a shrub which is sold on a Sunday? It seems to me that if one buys some form of shrub then it is necessary to buy a stake or tree tie in order to prop it up, after planting, when the purchaser reaches home. I should have thought that perhaps the garden centres would get round this particular limitation by including the stake and tie in the charge for the plant by making the price marginally higher. In this case I cannot see any objection to allowing them to sell them separately.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, luckily, in the case of questions of that kind, I am not allowed to speak a second time.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, we have been assured by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that all these awful things are not going to happen on Sunday: that the supermarkets will not open, that the butchers shops will not open and that therefore it does not matter whether we allow them to sell these things or not. Is he now saying that Boot's will open on Sunday in order to sell tree ties and peat?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord wishes to misrepresent what I have said. I said that Boot's would not be able to sell them because they are not allowed to open on Sundays. If the noble Lord were to look at the Bill, rather than accuse me in this way, he would see that one may sell those things which are growing on the premises but not other things.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I apologise immediately if the noble Lord thinks that I have misrepresented him. I thought he was implying that if we allow the noble Earl's Amendment to go through it will be unfair to Boot's not to allow them also to open on Sunday to sell these things. I could not see the force of that argument.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of things growing on the

527
premises. The average nurseryman grows on his own premises only a small proportion of the shrubs he sells; the rest he imports from other nurseries.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think we are in some difficulty: we are almost getting back to a Committee-type debate. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is entitled to speak only once. He has said on this Amendment that while he sympathises with the aims of the noble Earl, he does not feel that they fall within the aims and purposes of the Bill. That is the reply that he has given to the House. The Government have no views on this Amendment, but I think it would be wrong to carry on with a Committee-type discussion.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I think we are entitled to discuss this Amendment even if in his view it appears to be a Committee-type discussion.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the difficulty is that noble Lords are putting to Lord Derwent questions which he is not entitled to answer.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent; I am sitting on the same Bench. But the whole merit of this Amendment was that it was narrow in its concept. I should have mentioned that it was drawn because of the good intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, during the Committee stage. If I were asked the question put by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, whether it would be outside the law for a garden centre to offer peat and stakes at an inclusive price with the plant, I should answer, Yes. The purpose of my Amendment is to try to correct this anomaly in the law. I feel that there has been a little support; but I do not wish to press the House to a Division. I must leave it to the House to decide.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("historic house or historic place open to the public") and insert ("place of historic interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu cannot be here. Amendment No. 16 and Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are all drafting Amendments. The drafting was suggested by my noble friend Lord Windlesham as being better wording, according to the Parliamentary draftsmen, than that in the Bill. The Amendment does not, in fact, change the sense of what is in the Bill but it alters the wording so that there will be no misunderstanding. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I raise a point which the noble Lord might like to consider? It was clearly the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, when he moved his Amendments on Committee stage, that this should apply to what we think of as the "stately homes" that are open to the public. I am wondering whether the expression, "places of historic interest" is the right one for the 800—I believe it is—of these "stately homes" which are open. Although all of them are, I suppose, of great architectural and other interest, I do not think that the vast majority could be said to be of any historic interest whatsoever. On Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that this was a preferable phrase because it was the one used in Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act. With due respect, it is not quite the expression there used. In that Schedule the expression used is, "places of natural beauty and historic interest." I feel a doubt whether this would apply to all the stately homes to which the noble Lord means it to apply.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, following the discussion of this point on Committee stage, the wording of this part of the Bill was studied by Parliamentary draftsmen. The advice given to me—and passed on by me to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, whose Bill this is—was that the words in the Amendment would be more appropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, says, they are taken from Schedule 5 of the Shops Act 1950, although the wording is a little wider, as he pointed out, because the reference is to,
"other gallery or museum or any place of natural beauty or historic interest."
Historic houses would fall under the second part of that description—"place

529
of … historic interest." Places of natural beauty would go in a separate category, along with museums and galleries. This is a fairly fine point of interpretation. We are advised that there has been no difficulty in the last 21 years in people who own historic houses having to decide whether or not they are covered by the Act. Now that the point has been studied, perhaps the House will be willing to accept these words.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I attended particularly this afternoon because I have read paragraph 4 with care. Perhaps I may read it to the House and then ask a question. The paragraph reads:
"The sale at any museum, art gallery or historic house or historic place open to the public of reproductions of works of art on display at the museum, art gallery, house or historic place or of souvenirs associated with the museum, art gallery, house or historic place."
The word "house" is repeated. If I wanted to, I think I could, under the provision in this Schedule, attract people to a murderer's house. I should be entitled to sell reproductions on a Sunday and have a waxworks exhibition, according to the wording in this paragraph. In fact, I think I could go to a court of law and appeal. I could say that I was opening Christie's house, or the house of someone like him; that as an entrepreneur who has not much of a heart about things I am buying the house and I am arranging for a waxworks exhibition of Christie and all the horrors; and I propose to do a roaring trade by opening the exhibition on Sunday—and neither your Lordships nor anyone else would be able to stop me. I should very much like information on this point.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot think from whom the noble Lord is going to get his information.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, in view of the ambiguity, I think we ought to appeal to someone who is qualified to give an interpretation.
LORD DERWENT: In fact, my Lords, Parliamentary draftsmen have looked at this point. This Amendment and the next two Amendments are in accordance with what Parliamentary draftsmen think right. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has raised his point. I shall have
530
further consultation—or Lord Montagu of Beaulieu will have further consultation—with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and he will doubtless ask his advisers; and if it ought to be altered, I am sure that we can do it on Third Reading. But as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, is advised at the moment, this is the best wording.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("house or historic place") and insert ("or place of historic interest").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("house or historic place") and insert ("or place of historic interest").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Provisions of Shops Act 1950 repealed by Section 7(3)]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("and 61") and insert (" ,61 and 63 to 65.")—(Lord Dement.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOVERCRAFT (CIVIL LIABILITY) ORDER 1971
5.27 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I beg to move that the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on January 19, be approved. The purpose of the Order is to lay down the principles applying to liability in respect of passengers, baggage and cargo carried by

531
hovercraft and to third party liability in respect of hovercraft. The Order is made under Section 1(1)(h) and 1(1)(i) of the Hovercraft Act 1968. This Act is primarily an enabling Act. Although it defines hovercraft and provides for their treatment as vehicles in their own right, it has little practical effect until Orders in Council are made under it. The Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order is the first such Order to be presented to this House.
Section 1(1)(i) of the Hovercraft Act lays down that the Order should be drafted on the lines of the aviation system for passengers and baggage, the marine system as regards cargo, and the marine system, too, as regards third party liability; that is to say, injury or damage to persons and property not in the hovercraft.
The basis of the aviation principles of liability for passengers and their baggage, which, with modifications, the Order applies to hovercraft, is the Warsaw Convention of 1929 as amended by The Hague Protocol of 1955 which applies to international carriage as defined therein. Under the Carriage by Air Act 1961, the United Kingdom has extended this system to non-international carriage, but with a higher limit. The limits of liability under the aviation system can vary from £3,500 for a one-way journey from the United Kingdom to a country not party to the amending Protocol—for example, India—to £24,000 for a journey touching upon the United States and for non-international carriage such as a domestic journey. In other words, the limit varies with the journey involved. A feature of the aviation system is that the carrier is liable without proof of negligence unless he proves that he and his servants and agents took all necessary measures to avoid the damage, but by way of a quid pro quo the liability of the carrier is limited unless wilful misconduct is established. The carrier is not permitted to contract out of liability or for lower limits. By contrast, under the marine system, shipowners are free to contract out of liability to passengers and baggage. Under the Road Traffic Acts there is a different system again, and liability is unlimited in respect of passengers carried for
532
reward, although the carrier cannot contract out of liability or for lower limits.
The limit proposed in the draft Order is £12,000 per passenger. This limit, which was decided upon after consultation with the industry, is designed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public and the interests of the hovercraft operators, who for the most part are in competition with ships. The limits proposed for baggage are the same as for aviation—namely, £7 per kilo in the case of registered baggage and £138 per passenger in respect of baggage looked after by the passenger himself.
So far as cargo is concerned, the Order adapts the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, which applies The Hague Rules to outward bills of lading. The limit proposed in the Order is the same as for ships—namely, £100 gold. Under a protocol signed in Brussels in February, 1968, the limit is raised to about £270, but it is likely to be some time before this new limit comes into effect for ships. When it does, we intend to apply it to hovercraft. Motor vehicles, whether accompanied or not, are treated in the Order as cargo. The foundation of the marine system is the issue of a bill of lading. If it is not issued, then the limits do not apply. If a bill of lading is issued, then there are various circumstances, defined in the 1924 Act, in which the shipowner can escape liability—for example, in the case of loss due to fire on board.
Finally, the Order provides for an overall limitation of liability, which is of benefit to hovercraft in the event of collision. This limitation does not include death or injuries to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage on board the hovercraft itself and applies only to navigable waters or otherwise in a maritime environment. The limit proposed in the Order is £3·50 per kilo of the maximum weight of the hovercraft, which includes a limit of £1 per kilo of the maximum weight in respect of damage to cargo on board the hovercraft plus damage to property outside the hovercraft. The limits existing for ships under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 and 1958 and the method of calculating the liability on the basis of tonnage are not suitable for hovercraft, and it is for this reason that the proposed limit is based

533
on the maximum weight of the hovercraft. The limitation is, however, derived from a comparison of the values of ships and hovercraft.
In the draft Liability Order, the passengers, baggage and cargo provisions apply broadly from hoverport to hoverport. Thus, in the case of an amphibious hovercraft the journey between the sea and the hoverport is covered. Equally, it would apply to a purely land journey, although if this were a journey on a road—which is perhaps unlikely in view of the difficulty a hovercraft could have in complying with the relevant vehicle construction regulations—certain provisions of the Road Traffic Acts would be overriding. The draft Order also applies to hovercraft, under Section 1(1)(h) of the Hovercraft Act 1968, the relevant provisions of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 regarding the apportionment of liability in the event of collision, and extends to hovercraft Sections 5(1), 6 and 30 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which provide for limitation of liability in respect of H.M. Ships. I hope that your Lordships will approve this Order.
Moved, That the Draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1971, laid before the House on 19th January, be approved.—(Lord Denham)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we should all wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on setting forth so clearly the provisions of this Order. It has taken quite a time to produce it. I think that I promised it way back in 1948, and I am glad that it has been found possible to produce it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: In 1948?
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry, I was referring to the Hovercraft Act of 1968. But, of course, it goes back beyond 1968. We had to discuss such questions as whether a hovercraft was a ship or an aircraft. It was necessary to get some clarification so far as liability was concerned and, as I say, I am glad that the Order is now before us.
I hope that the noble Lord can assure the House that all the interests concerned approve of the provisions of the Order. I have only one other question. Technology
534
marches on. We now have before us the possibility of a tracked hovercraft. To what extent would these provisions apply to hovercraft that are tracked?— or do they not apply at all? Is it laid down that they do not apply? And, if not, is any research being carried out as to the Order we should need in due course to cover the operations of that form of transport? In the meantime, I am glad that we have this Order and I hope that it will facilitate the greater development of the hovercraft.
THE EARI OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to welcome this Order. I must say that I was a little astonished, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to hear him refer to the Hovercraft Act 1948, when in fact the hovercraft was not introduced until the mid-50s. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Denham on introducing an Order that encourages this industry. We know that Seaspeed and Hovertravel have been operating now for a number of years around the coasts of Britain. I should like to ask my noble friend, as he is now introducing these safeguards, what has been the position of passengers up to this day, because so many passengers have been carried already by hovercraft. I think that it would be of general interest if he could advise us on that point.
I should also like to ask my noble friend a question about hoverports. I am sure that those who have used hovercraft as a means of transport will agree that in many cases hoverports are not designed in a very sophisticated way. Indeed, when one gets on to a hovercraft, one finds that the propellor is whirling close to many of the passengers, and I should like to know how much thought has been given by the Government to the question of safety.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, having introduced a measure for hovercraft safety in another place, I have an interest in this Order. While endorsing the safety provisions, there is one question which I should like to put about the limit of £12000. In a way this is a fair limit so far as the hovercraft companies and the passengers are concerned. About four years ago, it was estimated that by the year 1980 the average wage in Britain

535
would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £30 to £35 a head. My simple point is this. Are we doing right (to use a colloquial term) in spiking down a sum of £12,000? Cannot we have some other reference, say, to 20 years' salary of a person who was killed? After all, in some cases the limited amount of £12,000 for the main breadwinner of a family may mean that the entire family future is put in jeopardy. I do not wish to delay the House, but I think it may be worth looking at whether it would be at all possible to have a little latitude on the limit of £12,000 and at the same time be fair to the hovercraft companies, provided they introduce the safeguards needed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this Order and for the welcome they have given to it. As your Lordships will have seen from my rather lengthy introduction, this is a matter of great complexity, as indeed are some of the questions asked by noble Lords. I will try to answer what I can, but what I cannot answer I will write about to the noble Lords concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked whether all interests approved the Order. All interests were certainly consulted, and the Order as it comes here is thought to be the fairest way of taking into consideration the wishes of all concerned. The noble Lord also asked about tracked hovercraft, which are being developed. I am advised that the provision might have to be amended in due course to take account of this and also any other technological developments that take place in the hovercraft field.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked about the safety aspects of hovercraft. I think the safety aspects will come more under the next Order, which is in a fairly advanced state of preparation and will be laid before very long.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, asked whether we felt that the £12,000 limit was enough in view of present and possible future circumstances of passengers. The £12,000 was arrived at after a great deal of consideration as the fairest possible amount to fix taking into account the interests both of the companies and of the passengers. It will be
536
well known that the liability is kept at this amount for an individual passenger. It will be open to any passenger to insure for any sum that he may feel he wants guaranteed beyond that. A limit of a multiple of the passenger's salary would not work. If you take the case of a passenger who had no income, in that case the liability would be nil. Further, the limit would be unfair as being higher for the high earner than for the low earner. These points have been considered, and the limit of £12,000 is the fairest that can be achieved.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, in view of the fact that the development of a hydrofoil craft is pending and may in the next five years prove to be more important and have greater efficiency than the present hovercraft, would the next Order to which the noble Lord referred include any risks such as those he has outlined on a compensation basis?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer at the moment, but I will certainly write to him as soon as I can and do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN PENNINES RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to abolish the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my qualification for talking to your Lordships tonight is that I look after 20 hill farms on the North Yorkshire moors. These are not actually in the area of the Rural Development Board, but the problems we face there are very similar.
I should like to start by reading a few words spoken by Mr. G. Wilson, a hill farmer at a conference that we had at Harrogate last October, called The Changing Uplands, arranged jointly by the Rural Development Board and the Country Landowners' Association. Mr. Wilson is a farmer who farms at Glencoyne, near Ullswater. He told the conference:
"Throughout the hill areas there is concern over falling returns. Prices for lambs and for wool are now less than they were ten years

537
ago, although costs of production have soared. Few hill farmers … can feed their stock on, and benefit, from the higher prices ruling in fatstock markets… On the smaller farms with only about 400 ewes and 15 cows the scope for ploughing some profit back into the farm has virtually disappeared and the outlook for the future is grim indeed. It seems impossible to keep costs down. … Somehow or other a way must be found to make hill farming—particularly hill sheep farming pay. Otherwise the whole future of our upland areas is at stake."
It has been estimated by Mr. Cowen, the Chairman of the Board, that the average income from farming of a hill farmer in his area is £500 a year. That is considerably less than the basic agricultural wage, which is now something over £700 a year. It has also been estimated that, of this net income, 50 per cent. derives from grants and subsidies—the most important of these being, of course, the hill sheep subsidy, the hill cow subsidy and the beef cow subsidy. If we go into the Common Market these are at risk; and if these were taken away and not replaced we might be facing depopulation of the hills on the scale that we had in Scotland a hundred years ago.
Who can help in this situation? Obviously the hill farmers themselves. They are very sturdy and independent, and they will do what they can; but their financial resources are limited. The Forestry Commission do not really aim to help in this kind of way. The big estates may do what they can, but there are not a great many of them now. So it really falls to the Government to help. The Rural Development Board were set up to help in this way, and I should like to talk for a few moments about the ways in which the Board have already been able to help. They have been able to give grants to farmers and foresters who want to provide facilities for visitors. There is an ever-increasing stream of visitors to the hill areas, and if a farmer or forester wishes to provide facilities for them—for example, by converting his farmhouse so as to provide sleeping accommodation, catering accommodation, heating, recreational or lavatory facilities—he can obtain a grant of up to 50 per cent. from the Rural Development Board. It might not be a bad idea if people travelling up the M.6 turned right instead of left, which would take a hit of the pressure off the Lake District.
The Board also have power to give grants to farmers and foresters to help with the installation of telephones, electricity, water or roads where grants from other sources are not available. One particular farmer was asked for £350 to get a telephone put in, and the Board were able to help by providing half the difference between this and the normal cost of £20. Then the Board have also been able to help rural bus services. We all know the threats that the bus companies are making at this time: that if the services are not subsidised they will be withdrawn. As your Lordships know, under the 1958 Transport Act local authorities are allowed to subsidise bus services only where the income is equivalent to not less than 50 per cent. of the cost. The Board have been able to help in several cases by bringing the figure up to this amount. They have in fact helped services in Swaledale, Weardale, Kielder and Kirkby Stephen.
On forestry, the Board have a strict power of control. Any planting of over 10 acres must have their consent, and the Board have made what is I think the first attempt to have a really co-ordiaated policy to integrate the interests of the hill farmer and the forester, the visitor and the viewer. They have realised that they are embarking on a new field here, and have tried to act as a forum for discussion among everybody who is interested in the problem of life in the hills. This has been one of their major contributions.
This, I suggest, adds up to a worthwhile experiment in trying to solve or to find some of the answers to the problems of life in the hills, and this was how the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, described the Board on July 16 last:
"My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said in another place, we intend to continue the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, which I understand has widespread local support and which we regard as a worthwhile experiment in finding solutions to the problems of the hill areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/7/70; col. 729.]
Six months later, on January 18 of this year, we have only 23 words in the White Paper, Proposed Changes in the Work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:
"The Northern Pennines Rural Development Board cannot be justified under the Government's philosophy and the experiment of the Board will therefore be terminated."
What one imagines the Government do not like is the Board's control over land transfers. Just to set the facts straight on this point, I may say that the Board have given consent in 493 cases, refused consent in one case, and in 233 cases—nearly half the total—have been able to use their powers to encourage sensible amalgamations of farmland. But if the Government do not like this power, why not scrap it?—scrap the power, not the Board. Why throw out the baby with the bath water? It may be said that an Amendment to the Agriculture Act would be necessary to carry this out, but could not the Board just go on rubber stamping applications in the same way as they are rubber stamping them now, until such time as an Amendment could be passed to the Agriculture Act? The baby is only 15 months old, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is coming along quite nicely. The Board consist of eleven members, nine of whom are closely connected with the land, seven of them being actual farmers, and during the 15 months of the Board's existence their staff have built up a useful knowledge and experience of the problems of the hills. I mentioned the grants earlier. So far as they are concerned, the Board have spent £13,261 in the eight months from June to February 1. They could not start earlier than June because the grants were not agreed with the Treasury until that date. The Board expect that in the normal way these would have built up to about 50,000 a year.
The reactions to the Minister's announcement have been widespread and justify what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said last July, that the Board have widespread support. All the six branches of the National Farmers' Union who are concerned in the Board's area—that is to say, in Northumberland, Durham, the North and West Riding of Yorkshire, Cumberland and Westmorland—have come out strongly against the abolition of the Board. The National Farmers' Union Hill Farming Advisory Committee are entirely opposed to it, and Mr. Henry Plumb, the President, called it a tragedy. Here you have a body of men who, for the first time, are really trying to find an all-round answer to the problems of life in the hills. They were getting together their ideas and making
540
use of other people's ideas; they had been given sufficient money to carry out their task, and I suggest that the hills need a policy of their own. If this experiment was allowed to continue it might well have acted as a pilot for the other hill areas of this country. I would appeal to the Government: do not strangle this baby after 15 months. Change its diet if you will, but do not strangle it. Let it stay alive, for it may grow into something worth while and permanent. My Lords, I ask you to support me in asking the Government to reconsider their decision on this matter.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Viscount because I agree, with a good deal of passion, with everything he has said, but he has said it so well and so fully that I think it will enable those of us taking part in this debate to be very short. I am not a great believer in consensus politics; I always feel that noble Lords opposite would probably dislike being confused with me as much as I should dislike being confused with them. I have also advocated that agriculture should be a bipartisan topic. This evening I feel that, as somebody sitting on these Benches, I cannot entirely eschew Party criticism. It makes one very unhappy to see any action which is clearly the result of pure, unadulterated Party dogma.
The noble Viscount has dealt with the details of the Pennine Board itself. I should like to look at the whole question of rural development boards, standing back a little, and I would deal with them more as a whole. The Ministry of Agriculture, for the whole of the past half century and quite irrespective of the political colour of its Ministers, has been worried by the problem of the country's hill farms. Of Britain's 45 million acres, 14 million are hill land, and of these just over 2 million are enclosed and cultivated, the rest being rough grazing. It is impossible to make a living on such land without having very large holdings indeed, larger than are available to ordinary mortals, though some noble Lords opposite from the far North have, and make good use of, estates of a viable size: and there are no complaints about that. But in general with the size of

541
holding which exists at the moment, particularly in the West and the North—though rather less in Scotland—it is not practicable for a man to make a living. As the noble Viscount said, the hill farmers now are earning less than the agricultural worker.
The one valuable contribution the hills can make, the raising of sheep, becomes less profitable as lowland sheep become less profitable, as they have recently. I suppose that ten years ago you could live on 500 ewes; to-day the necessary number is nearer 1,000. There are very few farmers in Wales or the Pennines, in the hills, who have a thousand ewes. Keeping store cattle is a help. The noble Viscount, referring to a farm, said that 15 cattle were a help; but anybody who has tried to live off 15 cattle knows how difficult it is, even if the cattle can live on one's land, which often they cannot. The truth is that the hill problem ditfers fundamentally from the lowland problem, and it has to be dealt with differently. It has been a headache for the past fifty years and has been steadily getting worse. Any sincere effort to deal with this problem must surely have everybody's encouragement.
It seems to me that all Governments, up to this one, have taken the view that the hills are part of our heritage and that we cannot let them drift into decay and depopulation, in spite of the fact that the lowlands could probably replace without undue strain all that is produced from the hill acres. Even so, we do not want to let them go. For the past 15 years spasmodic efforts have been made by financial grants of various kinds to make them viable as farms. By and large this has failed. In 1965 the then Minister of Agriculture, my right honourable friend Mr. Fred Peart, in a totally non-doctrinaire attempt to deal with this very intractable problem, made some suggestions in a White Paper called The Development of Agriculture. These were put into the form of law in the 1967 Act. The object was to set up rural development boards, first as pilot schemes, and later perhaps, if they worked, in all hill areas which seemed suitable, to assist in the amalgamation of smallholdings into larger holdings and in the co-ordination of forestry, agriculture and tourism, as the noble Viscount said. The first board, as he told us,
542
started in 1969 but did not really begin doing much until early 1970. There was to have been one in Wales, but the Welsh farmers were so determined not to cooperate with the Forestry Commission, even under compulsion, and particularly under orders from England, that they killed it stone dead.
The truth is that co-ordination and balanced development cannot, and will not, just happen on their own. Small and often desperately worried farmers will find it difficult to co-operate effectively with large and impersonal bodies such as the Forestry Commission, and they will tend, in their poverty, to allow their land to be exploited by persons concerned with profit from recreation rather than with the values of amenity. The introduction of recreation, with its car parks, picnic sites and lavatories, into remote and beautiful areas cannot be left to the crude, working of supply and demand. Yet the additional income from letting farmhouse rooms and caravan sites is becoming increasingly crucial to these hill farmers; in fact, it is probably the only way the hills can remain farming at all.
Every year the need to protect the hills from spoliation has grown more acute, as recreational facilities grow and as forestry, perhaps not always of the right kind, comes in—although I do not want to say too much of that in front of my noble friend here. In spite of that, many of us thought that my right honourable friend Mr. Peart had hit on something which might deal with this problem. We were thrilled to see the first Board's start. We were interested to see the very strong Chairman, who has impressed everybody who has had anything to do with him. We have heard from the noble Viscount what the Board has done in its first ten months: it has been most impressive. The Board had established itself pretty well in the confidence of the people in the area—an area which covers the hills in six countries. Its relations with the Forestry Commission were excellent; and, as the noble Viscount said, I think, every N.F.U. committee in the area has protested against the Board's demise; every agricultural executive committee has done the same. The North-East Planning Economic Council has protested; the Northumberland Parks Committee has protested. There was a dispute over

543
tree planting with the West Riding National Parks Planning Committee, and I have to admit that no regrets were expressed by that Committee over the demise. But it is about the only body that is not regretting the removal of this Board.
It seems to me that some Tories have an ineradicable dislike of compulsory purchase, and the fact that the Board had some powers of compulsory purchase may have influenced this decision. Yet they were extremely limited powers; they covered only two contingencies. First, if a plan for amalgamation and realignment of scattered holdings had been agreed in a certain area—say, on the outskirts of a village—and the people concerned, with the exception of one of two, were willing to go ahead, then, and only then, with the Minister's consent, the Board could acquire the land compulsorily. Secondly, land could not, under the Act, be bought or sold without the Board's consent. If this rule was breached and an unauthorised sale was made, the Board had the right, after a period of time, and subject to appeal, to annul the sale and exercise its compulsory powers.
The noble Viscount told us that there were 493 transactions which were put to this Board. They were all approved except one. And in the case of 230-odd (I think that was the figure he mentioned) the intervention of the Board produced a better deal than would have been obtained if it had not been there. The Board started certain work early last year, tentatively, because it waited until it had the confidence of the people—with country people one cannot go in front of their confidence, and it was very sensible about this. As the noble Viscount told us, the Board began to put right some of the things that were wrong. It began by giving grants towards the supply of telephones, electricity and water to farms and foresters. It gave grants for caravan sites, which had to be sited properly; for camp sites, which had to be sited properly; for farmhouse accommodation for tourists, and for bus services. The noble Viscount has pointed out the importance of these things. It seems to me that the Board has not nut a foot wrong. It began to do exactly what was needed to be done.
544
It was admirably directed, and efficiently and economically managed.
To kill this Board stone dead can be only an act of doctrinaire faith that makes one very nervous for the future. The point of a pilot experiment is to pinpoint the difficulties and to alter conditions accordingly. As the noble Viscount said in his concluding remarks, if it had been considered, after some experience, that the Board's powers of compulsory purchase were objectionable, they could have been modified, or even abrogated. If it had been thought that the Board gave insufficient weight to, for example, amenity interests, then its weighting could have been altered. The composition of the Board could have been changed; its terms of reference could have been changed. But to suppress it altogether suggests, and I think in fact means, that the Government are so profoundly opposed to Government involvement that they would rather an area drifted into decay than that it should be redeemed by anything so odious as Government guidance.
My Lords, I have seen this happen once, and I do not want to see it happen again. Between the wars, under successive Tory Governments, the first great step in the ruin of England was taken. The speculative builder perpetrated his rashes of hideous and insecure buildings along every road out of every town in the land, free in the pursuit of quick returns, curbed by nobody. Since then there had, I thought and hoped, been a welcome change in the view of the Conservative Party towards land use and planning. But now there seems to be a new, Puritan element beginning to permeate the Party, and the abolition of this Board is in my opinion an instance of the sinister influence of that element at work.
Incidentally, it is worth noticing that the White Paper which brought in this sentence of death pays scant courtesy to the Common Market. We are to reduce our Advisory Service just when they are taking steps, under the Mansholt proposals, to increase theirs. We cut our appropriation to the co-operative movement just when they are paying more attention to theirs than ever before. And, in the context of this debate, they are

545
elaborating the co-ordination of recreation, farming and forestry in their backward areas, through the Guidance and Guarantee Fund, when we dismantle the only machinery we have for doing anything about it. Meanwhile, the French, with their SAFERS (Societes d'Amenagement Foncier et d'Etablissements Rurals), have already in operation something uncannily like our rural development boards, which seem to be working very well.
My Lords, I care very much about the hill lands of this country. I have thought a lot about them and their problems, and I sincerely believe that the system of rural development boards might have gone some way to solving them. They approached the situation in a wise and sensible way, with a pilot scheme from which the necessary lessons could be learnt. The pilot scheme was under first-class management and was doing singularly well. Its wanton destruction, on grounds of Puritan doctrine, is perhaps the most depressing piece of disengagement the Government have done yet.
6.9 p.m.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for asking this Question. In the first place, perhaps I should declare my own interest, in that I am an owner of hill land in the Board's area; I am also chairman of a county agriculture executive committee which is partly in the Board's area. I am grateful for the courtesy of being given the opportunity to speak before some other noble Lords. I have been abroad and have learnt of this Question only recently; I have a later engagement to-night and would wish to imply no discourtesy if I should have to leave the House before the debate is finished.
At the outset I could not share any enthusiasm for the creating of rural development boards. I felt that there would be a lack of understanding of the problems of people who live in hill farming areas and I did not find anything to commend the powers with regard to transfer of land. In the event, the Northern Pennine Rural Development Board started modestly, created good relationships with farmers and landowners and did a good job of public relations, using its powers carefully. A
546
great deal of credit is due to the wisdom of the chairman, Mr. Cowen, and support for the Board has grown to a large extent because of the way in which the chairman and the Board have supported the hill farmers and understood their particular difficulties.
When it was announced that the Board was to go, the immediate reaction among hill farmers in Durham, the area which I know most about, was dismay. There is already a good deal of uncertainty in the minds of hill farmers. They do not know quite what will happen if we go into the European Community. They have looked upon the Board as something which has protected them, as a strong ally rather than something which might have persecuted them. The pressure from public authorities, water boards, county councils and also from private organisations who all have demands in hill areas is becoming much greater, and the Board seems to have given the right alliance between the owners and the farmers in the hills to deal with the other powers which are to some extent foreign to their normal operations. People who come into these areas are not always able to increase the economic development of the areas, nor perhaps is that the reason why they come there. The Board has shown itself increasingly interested in trying to overcome the economic difficulties of hill farmers.
My Lords, I regret, in a way, that I am not being very constructive; that I am praising the Board rather than offering an alternative. But if the objections to the Board which I have mentioned are too great, and if it is not possible to allow the Board to continue as it is, I still feel that something else must come in its place—something which will support the people who live and work in the hills. They live in this severe climate, far more severe than anyone perhaps realises, and under very considerable difficulties, and they need all the support that they possibly can get.
6.15 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I, too, like the three noble Lords who have spoken from the Labour Bench, the Government Bench and the Cross Bench, regret the decision of the Government in this matter. There are one or two points which some of us previously felt could

547
be improved upon. I think some noble Lords have felt from the very beginning that the powers which this new Rural Development Board was given overlapped with certain other commitments that other bodies had. That may well be so, but it is the sort of thing that in the course of an experiment could have been put right.
LORD HOY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? In dealing with these powers over land one ought not to exaggerate them. The Board have very little compulsory power at all, and certainly much less power than any local authority in this country.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstood what I was saying. I will touch upon compulsory powers in a moment. What I was saying was that there was with this particular Board an overlapping of responsibility. I know that this was the view of the Countryside Commission, for instance; they felt that the new rural development boards had been given powers which they themselves could exercise better. Nevertheless, that is a matter which could easily have been put right in the course of the experiment. All three of the noble Lords have said virtually the same: that the difficulties facing the hill areas are too great and too complex to be left entirely to the free play of market forces, and that the social and economic needs of people who live and work in the hills must be the subject of a managed state of affairs. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, they will not just happen on their own. From all sides of the agricultural industry and from county councils there has been agreement that this was a wise experiment.
The chief complaint that possibly people on the Government side had at the beginning of this experiment was that the Board had compulsory powers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that the powers the Board had were minimal compared with many of those of other people. Nevertheless, that was one of the criticisms that were made. My own view is that if you have a Board of this kind you must have some sort of ultimate sanction. As the noble Viscount pointed out, the amount of compulsion is of the ratio of 493 to 1. I do not think one can com-
548
plain very seriously about that. Again, I should like to know what is the experience with regard to compulsion in the Highlands and Islands Development Board. How much compulsion have they had to exercise? I have a feeling that they have exercised none, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Denham, may know the answer to that question.
If the Government feel that they do not like any compulsory powers in relation to a Board of this kind, several courses are open to them. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has suggested that the Board could go on merely rubber stamping for the time being until some other way is found of doing away with the compulsory powers. One might almost say that they are rubber stamping now, if it is of the order of 493 to 1; nevertheless, in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in, as it were, his puritanical way, does not like the idea of rubber stamping. Then I should have thought that those powers could be abolished. As I said before, I should like to keep some sort of sanction, but I see no reason why those powers should not be abolished. It has been suggested, although not in this debate to-day, that there is no Parliamentary time to do that. I am rather surprised to hear that. I should have thought that if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were to ask his right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons, who is a well-known supporter of the principle of the rural development boards, the time could have been found.
Similarly, it has been suggested to me that under the Act which created the rural development boards it is possible merely to remove those powers. That, again, was rather surprising to me. It is amazing what Parliament can do, and I should have thought that a short Bill was all that was necessary. No doubt the noble Lord will tell me the answer to that question, too. It is also surprising that no Conservative Member voted against this proposal when it came forward 18 months ago. They all followed virtually the words of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, of which the noble Viscount reminded us to-day, and I entirely agree with what he said. It is too short a time to abolish this Board. It makes a nonsense of any kind of Parliamentary arrangement, by

549
one side or the other, if before it has really got off the ground it is abolished. I think it was an interesting experiment. It might well not have worked; it might have emerged that there were other ways of doing the job better. We would have known in a couple of years. But to throw it out when it has not done anything at all, except, as the noble Lord said, practically not put a foot wrong, seems to me to be foolish. What about the Highlands and Islands Board? Can we not look to them to see whether they are making a go of their not dissimilar problem?
I cannot help thinking that it is quite obvious to all of us here that something must be put in the place of the Rural Development Board. I admit that we are all rather annoyed that the Minister of Agriculture has shown no signs of what he proposes to put in its place. But I shall be surprised if he does not replace it with something, because something must be done; it cannot be left to itself. What about the staff who have been engaged to run a very difficult experimental operation? I should have thought that they would feel somewhat sour. Nevertheless, they will find their place in some sort of reconstituted board. At any rate, I hope so, because they must have gained some good experience already.
I think the mistake that the Government have made is to stress too much the negative side of this thing; that aspect of compulsory powers and transfer of land which they do not like. But I feel that there is so much emphasis on the positive side that the Government ought to have put. I do not want to go over the different aspects, because practically all have been mentioned by the noble Viscount—rural transport; tourist grants; the balance between agriculture and forestry, and the whole question of planning of land use and its role in National Parks—all those aspects which are not agriculture at all. Do not forget that agriculture is only part of this problem. Those are the sort of things I should have thought that the Government could have played up, rather than playing down the negative side.
I do not think I need say anything more, because virtually all these points have been made by noble Lords before me and I have no doubt that different aspects of them will be embroidered by speakers after me. But I agree with the noble Viscount that the Government
550
ought to think about this again. In view of the kind of things that have been said by noble Lords concerned with the agricultural industry on the Government side of the House, I was amazed when they came out with this suggestion that the whole thing should be closed down. I feel it is a little discreditable in a way to close it down and re-open it under another name. If it is not too late, I would ask the Government to look again at the possibilities of keeping the experiment going, and, if they wish, to reduce some of the compulsory powers.
6.24 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to take a somewhat different view from noble Lords who have already spoken. I am consistent in taking this view, because I did in fact voice it during the earlier debates in this House; and it is worth remembering that the debates in this House greatly improved Part III of that particular Agriculture Bill, which I think was hardly debated at all in another place because those clauses came up at some hour in the early morning when Members were too tired to give them much attention. I have always thought it a mistake to represent rural development boards, as set out in Part III of the Act, as such a panacea as noble Lords have again represented this afternoon. That does not mean that I do not recognise the problem of the hills, because I have lived on the edge of the hills all my life and appreciate as much as any noble Lord here the difficulty of making farming snore intensive. I know how isolation offers little choice of occupation for those who live in the hills, and, furthermore, how that same isolation makes public services more expensive.
It really is not true for noble Lords to represent that nobody in the Ministry of Agriculture or in any other place has given real thought to this problem over a very long time. They may not have reached an easy and complete solution, but then it is very rare for any Government ever to produce complete solutions to any longstanding problems. A great deal of thought has been given over a very long time; and some of us who have perhaps taken part in such planning would agree that a small amending of much of the existing legislation—for

551
example, the Forestry Acts, the provisions of the Price Review, many of the grant-giving powers of the Agriculture Acts, the recent Development of Tourism Act, together with a number of powers in the hands of county councils—could greatly change this picture, without the necessity of setting up an organisation which cuts right across a large number of existing authorities.
This is one of the arguments that I voiced against the rural development boards during the earlier debates, and I am going to repeat it briefly now, if I may. It is a mistake lightheartedly to set up new bodies of this kind with no local responsibilities; even if members live in the area, they are all appointed by a Minister of the Crown and receive varying emoluments for their services. They are given very wide powers which cut right across county boundaries and could cut right across National Park boundaries. They cut across the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and not least the advisory estate management services, which used to be called the Agricultural Land Service, but may now have a new name. They cut across the Forestry Commission's powers. The Forestry Commission has regional advisory committees as well as a central authority. And they cut across the provisions of the tourist authorities set up under the recent Act. I cannot believe that something as untidy as that can really be represented as good government.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord in what way the powers of the Board cut across the Forestry Commission's powers?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the Forestry Commission is the forest authority in this country and has been since 1919, and it seems to me strange that a rural development board or any other body of this sort should in fact be given functions concerned with forestry which go beyond what the forestry authority has ever been given by Parliament.
All Governments, I think, are too ready to project themselves into the regions, and there are, of course, new opportunities for patronage here. Having said that, I am going to say that all the tributes paid to the chairman of the
552
North Pennines Rural Development Board are very well deserved. A great deal of the credit which the Board has won for itself is due to him; he is as good an appointment as the late Governments' appointment for chairman of the Welsh Board was a bad one. I think noble Lords ought to bear all this in mind when they are considering the future of such matters.
We must beware, too, of what I would call package offers, which the central Government are always very adept at. That is to say, they put a lot of things together and include a little jam for the few, and then if you criticise too much or in fact oppose the whole scheme—which I think is the reason why there was not a Division on these clauses when this Part of the Agriculture Act was discussed—you are said to be a spoil sport. I do not look on these rural development boards as a great forward-looking experiment, or as a pilot scheme. The area is 3,000 square miles. If it were a quarter of that size I would agree that it could fairly be represented as a pilot scheme. It is no more a pilot scheme than the ground-nuts scheme, which we all knew so much about twenty years ago, was a pilot scheme. It was something launched on a full scale.
As for the support which is said to have been given, I think it is quite understandable that the National Farmers' Union should give support in various terms, not least since a number of their members, if not too many, were likely to gain something thereby, they being members living in parts of England where probably farming was under the gravest pressure. I think it is natural, too, that the C.L.A. should offer a certain measure of support in such circumstances.
With regard to the county councils, I know of a spokesman for one county council in the area who jumped in and offered the warmest welcome before the county council had ever expressed any view at all on it. I think there is divided opinion among members of the county councils, and certainly from the correspondence I have had recently on this particular subject I am sure it is fair to say that the feelings about the Rural Development Board are much more critical, and that the feeling that they are not the ideal answer to this problem is in fact growing stronger. Therefore, I

553
would represent that the Government are right in not carrying forward this great experiment (as it has been called) but instead should themselves see how the existing powers in the hands of Government Departments and major organisations such as the Forestry Commission can be turned into something which meets the real need.
I am not worried about the control over certain transfers of land, or indeed the powers of compulsory purchase which have been referred to from the other side. I hope that, when the Government do come up with something else locally elected representation is brought more closely into their plan. Under the existing plan such people are entirely excluded.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask for a little explanation of a phrase which I did not very much like, about "jam". What was the meaning of that word? It is usually used in a very pejorative sense. I should like the noble Lord to make quite clear that he did not mean it in that sense. If by "jam" he meant that a certain number of hard-pressed farmers get some help, I would accept that; but I should like clarification.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was not being offensive about this at all. A small number of people are going to get some help, but a very large number of people will in fact not get any help. This seems to me to be the wrong way of achieving the objective, not least in the light of the experience of the Price Review and the grant-giving and other organisations with which we are familiar. If I used a word which, as I am afraid it did, confused the noble Lord, I can only say that I am sorry; I hope others understood.
6.34 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I intervene modestly in this debate because I suppose I am one of the smallest landowners in the House. I have three acres in mid-Wales which I let to a sheep farmer for grazing a few sheep. I make no protestations of having first-hand knowledge of farming, but for some time I was in the Welsh Office as a Minister and I became all too familiar with the discussions which went on in Wales concerning
554
the proposed rural development board there. I wish to say a word or two about that in a moment.
I was extremely sorry at the tone used by the noble Lord who has just sat down regarding the chairman of the proposed Welsh Rural Development Board. Some criticism may have been made that possibly the chairman was a little elderly for this particular job, but he stands very high indeed in Welsh farming circles, and of course is the greatest expert on Welsh cobs, which is important in our hill fanning areas. I think it is a great pity that the noble Lord should have used the expression which he did, in the way he did, about Dr. Phillips.
May I revert to the opening speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby? I felt that he put with such moderation and yet with such persuasive skill, with such weight and intimate knowledge of the problem, the feelings which indeed are shared by so many of us. Had there been no problem, there would not have been this section of the 1967 Act. If we were all perfectly content and happy at the state of our hill farming areas, of the hill farmers and their families themselves and also of the other members of the community, then there would be no need for this experiment. But, surely, any of us who have any experience, whether as farmers or simply as residents in such areas, must know that we have not yet found satisfactory ways of meeting the balance between farming in difficult circumstances, forestry, tourism and the amenity interests, and such industrial development as we may be able to sustain in these areas.
There is this problem of balance, and one of the objectives of the proposed Rural Development Board in Wales and of the Board which was established in the North Pennines area, was to try to adjust the balance in a way most beneficial to the community as a whole. I cannot speak with any intimate knowledge of the North Pennines area, though I did inform myself from some of those who have been working directly with the Board as to their experience there. But so far as the area which was designated in Wales is concerned, I can say that over generations now we have had a continuing problem of low living standards and of depopulation. To some degree,

555
we have managed to stem absolute depopulation in that area. But if one analyses the changes in the age structure of the population, one cannot help realising that it is an ageing population, and that one is still losing the younger and more vigorous element in the area, quite simply because they cannot find an adequate outlet for their talents; nor can their families on the hill farms accumulate sufficient capital to give them the kind of expectations which young people nowadays naturally pursue.
We were, therefore, trying to help on the questions of balance, of depopulation and, by no means least, the great work of the existing farmers who, as we know very well, are fanning on land which is poor. Inclement weather has already been mentioned. The part of Wales where I live is very wet, although perhaps not so cold as the North Pennines. But the holdings are small, and the configuration of the land, as well as being of small size, is such that there is a limit to the benefits which the farmers can obtain from intensive farming or from mechanisation. In any case, such smallholders cannot afford to carry the heavy burden of overheads or to have anything more than a limited amount of mechanisation.
We in Wales were deprived entirely of any benefit which such a scheme might have brought to the area that I have attempted to describe. There was pursued a political campaign of sustained misrepresentation such as one has hardly witnessed since the Post Office Savings scheme of nearly fifty years ago. I say this without any exaggeration, although it may surprise your Lordships that I should use such terms. But really, those of us who witnessed the kind of public campaign which was carried out against this Board, I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, by the Liberal Party as well as by the Conservative Party—
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I agree, and deeply deplore what happened; but to do the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, justice, one of the reasons for this extraordinary campaign was in no small measure due to injudicious remarks which frightened the Welshmen out of their wits.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I do not think that we are as easily frightened
556
as all that. But there were other factors of which those of us who know something about farming in Wales are aware. There is not just one fanning organisation in Wales, but two. They are rivals. The in-fighting which went on, and the competition which went on between these two rival farming organisations, with the Rural Development Board as a football between them had to be seen to be believed. We had a public hearing of almost record-breaking length before Sir Bowen Thomas, which recommended certain boundary changes, but otherwise nothing of substance. I must say that the present Minister of State at the Welsh Office, himself a landowner in Mid-Wales, was one of the most vociferous opponents of the scheme, and I cannot pretend that I was surprised that, with the change of Government, the Welsh scheme was not carried forward. Surely our own domestic politics in the Principality are not a reason for abandoning at this stage a scheme which, in spite of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seems to have had a very considerable measure of support, and when a considerable measure of regret has been expressed at the proposed demise of the Board.
As your Lordships will recall, it is not long since we had a debate in your Lordships' House (it was on January 27) on the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has far more extensive powers than this comparatively moderate proposal. One did not hear in that debate—and I listened to a good deal of it—complaints about the Board's powers or its conduct. Quite the contrary: there were warm congratulations from all sides. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who on that occasion was speaking for the Government, did not seem to me to have any ideological difficulties, or philosophical agonies, about the Highlands and Islands Development Board. At least, she gave no voice to them, even if she harboured them in her breast. Therefore I cannot see what is the ideological or philosophical problem for the Government in this matter.
In fact, when I myself was at the Welsh Office I had the pleasure of visiting the Highlands and Islands Board in Inverness, and had very long talks with Sir Robert Grieve, the then Chairman, and his colleagues, and saw a number of their

557
projects. At that time we were looking very carefully at the possibility of some such organisation for Wales, and we were very much attracted to the idea. On balance, we decided against it because we felt that it was possibly over-elaborate for the much smaller area of Wales to which it would have applied. There were also some problems posed by existing organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred in his speech, and which I admit freely are one of the difficulties in these areas. It was with the very sincere desire to do some positive good for Mid-Wales, and particularly the hill farming areas, that the idea of the Rural Development Board was put forward.
If the Government are abandoning this proposal, I think we are entitled to hear from the noble Lord who is to speak for them what they have in mind. Various difficulties have been mentioned. I was particularly glad that the noble Viscount who opened the debate mentioned the possible difficulty we may encounter in the European Economic Community. As I understand it—and also those more expert in this matter whom I have consulted—the concept of the Rural Development Board will not be difficult to fit into—possibly with some modifications—the kind of arrangements which are acceptable to the Community. On the other hand, the hill farming subsidies may run into all kinds of difficulties.
I must say that, before I threw out this particular baby with the bath water, I should wish to be very much clearer about what our position was going to be vis-à-vis the European Economic Community. Why this haste? We are not yet certain how these negotiations will ultimately proceed, or what the end will be. I should have thought we might at least have waited a little longer to see, before we disposed entirely with what seems to be a possible instrument of assistance to farmers in these very difficult parts of the country.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, may I just assist the noble Baroness on that point of the French experience? In the Massif Central area there is a place called Auvergne, where there is a Government agency that has been set up for the purpose of improving the structure of the farmholdings there. I am told that over the years they have in fact bought 60,000
558
acres, of which they have now sold back 50,000 to the farmers, so improving the farm structure.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am much indebted to the noble Viscount. It was partly that example that I had in mind, because I have been informed that that was a particularly germane experience which, as I say, was acceptable under the arrangements of the E.E.C. I believe also chat in the Mezzogiorno, in Italy, there are some comparable experiments which would also be suitable. This is one problem on which I think we ought to have some reply from the noble Lord who is to speak for the Government.
Are we to understand that they are entirely abandoning any attempt further to improve the situation in these hill farming areas? Or are we to have some reassurances on different lines—on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—of the strengthening or extension of powers of the existing bodies of various sorts? This may be one line of attack. But the problem remains one of co-ordination of the different interests. This is a very real problem indeed.
I must admit that in Mid-Wales we have too many organisations; we have too many fingers in a rather meagre pie. I do not pretend that in our Administration we overcame this problem, but I still think that, within its limits, the Rural Development Board was at least a step in the right direction; and if it is now to be abandoned then we should certainly be told what alternative the Government have in mind, because I can discover nothing in the White Paper which indicated that they had really alternative proposals. In the meantime, I can only say that I am sorry that the Pennines are now to be deprived of the assistance which was coming their way and that we, in Wales, never had a sixpence.
I believe that if the Welsh farmers who were so vociferous at the time, and also their wives, had realised what help might have been coining to them, they might have taken a somewhat different view. The whole question of compulsory purchase of land, which was vestigial in the total scheme as the actual experience of the Northern Pennines has shown, was exaggerated to a degree, which meant that the farmers in the area overlooked some

559
of the other very significant benefits which they might have had. I can only hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, to-night what positive and constructive proposals the Government have to take the place of a body which, although there have been some critical voices, nevertheless received a very considerable measure of public support.
6.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am sure we should all like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for giving us an opportunity to discuss these matters. I cannot go the whole way with him because I am not necessarily in total agreement that the Board should be reinstated. I think that the Government deserve severe censure for the very short notice they have given to the Rural Development Board of its death. It may be that in the end the sharp knife is less painful than the blunt instrument, but the sharp knife leads to more bleeding and greater trouble while it is in use.
I should also like to pay a very real tribute, as has already been done by other noble Lords, to the Chairman of the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, Mr. Cowen, who I believe is a man of great ability and experience and in every way fitted to his task. I am certain that his particular and really expert knowledge of these matters is something which must not be lost to the country or to the Northern Pennines rural area. Furthermore, he was ably supported by his Board and by the staff of his organisation, and I feel that they have been badly let down.
Problems exist in the hill areas, and the danger is that, by removing the Rural Development Board and pushing the dust under the carpet, the problems will be thought to have ceased to exist. I hope the Government will not take that view because the fact is that the problems are getting worse day by day. The unprofitability of sheep farming is something which not even a Tory Government can do anything about overnight; nor, I suppose, will the Common Market or any of the other plans. But one must realise that not only are these hill farms, particularly in the Pennines area, unprofitable; some of them are actually losing money on a very large scale. I know of
560
one or two farms in the Cheviot Hills where half the sheep stock, which may take years to re-establish, was abolished in one snow-storm.
The Board had begun, in a very real and practical way, to do what it was asked to do. It had set out to try to integrate all the various interests involved in the hill areas; that is to say, tourism, rural bus transport, forestry and agriculture. I believe that it made a very good start indeed on that, and that the structure planning and data accumulation which was going on must not be lost. Like other noble Lords, I trust that the Government will realise that the work which has been done must not be lost, and that other methods must be found to continue this work.
I should like to refer to a problem to which detailed reference has not been made; that is, the age-old controversy between forestry and agriculture. But before doing so I might add that I speak principally, if not entirely, about forestry in National Parks, because there are three National Parks, if not more, in the Northern Pennines area, and they are some of the most important in the North of England. The Board covered the whole of the National Park to which I wish principally to refer—that is, the Northumberland Park—and would have been responsible for a great deal of the forestry activities there if it had been allowed to continue in existence. What is happening as a result of this wholesale dereliction of the sheep farming industry in this area is that the hill farms are almost invariably all going for forestry. One after the other, they are being purchased by the Forestry Commission or by private forestry interests. I do not wish people to think that I am wholly against forestry—I am not. I believe that forestry has a very important part to play in these hill areas. But we must see that there is a compromise between forestry and the other interests, particularly those of agriculture and recreation.
Some of the most important powers that the Board had (I will not waste time on exactly what powers it had in this respect) were powers to say, after considering the various conflicting interests, that such-and-such a piece of land should be planted or should not be planted. Those were very valuable powers indeed,

561
and I hope that the Government will seriously consider how they propose to replace these powers. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seemed to think that planning powers would cover this point. I am sure he is aware—though it did not seem to me to be quite clear in what he said—that planning permission, in any sense or form, is not required for any forestry operation.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting into my mind thoughts which were not there. I was thinking that this might be covered by some co-ordination between the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, and perhaps some small amendment of their powers.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for putting thoughts into his mind: I would never dream of doing such a thing. He has put what I wanted to say much better than I could say it, and I entirely agree with him. There must be some control over this aspect in everybody's interest. It seems absolutely absurd—and I speak principally, but not entirely, for a National Park—that, should the Forestry Commission require to build a garage for a farmworker in one of their villages, they require planning permission. But if they wish to convert 300,000 square miles and completely change the landscape by planting alien conifer trees, no planning permission is required.
I trust that the Government will consider some method of doing what is required. I recognise that planning authorities are not universally popular, that some members of planning authorities may have different views from mine, and that some authorities are not renowned for agreeing to any sort of forestry, particularly in the county from which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, comes. That is history, and perhaps we need not go into it further. But there must be integration between forestry and agriculture in these hill areas. There are many examples of where one has helped the other by providing both employment and shelter for those areas which are to remain under farming.
I would press the Government to consider giving National Park planning authorities control over forestry—subject,
562
as in all planning decisions, to appeal machinery. I believe that the appeal machinery could well be exercised by the Minister himself, and if "Environment" means anything in the name of a Department this is surely one of the tasks it could take on. Equally important—and this is another part of the machinery which exists—is the Countryside Commission. They can surely play a more important part. I believe that they would be willing, and I am certain that they would be very able to do so.
My Lords, these are matters that concern me very much, because if we are not careful we shall find that, one by one, the whole of the hill farms will be planted up without any amenity or agricultural consideration, especially as the forestry interests, whether private or public, are mostly operating with taxpayers' money. I know that the noble Lord who will reply will be told to say that we must depend upon the voluntary agreement of, I think, 1961; that there is a voluntary agreement between planning authorities and forestry authorities. That is wonderful so long as everybody agrees. But a voluntary agreement without agreement is by definition practically worthless. It is not true to say that the voluntary agreement has been universally successful. There are many cases where it has been successful and it should be tried. But I am certain that there are, equally, cases where it has not yet worked and where disagreement exists between the forestry interests who want certain land and other interests who are anxious at all costs to keep that land out of forestry.
I realise that some people will be denied the opportunity of selling their land for the highest price which may be obtainable in the open market. The price for forestry at the moment is a great deal higher than the price for hill sheep land. This is influenced by the influx of taxpayers' money. Nevertheless, we must realise that to some extent all planning involves restrictions on land use, some of which may mean that a person is not able to get the best market price obtainable. We need look no further than Green Belt legislation to see what I am talking about. It must follow inevitably that the State may itself, or through local authorities, have to buy or manage some of this land if it wishes to keep it open

563
for recreational purposes. I trust the Government will realise that this matter is very urgent, and that some form of new Green or White Paper will come out shortly which will tell us what is going to happen in these hill areas. If we do not do something, then within a very short time we shall see that the whole of the Northern Pennines area is covered with conifer trees, and the Woolsack, when it next has to be re-stuffed, will have to be filled with pine needles and not wool.
7.0 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for intervening in this debate and for the fact that my name is not on the list of speakers, due to the fact that I am never quite sure when I can be in the House. At the same time, your Lordships will recognise my interest and concern for rural life, coming from the quarter from which I do, and having seen pretty well all my life, from one side or the other, the problems which have faced farmers in general and hill farmers, marginal land farmers, in particular. I saw what happened to the farming industry after the second world war and I read what happened to the farming industry after the first world war, and I have always wished to see some element of planning and co-ordination in our agricultural sector, both in terms of the economy of the industry and in terms of its social side. Therefore, I was one who from the beginning strongly advocated the establishment of these Development Boards, believing as I did, and still do, that the enhancement of rural life, and the quality of that life and of work in the country, depends so much upon the success of such an experiment, if you wish to call it that.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson has mentioned the White Paper of 1965. I want to reiterate—and I think it is worth while—what the prime objects of these Development Boards are. They are, first of all, to try to stop or restrain the depopulation of areas like Wales—and I deplore what happened in Wales, and used what influence I had to stop it happening there. But clearly, the undue depopulation of hill areas—the Northern Pennines, in this instance—would be very
564
damaging to the people of that area, and indeed damaging to the whole country, because if our hill-lands are allowed to go into decline, then the value of those highlands from a social point of view, from the point of view of the attraction of tourists, would in my view be entirely lost. Forestry and hill farming need to be continued to keep this part of England, and similar parts of England, contained within what has been called our national garden. The Boards had to bear in mind the restructuring of farms; the maintenance and, wherever possible, the improvement of services and ameneties in the area; and, as I understand it, they were charged with the co-ordination of agriculture and of forestry, and, indeed, with the integration of industry in the sense that one usually talks of industry, again where this is possible and where it can be done in a sensible way. This clearly would be in the interests of all those involved.
The White Paper of 1965 was the outcome of a good deal of thought and a good deal of study. It recognised that there were special areas, and in particular these hill farming areas, which require special consideration and special treatment, and it sought to provide, through the Board, the machinery whereby this special consideration could be given. This, as has been said in this debate very clearly, was recognised in Parliament by many people on both sides; and, more important, as I know from my own experience from my old contacts not only with farmers but with many thousands of workers in the industry, the concept was enthusiastically accepted and endorsed by the people in the area concerned. I know that the people I am talking about now feel that they are being abandoned to economic forces which they are in no position to meet or resist. I think that this is gravely unfortunate, and I believe that if the Government could do something, by way of thinking again, to satisfy people that their livelihood and their social lives are still the concern of the people of this country, it would be an extremely good thing.
My Lords, I have no right, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the agricultural workers: I am no longer General Secretary of that union, although of course I remain a member of it. But I can tell

565
your Lordships, because I still keep contacts with my friends, that the N.U.A.A.W. is convinced that if the Government carry out their proposed intention to wind up the Northern Pennines Board it will prove a grave setback to all those who wish to see and hope to achieve an improvement of work and life in that area. I know—I have already emphasised this—the need for a body of this description to assist in reinvigorating the social and economic life of the more impoverished rural areas, particularly those in the hills; and I recall very vividly that at our (I say "our"; I mean my old union's) 1968 biennial conference this item was on the agenda and the whole conference unanimously supported the then Government's intention to establish these Rural Development Boards. The point was then made which has been made to-day: that it was urgently necessary for the forestry, the agricultural and the other rural interests to be further developed and further integrated, and that of course was and is the central purpose of the Rural Development Board.
That my old union still holds this view is made clear by a statement made by the present General Secretary, Mr. Reg Bottini, who has uttered a strong protest about this proposed move by the Government. After referring to depopulation as being one of the serious problems in these areas, he said—and I am quoting him:
"The Board has an enormous potential for doing what is, and still is, urgently required".
I agree with him when he goes on to say:
"Too little has been heard of what, in its very short life, the Board has already achieved".
Among other things, there has been the subsidisation and consequent retention of certain bus services in certain areas.
I was, if I may say so, concerned to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had to say about the function of the Board cutting across other interests. There are, of course, interests concerned with certain aspects which the Board has to look at, but I suggest to your Lordships that the Board looks at these interests in a rather different way—if I may use the word, in a rather broader way. I do not think that the object of the Board ought to be (certainly I would oppose it) to enter
566
into conflict with other authorities or other interests which ought to have the right to make their views known and to make decisions in their sectors. But surely the Development Board has the prime function of co-ordinating these various interests; of co-ordinating, as we have explained, forestry, agriculture and other rural industries; as my noble friend Baroness White has said, to see what can be done by introducing some degree of industry into the area, and to integrate this in order to create a general rural development in the interests of all the people.
I know, as I think every one of your Lordships knows, that there is a need for help and assistance to be given to farmers on marginal and hill land unless they are to be utterly wiped out and utterly to disappear. I do not think anyone would wish that to happen. I do not want to say anything more about that, because I think enough has been said. It is not only a question of giving financial aid where it is needed; there is a very strong social aspect appertaining to the work of the Board. We have heard of the functions—the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, mentioned them—and the social services in which the Board can assist, such as in putting in telephones, electricity, water, roads, transport and gas where gas is available. All these are adjuncts to modern civilised life, and it is important that one should not forget that the Board, in making it possible to put in these services, is enhancing and uplifting the whole of the social life of the area concerned.
Finally, the Board has also an obligation, I think, to "sell" the countryside—in the case of this particular Board, the Pennines—in all its beauty to the rest of the people of this country. It does this by giving assistance to and by developing the tourist trade by providing beds and so on. It still remains true, unfortunately, that in this country many townspeople know nothing at all about agriculture and forestry and the other rural pursuits. Sometimes I think it an even greater pity that they have not learned to appreciate the beauties of our countryside, enhanced by the farming activities and forestry activities which must go on.
I think it is significant that the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Plumb, the C.L.A.

567
and my old union, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, through its spokesman Mr. Bottini, have all protested at the proposals now made by the Government. It is also significant that highly respectable farming papers like Farming Weekly and the Farmer and Stockbreeder have also criticised the Government for this move. It may be that their criticism is a little premature. I hope so. My noble friends here have asked the Government what they intend to put in the place of the Board. I do not think that one should destroy a thing before having an alternative ready to put into operation. Frankly, I am on my feet to support the noble Viscount—not in the sense of asking the Government what alternative proposals they have, but to ask them, in view of all that has been said, in view of all the sincerity which has been quite apparent, to reconsider their decision on this matter and to revoke it.
7.14 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I have two apologies to make: first, that my name was not on the list, and secondly, that I should have to detain your Lordships longer at this hour. But I can claim that when I saw this Question on the Order Paper I let the noble Viscount know that I should be delighted to say a word or two about this particular matter, because it was once my job in days gone by to take part not only in the passing of the 1967 Agriculture Act which made this Rural Development Board possible but in many other things as well. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I was a little surprised as his criticisms. I do not take the same light view of the opinions of the National Farmers' Union in that area, nor of the C.L.A. When he said that a little "jam" had been given to some members of the N.F.U. and then explained that by "jam" he meant help but inferred that this bought their support for the Development Board, and as a consequence the C.L.A.—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I used that word and perhaps I did so wrongly. The point I wanted to make was that over this whole vast area the actual amount of financial support that any individual was going to receive was, in
568
comparison with the very substantial support under other headings, really very small. I was trying to put the thing in the right perspective. I was not trying to be offensive. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am willing to accept the noble Lord's explanation, but I ant bound to tell him that in the course of his speech he used these words, and these words he tagged on to the C.L.A. as their having been impressed by this little bit of help. I am delighted to hear that he did not mean what he said.
My Lords, I want to say a little about why this Board was formed and to deal with the powers of the Board It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, saying that if there were only a slight amendment introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture, as between themselves and the Forestry Commission, then all would be well in these areas. If that were so—well, he was Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture long enough to have had that little Amendment passed. I know that we cannot do everything we want. Just as we had ground nuts, as he says, so he had his Crichel Down. These things happen in the course of normal public life. Merely to recall them does not provide a solution of the problem in this case.
If I had had time, if the hour were not so late, I had proposed to give a lot of long quotations from Hansard from the debate when this particular Board was set up. I am bound to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that it was not done during the night. Those clauses in the Bill which made this Board possible were not discussed during the night; they were discussed in a Committee upstairs and all the sessions took place in the forenoon. I do not think we even hurried them. There are those here in this House, as Members of this House, and perhaps one or two looking on, who know that we went on endlessly, week after week, on that particular Bill. I think we had 26 or 28 sittings. So the noble Lord's argument that it was hurried has no substance at all.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was quite wrong in that respect; I withdraw it entirely. I was recalling the debates here and the background to them. I was honestly under the impression that

569
that particular clause when it came here was represented as not having been discussed sufficiently. If I am wrong, then I apologise.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there are those within his hearing who will tell him that we discussed it for a very long time. I will content myself with one quotation from a Conservative Party speech when this Order was before the House. The spokesman for the Party—and I am talking about the Front Bench—said:
"The Board has an important job to do in the upland areas, many parts of which are not thriving as they should."—
I thought that that was an understatement—
"De-population and run down are apparent."
Those were conditions as outlined not by anyone on this side but by a Conservative spokesman. It was for these reasons, whether one agreed wholeheartedly or not, that we decided to set up these development corporations to satisfy the needs of the whole area. Indeed, we thought that we could have a combination of forestry, of agriculture and of tourism, as tourism was a fairly important adjunct in these areas; because if we were to go on developing agriculture and forestry, then at the end of the day there was going to be a considerable number of people in the area who would need to have some other form of earnings, and tourism was a natural one for those areas. We have heard the figures, we have heard of even owners, farmers in their own right, whose return, as the noble Viscount said, is about £500 per annum—I think that that was the figure he used—less than an agricultural worker's minimum wage. I know this because one of my duties when at the Ministry was to look after this area; so I knew it, I think I may claim, fairly intimately and I can vouch for what was going on. We thought that if we could do these things we should be making a contribution not only to the economy of the area but also to its social life which would allow these areas to retain people who were disappearing from the counties. This was the whole objective.
It was said that everyone was frightened about the compulsory powers, but this was a complete nonsense. During
570
the Committee stage proceedings on the Bill it was proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it was a nonsense. But in case people think this, I would say that I remember very well that Section 46 of the 1967 Act included an Amendment which we were happy to accept from the Opposition and which laid down perfectly clearly that the boards could have land for general purposes, for things like private housing and roads and other amenities, only by voluntary agreement. They had not the power of compulsion to take land: voluntary agreements had to be entered into. Any compulsory powers were the most minimal. We were giving these rural development boards much less power than any other comparable board or authority in the country. So I am certain that noble Lords will see immediately that what we did was to give the scheme the best of good will.
When the Northern Pennines Board started off there was not a single person who said that it could not work unless it had good will. It did not matter from which side of the House he spoke, not a single person said that the Board did not have the good will of the community. Everyone said it had a great deal of good will, and everyone respected the people who had been appointed to serve on it. If anyone wants further proof I would say that I recall a Member of another place who represents the area commending the Government for putting the headquarters of the Board at Appleby. He said that it was a great help; that, with the little committee that was formed, the Board had been run economically, only £20,000 being involved for the first year. Nothing had been so well done, he said. The headquarters had been admirably placed and the staff was just about the right number. The cost was economical. In view of this, we are a little surprised at the decision of the Government.
I want to ask the noble Lord, in conclusion: what is the use of the Government's coming to this House or to another place and saying that agriculture is so tremendously important—especially the hill land agriculture—in connection with our negotiations about going into the E.E.C.? "We will protect the hill lands and uplands," they said. "We will look to see what we can do for them." But to-night they are doing something which is to the detriment of the hill lands and

571
uplands. They are committing an act which is harmful, and it is difficult to believe that they can claim to be looking after the interests of these areas in the E.E.C. negotiations when they are proposing to perpetrate this action which is outlined in the White Paper.
In the course of this debate there have been 10 or 11 speakers and, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, every single Member of your Lordships' House has disocciated himself—some 100 per cent.; some only perhaps 90 per cent., and some 80 per cent.—from the action of the Government. Surely the lesson of this debate (I am not holding the noble Lord, Lord Denham, personally responsible: he answers for the Department; he is not of the Department) is that it is his duty in the circumstances to go back to the Minister—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that some of us have not spoken because we wish to have mercy on the House?
LORD HOY: My Lords, if there are any more speakers to come, they will be on this side of the House. It reminds me a little of debates in another place, when all the speakers were on the Tory Benches and attacking a Labour Government. Never did I think that I would live to see the day when in a debate on agriculture every speaker on both sides of the House would be "going for" a Conservative Government. It is a complete reversal.
I suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government that it is not yet too late to have another look at the matter. After all, it is only six months ago that his noble friend was saying that the Government had no intention of getting rid of this Rural Development Board. So it is not too late for the Government to give this House and your Lordships that assurance. It is not too late for the noble Lord to say that they have had one more look at the matter. If they can do it with Rolls-Royce, involving millions of pounds, they can have another look at this, where only some thousands of pounds are at stake. I say most seriously to the noble Lord that he should do so. He cannot leave the matter where the White Paper has left it; he has to go much further. If
572
the Government are going to do this to the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board, the noble Lord has to show that something has taken its place. If not, he will be condemned by every right-thinking person living in that area.
LORD SLATER: My Lords—
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Slater, begins his speech, may I have the guidance of the Deputy Leader of the House? Can some attention be paid to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said? May I, with great respect, draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the noble Lord who introduced this debate spoke for 12 minutes and that the seven people who took the trouble to put their names down each spoke for an average of 11 minutes? We have just had two speakers who had not put their names down; one spoke for 16 minutes and the other for 12 minutes. After the guidance from his noble friend, who suggested that he might have mercy on the rest of the House, it seems to me that with an Unstarred Question like this, everything that can be said was said two hours—no my Lords, not quite that; an hour ago, and that it really is going a bit too far to give us more.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it is not my purpose or intention to keep the House very long—a matter of two minutes. I put my name down later, and I expected it to be passed on to the Government Benches by the Messengers of the House. However, my Lords, the thing that shocked me—if anything has shocked me since I came to this House—was the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood; particularly when he said that he was objecting to forms of appointment and the payment of emoluments for services rendered. He took objection to the appointments to this particular Board by the Minister of the day. I was pleased that we had in the House to-day the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, from Northumberland, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnard, from Durham, which is the area from where I come; for we have much rural development within that county. Before I came to your Lordships' House, and when I was in another place, I used to visit the forestry areas and meet the men working on the forestry estates. We would hear

573
what they had to say about their employment. I was delighted to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, had to say about agricultural workers, because from the three rural areas I cover and from the agricultural workers working in them I have received telephone messages over the week-end urging me to support the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, which I am doing.
I am rather surprised at the Government. It is not so long ago that they gave their assurance that nothing was going to be done to revoke what had been done by the previous Government. Now we find that they have taken action on this occasion. I should like to direct this question to the Minister who is to reply for the Government. Why is it, when the Tory Party in another place and even in this House have a good agricultural lobby, the Government should seek to get rid of this Board? Is it because they were not the Government responsible for setting it up?
7.31 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, may I begin my reply to this very interesting debate by answering the two questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Slater? The answer to the first question, why the Tory Government are getting rid of this Board, I hope will emerge from my speech, which will be devoted to that subject. The answer to his second question is, No. Our debate to-day has shown considerable differences of view about the Government's decision to abolish the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board. They range from the outright hostile through the selectively critical, to the gallant but rather lonely support of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, not counting, of course, the benevolent silence of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—that is, to the House and not to this Dispatch Box. Your Lordships' interest in this matter is a tribute to the hard work and energy of the chairman and members of the Board and of its staff, which has characterised the Board's administration. I should like therefore to pay tribute to these qualities and to emphasise that the Government's decision to end the Board's existence in no way reflects upon the way in which the chairman and members of the Board and its staff have carried out their respective responsibilities during the
574
past 18 months. The Government's complaint is against the concept of the Board itself and its functions, which we believe to be incompatible with our general approach to the business of Government. We believe, quite simply, that there is too much government and too much intervention in the affairs of the individual which is stifling self-help and private initiative in too many fields.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has outlined in a White Paper the way in which he proposes to reduce the activity of Government in the field in which he is responsible. The decision to wind up the Board is part of this overall approach. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, was kind enough to give me notice of a number of questions that he proposed to raise. One concerned the sources from which my right honourable friend the Minister took advice before coming to his decision. I am sure the noble Viscount will accept that it would not be in accordance with our custom if I were to reveal in detail the full range of sources from which a Minister seeks or receives advice, but I can tell him that in the present instance the Minister had discussions with the chairman of the Board, and also had the usual range of advice from his own officials, including his regional controllers for the areas concerned. If the noble Viscount is suggesting that the Minister was not fully informed as to the state of local opinion about the Board, then I can assure him that this was not the case.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on to the next part of his speech, may I ask him whether the chairman was given an opportunity of defending the Board before the Minister had come to his decision?
LORD DENHAM: I think so, my Lords. I do not want to state that categorically, and if I may I will write to the noble Viscount about it.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, may I also ask another question, perhaps rather more easily answered: whether the Minister consulted his own Hill Farming Advisory Committee before coming to a decision?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as I said to the noble Viscount, it is not the general practice to give full details of

575
the sort of advice the Minister takes before coming to his conclusions, and I think that I cannot go further than that.
The Board's functions are in three main fields: the purchase and sale of farms, the control of forestry and the promotion of tourism and local services. I should like to say a word about each. In the first field of land transactions, the Board had powers to buy up land both directly and indirectly by preventing the owner from selling to a buyer of his own choice. In fact the Board has made remarkably little use of this power. I personally believe in a free market in land, so I make no complaint about that. But the Board's failure to act in this field highlights all too clearly its essential dilemma. If the Board had chosen to intervene extensively in the land market, it would have aroused extensive antagonism among the people in its area. It would have lost their good will and then would have been unable to carry on effectively its other functions. If, on the other hand, as has been the case, it intervenes only rarely in the land market, it is never going to have a significant impact on the problems of farm structure in its area. In the meantime, the Board must carry the cost of maintaining an apparatus of control and inspection, and purchasers and sellers of land and their agents must undergo the extra expense and inconvenience of applying for the Board's consent, all for very small results. That is our major complaint about the concept of the Board.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this important point, could he make some reference to the 233 cases, in which I understand the Board did use its power of persuasion? It was not obliged to use its ultimate power of purchase, but I understood my noble friend to say that in nearly half of the transactions concerned the Board did in fact intervene by persuasion.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will come to that a little later in what I have to say.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I think other noble Lords suggested that if the Government disliked the Board's
576
land functions they should withdraw these and leave the Board to continue with its other functions. In the first place, this could not be done without legislation. Under the Agriculture Act 1967, the Board's powers have to be operated as a whole or not at all. In any event, this solution could not be justified on a cost-effective basis. Though the Board could save perhaps a few staff, the rest of its overheads would clearly remain much the same and the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit.
The other functions of the Board cover mainly two things—the granting of licences for afforestation and the giving of loans and grants for such purposes as the improvement of rural communications or the provision of tourist accommodation. As for the Board's powers for the control of forestry, as this debate has shown, views are divided. There has been criticism of the Board's actions in licensing afforestation in places where the National Park authorities have been opposed to it. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has said, the Board has been praised for decisions that reflect both economic needs as well as considerations of amenity, I very much hope that for the future those concerned with forestry will take full account of both these considerations, as indeed the voluntary agreement of 1961 provides. This, as has been mentioned, was between the Forestry Commission and the National Parks Commission, whose functions have now been passed on to the Countryside Commission, on the one hand, and the Country Landowners' Association and the Timber Growers' Organisation on the other. The agreement provides for forestry maps to be prepared jointly by park planning authorities and the Forestry Commission. These designate those areas within a National Park where there is a presumption for or against afforestation. This part of the agreement has not yet been applied within the Board's area, although I understand that preliminary discussions have begun.
My Lords, I mention this agreement, as my noble friend Lord Ridley expected I might, in order to make it clear that, given good will on both sides, there exists a constructive alternative to the Board's powers. Meanwhile, until the maps have been agreed, the 1961 agreement records

577
that the Country Landowners' Association and the Timber Growers' Organisation have recommended to their members submissions to park planning authorities of individual proposals for afforestation. I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Ridley that my information is that before the Board was set up voluntary agreement did work, and we are confident that it will work again. Nevertheless, we will keep an eye on this to make sure that we review the progress on how it does work.
As for the other powers, noble Lords have expressed their regret at the disappearance of a body with powers specifically designed to make life easier and more profitable for those who work in the hills. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, accused the Party to which I belong of having the attitude that we would rather see an area driven into decay than to have anything so odious as Government control; and my noble friend Lord Barnard suggested that the immediate reaction over the Government's decision in the area was one of dismay. These are two views on this subject, put in rather different terms but meaning rather the same thing. I would repeat, however, what my right honourable friend has said in another place on this aspect. He made it plain that the Government were not turning their hacks on the hills, and that they would be making further proposals. Your Lordships will not expect me to make any startling announcements in this House to-night, but I can assure your Lordships that everything that has been said in this very informed debate will be taken into consideration when these proposals are considered.
Various noble Lords have made comparisons between the Rural Development Board and the Highlands and Islands Board. The Highlands and Islands Board is a body with purposes and powers quite different from those of a rural development board. For example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is responsible for the development of a region in which many different economic activities are undertaken and where several different kinds of agriculture are practised. Those activities range from the most sophisticated industry—for example, the aluminium smelters at Invergordon—to small cottage industries,
578
and from crofting to the arable farming on the Lowlands around the Moray Firth. The Rural Development Board, however, is concerned with a purely rural area in which hill farming predominates. The powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board are such as it needs to develop the economy of its region. In particular, it does not have the Rural Development Board's powers to intervene in land transactions and to license forestry. But it has powers to make grants and loans for the purposes of industrial development or the fishing industry which are far more extensive, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, suggested, than the limited powers of a rural development board to help tourism or rural communications.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Would not my noble friend agree that such help to the tourist industry which the Rural Development Board can now extend could easily be done by the newly set up tourist authorities if some small amendments are made? There is no loss there.
LORD DENHAM: I think my noble friend is right. I was asked, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, whether the Highlands and Islands Development Board ever uses its powers to buy land compulsorily. The answer to that is that the Board has powers, but it has not used them so far.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and also, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, mentioned this problem with regard to future membership of the European Economic Community. So far as we can judge, a rural development board would be acceptable under the rules of the E.E.C. However, the Minister of Agriculture has made it clear that agricultural help to the hills will continue to be provided. I think that is all I can say on this particular subject to-night.
In the meanwhile, we have had to consider whether the kind of support that the Board could give to the economy of its area was justified by the cost of continuing its existence. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, suggested that the Board's intervention in land transfers had resulted in 233 cases in useful amalgamations; and this was the point upon which the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me a question a little

579
earlier. The noble Lord's comment is misleading: the Board did not intervene in any of these cases. There is therefore nothing to show that these amalgamations would not have taken place in any event.
The latest figures about the Board are these. The Board has spent or committed about £13,000 in grants. A similar amount is in the pipeline. But to do this and to exercise its other powers it is inescapable that administrative expenses for the previous calendar year will be in the region of £50,000. I recognise the care and economy with which the Board has conducted its affairs, but the fact is that, through no fault of its own, it is an expensive administrative instrument for executing the purposes for which it was set up. Among the most important of these purposes are functions such as the buying of land and of intervening in land transactions which are completely contrary to the present Government's philsophy; and since we cannot dictate to the Board which of its functions prescribed by Parliament it should execute and which it should not, and since the individual functions that I have described bring benefits inescapably disproportionate to the Board's administrative costs, the Government were fully justified in deciding that the right course was to end the Board's existence.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that it might have been an alternative to have slimmed the staff of the Board a little and to have kept the Board going?
LORD DENHAM: That was obviously an alternative that was before the Government, but in view of everything that I have said my own feeling is that the right decision was taken.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes home, would he listen to my cri de coeur? Would he give an undertaking to the House that if this Rural Development Board is abandoned in the hill districts of Britain he will not let the tycoons of the timber industry go free? Otherwise we shall see the hill farms of Britain covered with Christmas trees, to be sold eternally to the Common Market as the only hope of the future hill farmer of Great Britain.

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.