Lords Sitting of 7 March 1972

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

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
LORD THOMAS: 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 if there is information available to indicate whether the present rate of Government supported research and development work in the British aircraft industry is sufficient to ensure medium and long term benefit from future international export business.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, export possibilities are taken into account when requirements for new military aircraft are being considered and in the development programme. They also play a major part when the Government are considering requests from industry for aid in the development and launching of new civil aircraft. Whether the
2
present rate of Government-supported research and development work in the British aircraft industry is sufficient to ensure future export business in the medium and long term is a matter of judgment. Its level is subject to regular review in the light of Government policy and of the progress achieved by research here and abroad. Its results become apparent only as projects reach maturity years later and orders are won.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that thoughtful and comprehensive Answer. Is he aware that there is a growing feeling in sophisticated industry that there is insufficient drive behind official encouragement for such things as short take-off and short landing aircraft, quieter air jet engines and devices of that kind. which will have an important export commercial benefit or otherwise in the years to come?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the initiative in these matters in civil aircraft has to come of course from the industry itself. But, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Aerospace indicated in another place, specific contracts are now being negotiated with the British aircraft industry relating to exploratory engineering studies for a short/medium haul airliner. On the subject of reduction of noise, the level of expenditure in the last few years has been running at or over £1 million a year, and in the last year the Government bore rather more than a quarter of that.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in certain research establishments—and I am thinking particularly of Malvern—components and additions to aircraft, as opposed to complete aircraft, are a major element in their work, and that sometimes inventions and developments are frustrated so far as exports are concerned by the fact that by the rules of these establishments such developments cannot be offered to one single manufacturer or seller? While I am not expressing one view or the other, is he satisfied that the recommendations of the Working Party, which was originally set up I think by Mr. Mulley some years ago to secure the maximum spin-off benefit from these developments and research, have been put into practice by the Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is difficult ever to be satisfied on anything in this sphere, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal of activity and Government study and the closest collaboration between the industry and the Government. As to the particular point that the noble Lord raises, I shall be glad to look into it and to write to him.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in his inquiries he has taken into consideration the tremendous advantage to allied engineering and general engineering and the aerospace industry of a viable and prosperous research and technical development in the aviation industry, particularly with regard to investment in machine tools?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I think that that is certainly taken into account. The main point of course is to maintain a technological capability in this country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how soon the Government are going to change their policy with regard to the aircraft industry, as they have changed it in so many other directions? Are they likely to have £35 million or £50 million that they can fling away on research and development?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there is a Committee under Sir Robert Marshall sitting at the present time on the whole aero-
4
space question. We shall be debating this matter within the next few days. But the Government never have money to throw away, and do not throw money away.

PORTUGUESE FOREIGN MINISTER'S VISIT
2.41 p.m.
LoRD GIFFORD: 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 is the purpose of the visit to this country of the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs, arranged for March 6 to 10, 1972.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, when my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary visited Lisbon last June he invited the Portuguese Foreign Minister to pay a return visit to this country. Dr. Patricio is visiting Britain from March 6 to 11 for this purpose. This will provide an opportunity for discussion of bilateral and international matters in which Britain and Portugal have a common interest.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that rather vague Answer. But is it not one of the Portuguese Government's principal objectives in this visit to win British support for Portugal's colonial wars in Africa? Does not the very fact of this visit indicate that such support may be forthcoming; and, if so, is that not shameful? And will those Ministers who are meeting Dr. Patricio express to him the Government's condemnation of the fact that Portugal is determined by force to repress the legitimate aspirations of the people of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea for majority rule?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the conversations between my right honourable friend and Dr. Patricio must remain confidential, but certainly these conversations will go a great deal wider than the topics which he suggests. He will of course know that there is a difference between British African policy and

5
Portuguese African policy—a difference that is as well known to the Portuguese as it is to ourselves.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether, while these differences exist, it is consistent for the Government of this country to be supplying arms to Portugal, which may release arms from Portugal for her aggressive measures in the continent of Africa?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it would be quite inconsistent if the Government were doing that but they are not doing anything of the kind. The arms which Portugal receives from this country are, as the noble Lord is well aware, entirely confined to NATO purposes and there is no indication at all that this is, as it were, releasing other arms for aggression in Africa
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that such a Question as is on the Order Paper concerning the visit of a Foreign Minister of any other country, often less close to us than our oldest ally, cumulatively endangers our export trade and therefore employment, about which there is rightly so much current concern?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would certainly agree with my noble friend that visits of this sort between the Foreign Ministers of friendly countries can only be of benefit to the countries concerned.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, reverting to my question and putting aside the evidence of NATO arms which have been found in Mozambique and Angola, is it not obviously the case that if we supply Portugal with arms for NATO purposes, including the defence of Portugal, that will release Portuguese arms for activity in Africa?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that depends on what the noble Lord thinks about this matter. I do not regard it as being "obviously the case", but I do not think I could convince the noble Lord of that.

NORTHERN IRELAND: THE SCARMAN REPORT
2.46 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 have received the Report of Mr. Justice Scarman on events in Northern Ireland in August, 1969; and, if so, when it will be published.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Tribunal under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Scarman was constituted by the Northern Ireland Parliament. I understand that the Report has not yet been received but is expected soon.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I welcome that reply, can the Minister say why there has been this very long delay?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Inquiry had very complex terms of reference. It covered seven different sets of incidents in 1969. I believe the Tribunal had 170 days of hearings and the analysis of the evidence taken and the preparation of the Report has inevitably been a lengthy task.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I had, either from him or from his noble and learned friend, a similar answer that the Report would be made available shortly, and that that was some while rather more than shortly ago? Is he further aware that it has clearly become an enormous and arduous study that this very public-spirited judge has undertaken? And since the noble Lord referred to the Report to the Northern Ireland Government, may I ask him whether it will in fact be freely available, in view of the admirable and prompt reaction by the Government to the Minority Report of the Parker Committee, signed by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. The position is that the Report is now complete and is being printed. The Tribunal was set up by the Parliament of Northern Ireland under the Tribunals of Inquiry

7
(Evidence) Act 1921 and therefore the Report will be made to that Parliament But it will of course also be made available to Her Majesty's Government and Members of both Houses.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the Report has not been received either by our Government or by the Government of Northern Ireland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that that is the position at present, although it has been completed and is now being printed.

NEW YEAR'S DAY: PUBLIC HOLIDAY PROPOSAL
LORD PARGITER: 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 arrange for the Feast of Hogmanay to be kept as a national holiday South, as well as North of the Border.]
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the policy of successive Governments has been that holidays are a matter for negotiation between employers and employees. But my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment recently undertook to consider suggestions made by the Trades Union Congress about additional public holidays. Strictly speaking Hogmanay—that is, New Year's Eve—is not a holiday in Scotland. New Year's Day and the following day are statutory bank holidays in Scotland.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that New Year's Day is a sort of recovery day after the Hogmanay Feast, and is he aware that that would be the purpose of having a New Year's holiday, and is he further aware that in the Western calendar this happens to be the Feast of the Circumcision, and that this combination of events might well make this a holiday? Would he also agree that we might suggest this to the European Community as a counter against some of the customs that they will wish us to follow?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that New Year's Day is largely a holiday in other countries, and this is undoubtedly one of the days that has been suggested by the Trades Union Congress. I do not know how long the noble Lord's Hogmanay continues into the New Year, but at any rate he can rest assured that the matter is being considered.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes too far may I point out to him—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, in most industries in Scotland, at least, the first two days of the year are holidays, and my noble friend is wrong in thinking of New Year's Day as a day of recovery; it is the second day that is needed to recover.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I have no doubt it relates in particular to his own city.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that those of us who live on the Border take all these holidays anyway?
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, would my noble friend be good enough to explain to us, who are only simple and down trodden Sassenachs, from what word or combination of words the word "Hogmanay" was derived?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I took the precaution of looking it up and I found the origin of the word is obscure.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that among the Chinese the New Year is observed as a three-day holiday, and would he give an assurance that this consideration will not be entirely ruled out?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords. I think one has to take into account other holidays about that time of year as well.

NORTHERN IRELAND BOMB EXPLOSIONS
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice. It is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the bomb explosions and other recent events which have occurred in Northern Ireland during the past few days."
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Windlesham will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a Bill which is divided into six Parts. I think five of them are liable to be controversial, but it is the second which is really the heart of the Bill, although the other provisions are also of some importance. Part II arises from a problem which is now becoming increasingly common and a matter of concern, particularly in the Inner London Boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Westminster, and it is the problem which is known as the "creeping hotel". For this strange creature there are a number of slightly differing recipes and ingredients, but essentially what you do is to start off with a block of furnished flats and perhaps introduce bed and breakfast service or some sort of maid service, then add a restaurant and perhaps other communal rooms, then start letting the flats on shorter and shorter terms, and in the end you have an hotel. This is almost always contrary to the terms of the planning control under the Town and Country Planning Acts, but the change takes place very gradually, and in steps sometimes, and it is always a matter of fact and of degree to see when it has occurred. There was recently the fairly celebrated case of Chelsea Cloisters in Sloane Avenue, where a long inquiry into a number of enforcement notices in relation to exactly this sort of thing occurred. The Department of the Environment eventually
10
upheld most of the enforcement notices on the appeal, and so far as I know the further appeal to the High Court has been abandoned, but it took a very long time to do it room by room, and in some cases enforcement notices did not succeed.
The damage that is done by this particular practice is twofold. Far the most important is the loss of accommodation in Central London, which, as the House knows, is at the moment a very important and difficult problem facing all those concerned. But, secondly, one can also, in the process, get something which is far from a satisfactory type of hotel. Last November there was a very good debate in another place which touched upon this subject, among others, and a good deal of first-hand experience was given by Members of another place who represent constituencies particularly in the middle of London, and they explained what had been happening and what damage was caused. In reply to that debate my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment made two remarks in his speech. First, he said that he had no precise figures available of the amount of housing accommodation lost because of changes to hotel use. He went on:
"…because the changes can take place without the local authority being aware of them. That is the nub of the problem."
A little later he said:
"The real problem, therefore, is to find ways and means of discovering when material changes of use have taken place without planning permission."
What is proposed in Part II of the Bill is a form of registration of sleeping accommodation in terms that are carefully defined in one of the early clauses of the Bill. I think it has been agreed by all those concerned to do something about this situation that registration would be the best way of dealing with it. It would give early warning of the incidence of these matters to the local authorities concerned and allow them to consider whether they wish to make use of the powers they possess under the planning laws. Incidentally, there is another provision on the Statute Book, in the Development of Tourism Act 1969, which allows registration of hotel accommodation, but I think if your Lordships will look at Section 17, which provides these

11
powers and is not in force at the moment anyway, it will be seen that an entirely different matter is there being dealt with—registration by the Tourist Boards, primarily to get information about the quality of the hotels concerned, grading and the accommodation they can provide. That sort of registration would not help local planning authorities, as would registration under Part II of the Bill.
There is no doubt that this Part of the Bill is controversial. There are petitions against it which, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, will be carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs. What I say about this Part of the Bill, indeed really about all of it, is that it is at present a local matter; that there is a critical effect resulting from this particular damage in Central London; that the machinery that is in Part II of the Bill, and I think in the rest of it, is of the right kind to deal with the problem, and that it is something which ought to be looked at by a Select Committee in order that its full merits and demerits may be discussed and determined.
Part III of the Bill has also a petition against it. That Part relates to some changes in the planning law, and I am bound to tell your Lordships that as it stands I am sure it is much too wide. The intention of the Corporation is to propose to limit the operation of this Part of the Bill if it gets to Select Committee, by way of amendment, so that it would apply only to the sort of creeping-hotel use dealt with in Part II. Even so, I see technical snags in it, and I am not in general very happy about amending the general legislation, the Town and Country Planning Acts, on the basis of one local authority area alone. The point here is that the Corporation have found, as I have told your Lordships, that the enforcement notice procedure can be interminably long, and meanwhile there is little one can do to stop the offending use going on, particularly because the machinery of stop notice applies only to building operations and matters of that sort and not to development which consists of change of use. The amendments proposed in Part III are very technical, and if noble Lords want further explanations of them I shall be happy to
12
give them, but otherwise explanation may be a little tedious. This is another Part of the Bill which as a result of the petitions will be carefully scrutinised by the Select Committee.
Part IV is again controversial and again subject to petitions. It would allow the local authority to take powers compulsorily to acquire houses where the owners or occupiers have been convicted of harassment of their tenants under the Rent Act 1965. Of course, such compulsory powers could be used only if there was a case as defined in Part IV, where there had been a conviction, and they would have to be subject to confirmation of the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, a problem of this particular nature has been found to exist in the Central London areas, and the Corporation would again like to have the merits of their suggestions threshed out in front of the Select Committee. They do not find that they have adequate powers under the Housing Acts to do what they want to do in these cases, though I think the powers would be fairly rarely used. Again, in all honesty, I must have a reservation about the change in the compensation code which occurs in Clause 17. I do not very much approve of general legislation being altered on the basis of one borough for a specific type of acquisition, but I am sure the Select Committee will look very carefully at that, too.
Part V, as I said, also the subject of petitions, relates to the control of noise from premises, usually in the form of music which can be heard in the street. The design of the Corporation here is again to impose by way of licence some sort of control over the number and the volume of loudspeakers. The present legal position is extremely cumbersome, and is largely ineffective in dealing with noise that is heard in the street. There are some methods whereby you can deal with it if it upsets the inhabitants of adjoining premises, but not if it is simply the passers-by in the road who are affected. Here again, your Lordships may have differing opinions. Some may like the gales of "pop" issuing from boutiques down the Kings Road, but there are others who take a contrary view, and there may be some happy balance which should be by way of licence sought and found and some limitation on decibels imposed.

13
Part VI, which I think is not the subject of petition, is mainly clearing up, but it has one substantive clause dealing with the problem that has arisen in the borough of people who drop litter and also those who allow their dogs to foul footpaths. Both are offences: under general legislation in the case of the litter, or by-laws in the case of the dogs. The difficulty here has been that when people are approached and asked to give their names and addresses when they are seen to be allowing either of these practices, they very often refuse to do so, and it is only if a policeman can be brought on the scene in time that their names and addresses can be obtained. Sometimes they give false names and addresses. The borough has certain wardens who attempt to keep the borough tidy. They would be the authorised officers who would be empowered, if this particular Part of the Bill were to become law, to ask for and obtain people's names and addresses in order to try to prevent the litter and mess that now occurs in the borough and to help tidy it up. That may be a provision that commends itself to your Lordships.
My Lords, that is the extent of the Bill. I must admit that most of these provisions are of a pioneering nature, but they relate to specific and fairly urgent problems which arise at this moment in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. There are these objections in the petitions to most of the controversial material in the Bill. It would therefore be very fully scrutinised and argued out if it were to be sent to a Select Committee upstairs, and I have little doubt that the Department of the Environment would wish to comment on it. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Sandford has to say this afternoon. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading so that all these matters may be fully discussed and dealt with upstairs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
3.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Second Reading of this Bill with his usual clarity, brevity and persuasiveness. I am sure
14
that the House will realise that with his specialised knowledge of planning law the noble Viscount is singularly well equipped to move this Bill. May I say at the outset that I support the Bill in principle, and hope very much that the House will give it a Second Reading. As my noble friend has said, it will be examined in great detail by a Select Committee, if it reaches that stage.
I should also like to congratulate the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea on promoting the Bill, no doubt at considerable expense—and at expense to the ratepayers, of whom I am one. I am sure that they have a special problem to tackle in their area. As my noble friend has said, this is a bold Bill, of which a number of Parts are controversial. Indeed, as he has said, a number of petitions have been put down against it. I should have thought that the most controversial Part concerns the power of compulsory purchase. The Bill reminds one of the Isle of Wight Bill, which the House will recall asked for special powers for one local authority. In the Second Reading of this Bill the question seems to be whether or not such power should be given to one local authority, or whether it should be a matter of general legislation. No doubt my noble friend Lord Sandford will be commenting on this aspect. Perhaps he could also comment on whether, if this Bill is successful, many of the clauses and the powers under the Bill will become general legislation. The House will recall that when the Isle of Wight Bill went through this House, there was a general understanding that much of the legislation which particularly dealt with the control of the "pop" festivals would eventually become general legislation. For this reason I think that this, in a sense, pioneer Bill will assist the Government, and one hopes it will assist particularly the Parliamentary Draftsmen.
As my noble friend has explained, by Part III the Bill seeks to streamline the procedure of the enforcement notices. I personally believe that this process is a necessary evil. It has come about mainly because of the number of cases where unscrupulous people have flouted planning controls to the detriment of their neighbours. They know that by stalling off the enforcement notice they can gain

15
at least a year in which to carry on certain activities which they know, or consider, will eventually be stopped by an enforcement notice being confirmed. As my noble friend has said, the Bill sets out as well to tighten the control over the—I think he used the phrase—"creeping hotel". This of course is a special problem in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea which is faced with enormous demand for temporary accommodation, particularly from air travellers. From the planning control aspect and, for that matter, from the disturbance of the residents aspect, I believe that the Council have a case for this power. But no doubt again the Select Committee will consider it with care.
The Bill also covers the control of musical noise—or noise purporting to represent music. This is another power which anyone who has suffered this experience will welcome. Again I hope that this power will become a matter of general legislation relating to all local authorities. As I said at the start, the only power that one has immediate hesitation about asking for in the Bill is that of compulsory purchase. The compulsory purchase powers are obviously an emotional subject at the best of times. One wonders what is wrong with the existing law of harassment, and why the compulsory purchase powers should be granted outside their normal and traditional purposes. Could this power be abused, and act as a deterrent against the landlord? I am sure my noble friend Lord Sandford will be commenting on this later. If this Part of the Bill is deemed unacceptable by the Select Committee or the House, I hope the Bill as a whole will not be lost.
I repeat my support for my noble friend and I congratulate him again and wish him luck in steering this Bill on to the Statute Book. I again congratulate the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council on showing commendable initiative in promoting the Bill, and I wish it every success.
3.10 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has broad sympathy
16
with the Corporation in their general aims, and has no desire to stand in the way of a Second Reading of this Bill. But he has serious reservations about the means of achieving its objectives, as set out in Parts II, III and IV, in particular, dealing with hotels, enforcement of planning law and harassment of tenants by landlords respectively. I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has said about the loss of residential accommodation in the borough, and we are aware of the problem of the surreptitious transformation of residential premises into hotel use. My right honourable friend is of course very concerned about the problem with which Parts II and III of the Bill seek to deal. It is one facet of the general question of the provision of hotel accommodation which involves loss of housing. Last month my Department published a development control policy note, which drew attention to the special problems in London and made it clear that, in our view, there is a presumption against hotel development involving a significant loss of housing; and that presumption is particularly strong in the three Central London boroughs.
Leaving that point, I think it is right to mention, as my noble friend has done, that Parliament has already made provision in the Development of Tourism Act 1969 for the registration of hotels. As my noble friend said, that Act provides for registration to be the subject of a scheme made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He is only now about to receive the recommendations of the Tourist Boards. In considering this Bill, we are therefore in the difficulty that the Government will have before them proposals for another registration scheme which is at present being designed for a rather different purpose. That is not an insuperable difficulty, but it is a complication.
The Corporation's first objective, as set out in Part II, is the registration of hotels and near-hotels. One immediately sees from that term that there is a difficulty in deciding where to draw the line, and I am glad to hear that changes are already in mind. But not only would Part II of the Corporation's Bill impose the need to register; it would also give the Corporation power to refuse registration on planning grounds. While I accept that

17
the Bill would catch some fish which might get through the planning net, it would involve a duplication of control over a considerable amount of development which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment regards as undesirable. This is exacerbated by the right of appeal to a magistrates' court against refusal of registration which the Bill gives. Appeals against planning decisions—and this is what appeals under Part II would in effect be—normally lie to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has already commented on the difficulties here. But the Bill goes still further than this, and makes the use of unregistered premises a criminal offence without giving any opportunity for a defence such as is provided in the planning appeal system. This particular feature of the Bill is quite unacceptable.
I now come to enforcement, the objective of Part III of the Bill. The general approach is consistent enough with planning policy, but there again we have strong reservations about the way it is proposed that this should be done. This Part of the Bill would make amendments to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which deal with enforcement of planning control. As my noble friend noted, these provisions are of course of general application throughout the country and we have to be very careful before accepting any local variations, unless these can be fully justified in exceptional local circumstances. Although the greater part of the provisions of Part III savour too much of an attempt to amend the general law in ways which we do not consider useful or justifiable, I should not exclude the possibility of adopting some of the features in Part III to deal with the particular problem to which Part II is directed. This is something which my right honourable friend would want to discuss further with the promoters.
I think it only right in this connection to let your Lordships know that, in our view, there is much that can be done under the existing law to combat creeping conversion from residential to hotel accommodation. The recent decision of my right honourable friend on the Chelsea Cloisters case is relevant here. I am sure that the Corporation are alert to the
18
possibility of action under the existing powers. Nevertheless, following a debate in another place we have undertaken to examine urgently whether further planning powers are needed to deal with the problem of creeping conversion. We have already consulted the local authority associations, first to ascertain how widespread the problem is, and secondly to seek their views on wider solutions. Though there is little real evidence of a general problem, your Lordships will have realised from what I said earlier that there is recognised to be a very real and intense problem in Central London of which the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea forms such an important part. If your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope that we shall be in a better position before it has gone through further stages to assess the prospects of tackling this problem, either by general legislation or by way of legislation designed to deal with the problems of London in particular. But I think that the prospects of early Government legislation are not very strong.
Part IV of the Bill adopts a quite novel approach to harassment. I should like to take this opportunity of commending the efforts being made by authorities in the central area, such as Kensington and Chelsea, to deal with this social evil. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr. Amery, called a conference of the inner London boroughs in April last year to discuss landlord and tenant problems in housing stress areas, following the recommendations of the Francis Committee on what administrative action could, and should, be taken in an attempt to ease the difficulties with which landlords and tenants are faced in areas such as these. I should like to make it absolutely clear how great an emphasis the Government place on the need to deal with these problems. In that connection, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to an Amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which has been agreed to in another place, further increasing the penalties. The Francis Committee recommended increased penalties, and penalties greater than those proposed by that Committee have been incorporated in the Bill.
Unfortunately, my right honourable friend sees certain difficulties in the principles and methods adopted by Part IV for dealing with the harassment problem.

19
The fundamental point is that the Bill provides for the use of compulsory purchase powers following a harassment conviction. Compulsory purchase is in fact used when it can be shown that in the public interest property should be acquired from the existing owner for the proper planning of an area, and it has not hitherto been used at all for any other purpose—certainly not as a punishment for a criminal offence. But this Bill provides that such powers should be used to give effect to a decision that certain persons are unsuitable to own property, the criterion for unsuitability being a conviction for harassment. The Francis Committee found that harassment can, and often does, arise from many causes, some of them quite trivial, and a harassment conviction in itself is a very poor guide to a landlord's criminality or to the suitability of certain people to be property owners. Therefore, my right honourable friend feels that the departure from accepted compulsory purchase principles is unacceptable, particularly in the light of other steps taken to deal with this problem.
My Lords, there is more in the Bill, as my noble friend has said, about noise and litter, but I think I have said enough to show that my right honourable friend has a number of serious reservations about certain provisions in this Bill. But it has long been the convention in this House that Private Bills should be passed to a Committee for detailed scrutiny of their contents, and I should not wish to advise that this Bill should not be given a Second Reading.
3.20 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the support, albeit qualified, which he has given to this Bill—a support which I share. And I should like to congratulate the City Fathers of Kensington and Chelsea upon their courage in bringing this Bill forward, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross upon the skill with which he has introduced it. Much though we may agree, as I do, with the principles of the Bill, there are nevertheless certain serious reservations which I think your Lordships should ask to be considered at the appropriate time. Here, my Lords, I must declare an interest—not a financial one, because I do not live in
20
the borough, but an interest in that I have for some years been President of the London Tourist Board; and we in the London Tourist Board, and in the English Tourist Board as well, have been considering this matter very carefully. Much though we agree with what the borough are trying to do, we are apprehensive that they are setting about it the wrong way.
Your Lordships may think that it is odd to hear somebody connected with the tourist business saying that there can be too many hotels. I do not go as far as saying that, although there has been a tremendous amount of new hotel building in the last two or three years, and I myself think that one or two people are going to get their fingers burnt. But what we feel is that if you destroy the nature, the environment, of a borough such as Kensington and Chelsea by turning it over to too much hotel development, you will destroy the attractiveness of the borough which makes the tourist want to visit it. You will also, of course, make life intolerable for the citizens who live there. If your Lordships doubt what can be done by uncontrolled outbursts of hotel building, you have only to go and look at Miami Beach or the Costa Brava. If we are not very careful, we shall find ourselves saddled with a Costa Cromwell Road; and that is going to be unattractive.
What the borough are trying to do is admirable. They are trying to control development in a way which is acceptable to the citizens who live there, to the tourist trade and to London at large. I suspect that they are going about it the wrong way, because what will happen is that if their Bill is passed into law there will be an outcrop of exactly the same trouble in Camden, in Marylebone, in Paddington and in Westminster. This is not suitable, my Lords. Either this matter should be tackled civically—that is, by the G.L.C.—or nationally, that is, by national as opposed to local legislation. But it should not, I submit, be tackled by one borough because, with the best intent in the world, it will lead to confusion. What has happened here arises from a weakness in our planning law, and that weakness should be put right by national legislation. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, giving me a nasty look, and understandably so, because

21
anybody who stands up in your Lordships' House and suggests new legislation at this particular time is not going to be popular. But this is the only way to do it.
I shall not oppose this Bill, of course, and I hope it will be carefully considered. But I should like the noble Lord to realise how much we support him in his suggestion that this is really a planning matter and a national matter, and not one to be considered solely on behalf of the citizens of this distinguished borough, although they are the principal victims. I am sorry for them. I admire their courage and determination in putting this matter forward, but I think they are going the wrong way about it. This is a serious problem which, my Lords, it is up to the courts to solve.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am very grateful that the last point has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who spoke with authority—and we know how he stands with the tourist industry. All I would make an appeal for is a recognition that this needs national attention. I can think of, say, Mecklenburgh Square, where for many years I had a flat, and where people were pushed aside because the University wanted to extend, and the neighbourliness and the motive for living in the area disappeared altogether. It is possible to have an arid area which may be rich in tourism yet not representative. I go to my own country, and think of Aberystwyth. Aberystwyth itself, I think, from when I remember it as a child, has been altered completely because of the accommodation needs of the University; and I sometimes wonder whether that accommodation was planned out. I shall not vote against a Second Reading, if there is a Division, because I have not gone into the Bill in enough depth. But I would put in the caveat that a thing like this needs attention, and that the time has come for it to be given attention in depth by some Government.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, those who attend affairs in this House are accustomed to ask strength to resist "private interest, prejudice and partial affection". I acquit myself of the first two: I must plead guilty to partial affection, because I have partial affection for the Royal Borough of Kensington, in which I was born; and I am very proud that,
22
with regard to hotels, it should now adopt the policy of "Enough is enough". The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised a rather difficult point. He spoke of the possible future of two registration authorities both tackling the problem of registration, one on a national scale and one on a local scale. Did the noble Lord not say that? Yes, so I understood. Suppose they are both tackling the subject of registration. They are doing it from different angles, because I presume that the body which is doing it on a national scale represents the Tourist Board, whereas the body which represents Kensington on a local scale represents the inhabitants of Kensington. The two bodies may be tackling the problem with different motives—one favouring more hotels, and the other fewer hotels. So what? I would rather have double registration than single registration by a national body which is in the interests of the Tourist Board.
There is another point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Of course we all agree that this is, if not a national problem, at any rate a Greater London problem. The whole question of hotel development should be tackled with a view to development which could and should happen to the East and South-East of London, and which I believe is already beginning to happen. But since the matter is urgent and the thing is happening, I would plead for Kensington to be regarded as a special case. I use that phrase with a little distaste on account of recent associations with special cases; but Kensington is a special case. Mayfair has gone; Bloomsbury has gone, thanks to higher education, as the noble Lord has pointed out. Kensington and Westminster still have far to go, and I beg that they may not he allowed to go any further.
3.29 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to add a brief word about Parts III and IV of the Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross made some reference. First, I should like to say that I would support his moving of the Second Reading of the Bill. I think its objectives are excellent; and, goodness knows! it could not have had a more able advocate than my noble friend in moving it. But in Parts III and IV of the Bill the powers which are sought by the borough would be an

23
enlargement of national powers, particularly with regard to enforcement; and I was grateful that my noble friend referred to this proposed extension of the general law, which I think would be objectionable. I was also encouraged to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford referring to this particular feature of the Bill.
I should say, my Lords, that I speak in particular for the National Association of Property Owners, of which I am president. They are concerned that the balance between the interests of landlord and tenant should be properly preserved. All landlords are not criminals. They have an important role to carry out in the community; and it is a matter of keeping the balance right. If we feel, as Parliament, that it ought to be adjusted in any significant way, that is clearly something for national legislation to do. But may I say again that I sympathise with the general objective for which the borough are aiming, and especially in controlling the "creeping hotel" abuse? I hope that in Committee it may be possible to cure the Bill of, perhaps, its over-enthusiasm and defects in some respects. I shall be happy to see it given a Second Reading.
3.30 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should disclose my interest. I am a very old inhabitant of Chelsea and very fond of the place. I wish briefly to support what has been so admirably said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks. Let me say at once that of course I recognise that some of the points put forward by the Minister are points which should certainly be carefully considered by the Committee and I am glad that the House is unanimous in thinking that this Bill should go to the Select Committee upstairs. Let me say also that I think the recent record of the Minister for the Environment in this matter of hotels in Chelsea has been a worthy one.
Perhaps I might speak of some of the things in which as a private citizen I have been involved. There was a major development in what is known as the Pier Hotel site, which involved the site of the old Pier Hotel and a great part of Oakley Street. The buildings on the site were in great demand by the people of Chelsea as places in which to live. The buildings were destroyed on the
24
assurance of the then developer that they would be replaced substantially by residential development. Then, suddenly, there was an application to build an enormous hotel. So monstrous was this that I decided myself to give evidence and oppose it. As my next-door neighbour felt likewise, we briefed counsel. I gave some angry evidence; but the evidence given in favour of the development consisted of a number of quotations from tourist boards that tourism was a national interest and that London could do with more hotels, et cetera, et cetera. I think that I was almost the first witness to say that it was also a recognised national interest that Londoners should have places in which to live and to work and not all be compelled to become commuters; that this also was a national interest. I think that I was almost the first witness to put this point of view. I am glad to say that the inspector in due course came down on the side which I had ventured to support and that the Minister upheld the inspector's decision. He also stopped what was threatened in Chelsea Cloisters.
But my Lords, these are constant threats. The noble Baroness is entirely right in contending that those in favour of the hotels have no difficulty in saying that there are various national interests and national bodies who have pronounced more or less in their favour and that the interests of the inhabitants are liable to depend on local angry people who are prepared to fight or on amenity societies and so forth. I venture to say—I said this some years ago in this House and I say it again—that it should be an accepted principle of planning that no part of central London in which people still like to live should be made such that they no longer wish to live there. It is a major planning purpose that London, and particularly central London, should remain worth living in. It will not remain worth living in if we constantly weight the chances against those who wish to preserve the London we love.
There is only one other thing that I wish to say. It is often said that if there is anything desirable in this proposal it should be the subject of national legislation. I agree with my noble friend the Minister who spoke this afternoon that there is often strength in this point and

25
that we must be very careful about proposals to change the general law in the interest of one particular locality. But it is also in the national interest that somebody should act as a pioneer. Some of the beneficient by-laws we now have in a great part of the country owe their existence to some borough or another having asked for them and having pressed for them. Sometimes a precedent is thereby established which results in national legislation.
This Bill was so admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and has received such general support for a Second Reading that I think I should be trespassing on the patience of the House if I said more; but I did not wish the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, to pass unsupported. I agree with every word she said.

NORTHERN IRELAND BOMB EXPLOSIONS
3.38 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on the subject of bomb explosions in Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"There were eleven explosions during the weekend in Northern Ireland, and three yesterday. The most serious incident was at the Abercorn Restaurant in the centre of Belfast on Saturday afternoon when it was crowded with shoppers. Although the bomb was not a large one, the circumstances in which it exploded resulted in two young women being killed and another 136 civilians injured, of whom 30 were detained in hospital, some in a serious condition. Most of the other explosions during the weekend were also in Belfast, but two were in Dungannon and one was at Cookstown.
"Yesterday, there were three more explosions in Belfast, a Co-operative store was damaged, and during the afternoon a 40 to 60 lb. bomb exploded in a van parked outside a cinema in the centre of the town. Fifty-six persons were treated for shock and cuts, eight cars were damaged and ex-
26
tensive damage was caused to property. The van in which the charge had been left had been stolen in the Falls Road area earlier in the afternoon. In Londonderry a 40 to 50 lb. charge of explosive was placed in an hotel in Northland Road, by three youths, two of whom were armed. No casualties resulted but extensive damage was done to the premises.
"These outrages are remarkable for the utter callousness shown by those responsible. I know the House will wish to join with me in extending our deepest sympathy to those who have been bereaved and to those who have been so terribly injured and mutilated. The security forces will take all possible steps to apprehend those responsible."
My Lords, that ends the Home Secretary's Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure is the whole House, for repeating that Statement which was, I think, in reply to the Private Notice Question I asked. My only comment is to say why I asked the Question. It is a fact that we are all sated with horror, but I do not think we can avert our eyes from it. I echo the sincere words of the noble Lord in expressing sympathy to the victims. This seems to represent an even more awful and irresponsible worsening of activities by the I.R.A., who seem even more indifferent and incompetent in notifying, or perhaps in deciding not to notify at all. The recent example of a sort of "kangaroo court" justice is one of the most shocking examples we have had. I should like to ask the noble Lord about some new initiative which we understand is coming. I should not want to press him in the context of the sombre Statement that he has made, but if he can give any indication about when some further steps will be taken we shall be grateful. Otherwise we can only contemplate this matter with horror, and hope that the security forces, who are always at risk themselves, and the Ulster Defence Regiment, will continue to show the courage and determination that they have already shown.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for repeating the Statement. There

27
is little that one can say. This is one more shocking and tragic outrage in Northern Ireland where there have been so many tragic events. I would only express the hope that this deterioration in tactics of the I.R.A. will not hold up the initiative that has been promised.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the comments by both noble Lords who have spoken on this Statement. The number of separate incidents in fact shows some reduction on those of recent weekends: twenty-five shooting incidents as against thirty-nine the previous weekend, and eleven explosions as against thirteen. However, the effects in terms of deaths and injuries to the casualties were a great deal more serious. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that if and when the Government decide that any new policies towards Northern Ireland are necessary Parliament will of course be informed. But I am sure noble Lords will agree that both the timing and the content are equally important.

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, I just wanted to say some words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, and my noble friend Lord Conesford. I agree with every word that they said. I declare one interest, in that I spent my childhood and youth in Chelsea. I would only add to what they said that one of the reasons that tourists come to London is that London is unique and quite different from any other town. We have open squares and open spaces which may be visited, and no other town I know of has them. If we destroy what we have we shall make a great mistake and lose many of the tourists who at present come here.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I have an interest to declare, in that I have for many years been a ratepayer in Kensington and Chelsea, but I rise because of the wider questions which are raised. As was made clear by the
28
noble Lord, Lord Conesford, this is really a "dummy run" for legislation to show us how we can make the centres of our cities liveable and preserve that liveability. This applies not only to London but also to the centres of cities all over the country. The Kensington and Chelsea Corporation should be congratulated on their initiative, and not least along with the Corporation the present Mayor, Mrs. Gumbel, and the previous Mayor, Alderman Edward Thom, in blazing the trail.
My Lords, creeping conversion is not to be dealt with simply by tackling or even removing the symptoms. Registration is not the full answer. In part, creeping conversion is the result of sharp inflation of property values on owner-occupied residential property, with all the swingeing estate duty in prospect for owners. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remote in his intellectual fastness preparing the Budget, will hear what has been said. To try to stop the creeping conversion of hotels by registration is like turning up the gas under the kettle and screwing down the lid; the evil is simply a reflex of inflation. The difficulties about registration have been pointed out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. In any case, one must ask what powers of inspection would be necessary to make it worth while and whether those powers of inspection would be acceptable.
The question of dog fouling hardly needs discussion; but once again, are we quite happy that wardens are to be the people to ask for someone's identification? On the question of noise, surely we should be considering during the Committee stage not only noise that is generated supposedly in the form of music, but also other kinds of noise, notably that caused by ventilators in restaurants, which disturb the rest of people through all hours of the night. If the Town Clerk of Kensington and Chelsea should happen to he listening to the debate, may I say that he will find correspondence on file about that. Nor is it only a question of noise from ventilators that have not been installed completely, or which are not working properly, or are not the right type. There is also the nuisance of smell which this Bill does not appear to cover. My Lords, it is also a pity that the Bill does not

29
cover shop displays. But all these are matters which may be looked at during the Committee stage. One looks forward to its being a serious investigation of the overall problems of liveability in the heart of a big modern city, and I wish it Godspeed.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I must disclaim any personal interest in this Bill, being resident neither in Chelsea nor in Kensington. But we ought to recognise that this is a special case. I hope that the House will not too readily allow itself to be persuaded by the gentle tones of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We have to realise the urgency of this problem as it affects Chelsea and Kensington, in that both the large air terminals are situated either within the boundaries of Chelsea and Kensington or in close proximity to them. It would be just as logical to say that one ought first to wait for national legislation before making any attempt to curb the growth of the Costa Brava or Miami as it would be to use the same plea on behalf of Chelsea and Kensington. It is just because this area is in the neighbourhood of the large air terminals that I think it incumbent on the House to urge that action be taken to deal with the problem before it is too late. This applies especially in view of the crowded legislative programme of the Government which means that there may be some considerable delay before this whole problem can be dealt with on a national basis.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Bill has received a most gratifying reception, for which I would thank all those who have spoken. I do not wish to say many more words, except to comment briefly on three things which have come up in the debate. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale did not mean what I thought he meant by a "dummy run". I hope that this will be a successful run, that the Bill will go through both Houses and that something will be achieved by it. I do not think it is going to achieve a wide-ranging discussion on the broad points raised by my noble friend Lord Conesford and by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale—I do not think that those are within the scope of the Petition and what is in the Bill—but I suggest to your Lordships that those
30
two speeches pointed the issues to which the Bill is directed.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to say that this is a national problem. So it may be. It is all very well to say that it is a Greater London problem. So it may be. But the fact remains that on the national front my noble friend Lord Sandford said that he could not promise quick legislation. On the London front, if, as everyone agrees, this is a planning matter and one for the enforcement of planning control, the authority responsible for the enforcement of planning control is the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Corporation. It is they who have to operate the control and see that these creeping-hotel uses do not take place and that the perpetrators are not allowed to get away with it. That is why they want these special powers, because they are in the front line, and why, in view of the fact that it is unlikely that anything national will happen, they are pioneering themselves.
I appreciate that there may be things that are wrong technically. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford say that the Department would like to have further discussions with the promoters on Parts II and III. I also appreciate what he says about the other registration measure, the Development of Tourism Act. But goodness knows what the classes of hotels and other establishments are going to be which will fall into the scheme; and, as I said, it will not be done for the purposes which this Bill is seeking and it will not necessarily come in time into the hands of the Chelsea and Kensington Corporation. When this subject was being discussed in another place my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State said, after one of the quotations that I used before:
"When we talk about the solutions to this problem of loss of accommodation by a change of use of hotels we must make sure that the solutions are based on relevant information, because if we cannot identify the problem and find out what is going on, none of the proposed solutions put forward are worth anything."
No more are planning powers if you do not know what is going on. That is the object of this Bill: the heart of it, as I said.

31
The only other point I wish to make is on Part IV, the compulsory purchase Part, which worried a number of people. As I understand the petition of the National Association of Property Owners, which I have read, they challenge the Preamble to the Bill and the particular clauses in which these provisions occur. That will mean that this issue will be directly presented to the Committee for decision. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked, in effect, are these powers justified? That is what the promoters would have to satisfy the Select Committee about. They would have to answer just the questions that my noble friend asked, just the questions and suggestions of my noble friend Lord Nugent, and deal with the problems that my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned. I think everybody is agreed that this Bill should go to the Select Committee. I am sure that the members of the Committee will read with care the debate that has taken place on this Second Reading, so that they may be fully appraised of the difficulties which your Lordships see in the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUST SCHEME 1972
3.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before the House on 3 February, be approved. With permission, I will deal at the same time with the draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972, laid on the same date. These two instruments, although quite distinct in their purpose, are complementary to each other.
The Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971 was passed just over a year ago. In the interval, preparations have been made to carry out its provisions. The Scottish Hospital Trust was constituted on September 1, and has been getting ready to take over the relevant endowments—that is, those given to the Scottish Health Service hospitals up to November 5, 1946—on the day to be appointed under the Act. We propose—and an Order will be made for the purpose
32
—that the day appointed shall be April 1, 1972. From that day, the Trust will hold and manage these endowments and distribute the income to hospital authorities. The Regulations which we are now considering cover the arrangements for the transfer of the endowments to the Trust, and questions concerning borrowings against these endowments; the scheme prescribes the arrangements for the distribution of the income and the purposes for which it is to be used.
I will deal first with the Regulations. Regulation 4 provides that two main groups of endowments are excepted from transference. Two hospital boards are excluded altogether because of their special circumstances; the other exceptions are certain items of heritable estate which are being left with the boards concerned. This proposal follows consultation with the boards, as provided for in Section 2(4) of the Act.
Regulation 5 relates to two particular funds, held as part of the relevant endowments of the boards concerned. We are providing that these funds may be realised and spent on certain purposes, without the obligation to replace the capital. In the case of the Astley Ainslie Development Fund, which is much the bigger of the two, this represents a relaxation of the existing position. Regulation 6 prescribes the arrangements for calculating the value of the endowments transferred. This is especially important in connection with income distribution. The Regulation lays down how each board's share in the Trust's capital is to be stated, and provides for this being revised in certain circumstances. Regulation 7 contains the detailed provisions on borrowings against relevant endowments, which Section 6 of the Act makes possible. In effect, existing facilities are being continued: as before, endowment capital may be used for hospital or specialist services or for medical research, provided the capital is replaced within 30 years.
The scheme contains two main provisions. The first, in paragraph 3, deals with the distribution of income. Each hospital board of management (except the two excluded), and also the Committee of the State Hospital, will receive £3 per bed per annum, and a fixed sum will be paid to each Regional Hospital

33
Board. The balance of the Trust's income will then be distributed among all hospital boards in proportion to the value of the endowments which they have transferred to the Trust. The Working Party on hospital endowments, under the Chairmanship of Professor Robert Browning submitted in 1969 the Report on which this legislation has been based, and it was estimated that the income per bed represented by these endowments would, for the poorest endowed board, rise from about £1·70 to £3·75 per annum.
Paragraph 4 of the Scheme deals with the purposes for which the income received from the Trust is to be used by hospital authorities, and in effect continues the provisions under which boards have held these endowments in the past. The money must be used for hospital or specialist purposes or for medical research, apart from a number of special purposes of a memorial nature which, at the request of the boards concerned, are being continued. The amount of expenditure which is permitted for capital or research purposes without clearance by the Regional Hospital Board or the Advisory Committee on Medical Research in Scotland respectively is increased from the present level of £1,000 to £2,000.
The reorganisation of the Health Service in Scotland, which your Lordships are considering, will not alter the effect of these arrangements. Amendments to the 1971 Act are incorporated in the Bill in Clause 39 and Schedule 5, but we intend that Health Boards will be required to use the income for hospital purposes and, indeed, so far as practicable, to devote it to the same hospitals in their area as would have benefited previously.
The House may have noticed that in two places—one in the Regulations and one in the Scheme—the Regulations are referred to as being of 1971. This obvious slip, which I regret, will be corrected when the instruments are made. Drafts of these instruments were sent to hospital authorities for their comments, and I am glad to say that, on the whole, they have expressed agreement with them, as has also the Scottish Hospital Trust, which will have to put these arrangements into operation. I hope that the House will approve this Order.
Moved, That the Draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972, laid before the
34
House on February 3, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUST REGULATONS 1972
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972, laid before the House on February 3, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [Medical and dental inspection, supervision and treatment of pupils and young persons]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 28, after ("gives") insert ("notice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were discussing this Bill in Committee I spoke to Clause 6 and suggested

35
that it might be simplified if it spoke of parents "giving notice to the authority" instead of parents "giving to the authority notice". The purpose of Amendments 1 and 2 is to give effect to what I then suggested. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I think these Amendments improve the Bill and I am very glad to accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2:
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, after ("authority") leave out ("notice").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Educational and research facilities]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("having it in contemplation") and insert ("intending").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage I commented that the rather extraordinary phrase was used in Clause 9 of "having it in contemplation". The Amendment that I am putting forward seems to be even better, at a second and third reading, than it did when I first contemplated it. When I looked at this I could not possibly see why there should be any obligation placed on the Secretary of State to provide facilities for people who were only contemplating doing something. It seemed to me that they should be either performing the service or, at the very least, intending to provide it. It seemed to me extraordinary to provide any facilities for a person to do something who only "had it in contemplation". I suggest that the wording I am proposing firms up the language and firms up the Bill. It also has the advantage of doing it in fewer words. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is said that great minds think alike. I intended to put down a similar Amendment, so the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear
36
that I am very glad to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Health Boards]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 35, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the real author of this Amendment is the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. At the last stage she pointed out that I was making Amendments to render it necessary to have orders in relation to Clause 19 and that as I had accepted that the Secretary of State would have the right to determine the functions to be carried out by Health Boards it was unreasonable to suggest that the agency should have the stricter procedure of an order in relation to its functions. I then said that the noble Baroness had in fact accused me of an error of omission rather than commission. On looking at this further, I must confess that I misread Clause 13.
The clause reads as follows:
"The Secretary of State shall by order constitute, in accordance with Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, boards, to be called Health Boards, for such areas as he may by order determine, for the purpose of exercising functions with respect to the administration of such health services provided by him as he may determine, and for the purpose of making arrangements on his behalf for the provision of the services mentioned in Part IV of the Act of 1947."
I must confess that having twice read the reference to the Secretary of State making orders, I assumed, wrongly, that the whole of this clause was to be the subject of orders. There are in fact three things being done here. The Secretary of State is to constitute Boards; he is to say in which areas these Boards are to function, and he is to state the functions which they are to carry out. It seems to me that it cannot correctly be stated that the functions to be carried out by the Boards are less important than the membership of the Boards or the areas in which they are to operate. The Secretary of State having accepted the obligation to make an order for the constitution of the Boards, and for the areas in which they will operate, it is quite wrong that this third and vital part, concerning the functions to be carried out by the Boards, should not be the

37
subject of the same procedure. I therefore beg to move my Amendment. It will mean, if it is accepted, that in each case the constitution of the Boards, their areas and their functions will be governed by order instead of by simple determination by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is of course quite correct: I did almost suggest this Amendment to him. I think it could be argued that it is unnecessary to make the allocation of functions a matter for a statutory instrument. On the other hand, I have given some thought to this and, particularly in relation to the Common Services Agency, I think there is some substance in the point that the functions are just as important as the constitution of the Boards and the areas in which they will operate. That being so, I am very glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Local Consultative Committees]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("shall defray the reasonable expenses") and insert ("may pay to members").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have four Amendments to Clause 16—Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. They cannot all be successful, because Amendments 5, 6 and 8 represent one way of dealing with what I regard as a defect in the clause, and Amendments 7 and 8 provide alternative means of dealing with this. I should like to go back to the remarks made during the Second Reading of the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and my noble friend Lady White about the difficulties in which women may find themselves as members of Boards but not entitled to loss of remuneration because they are not regarded as gainfully employed. I put down an Amendment at Committee Stage to deal with the point. The noble Baroness pointed out that she could not accept the Amendments but said that they were not strictly necessary because the clause provided for the payment of allowances and would cover the various points and instances to which the noble Earl and my noble friend Lady
38
White had both referred. I thought that the answer she gave was completely satisfactory and I had no hesitation in withdrawing the Amendments as being unnecessary. However, when I came to look at Clause 16 I feared that the wording used here might in fact diminish the value I was attaching to the words in Clause 14(6) because the wording in Clauses 16 and 18 differs from that used in Clause 14.
Clause 14(6) reads:
"The Secretary of State may pay to members of a local health council and committees thereof such travelling and other allowances …"
and these were the important words to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, directed my attention. It then goes on:
"… including compenstion for loss of remunerative time …"
If we may look at that phrase for a moment it seems that a lady member of a committee will not be entitled to payment for the loss of remunerative time because her time is not regarded as remunerative, but will receive instead other allowances to compensate her for expenditure on which she may have embarked in pursuing these duties. When we go to Clause 16 we find that the wording is:
"Health Boards shall defray the reasonable expenses of committees recognised under this section, including such travelling and other allowances and compensation for loss of remunerative time,"
I am afraid that if the language is not the same it may detract from the very high value which the noble Baroness, rightly, has placed on the use of these words in Clause 14. I want to see the same language used in Clauses 16 and 18. Amendment No. 5, which I am now moving, taken with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, would make the subsection read:
"Health Boards shall pay to members of committees recognised under this section such travelling and other allowances including compensation for loses of remunerative time …";
in other words making the language exactly the same as that in Clause 14.
However, after I had worked this out and looked at it it seemed to me that by deleting the words, "shall defray the reasonable expenses", I might be going further than I had intended and would defeat part of the object of the clause,

39
because there would be at least a possibility that a committee of this kind might have other expenditure—perhaps on the provision of stationery or accommodation—which would not be met if the words "shall defray the reasonable expenses" were moved. Therefore I had a second shot at the wording. If Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were accepted then the subsection would read:
"Health Boards shall defray the reasonable expenses of committees recognised under this section, and may pay to members of such committees travelling and other allowances including compensation for loss of remunerative time."
It is my hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible to accept Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, in which case I will withdraw Amendment No. 5 and not move Amendment No. 6. Having said that, it also seems to me that in common with the Amendments which I moved to Clause 6 and Clause 9, the language which I propose is an improvement on that in the Bill because Clause 14 recognises that it is members of committees who are involved in travelling expenses. It is members of committees who may lose remunerative time and who have to be compensated for it, it is members of committees who may have to receive allowances. But the wording in the Bill says:
"Health Boards shall defray the reasonable expenses of committees recognised under this section, including such travelling and other allowances and compensation for loss of remunerative time, …"
I suggest that that language is not acceptable because committees, as bodies, are not involved in travelling time; committees as such do not lose remuneration. It is the individual members of committees who do this and the language, therefore, in Clause 14 is correct. The language in Clause 16 not only could throw doubt on the purposes of Clause 14, but it also is defective in itself.
I hope therefore that with that longer explanation than I thought at first might be necessary the noble Baroness will find it possible to agree that there is advantage in using the same type of language throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
4.25 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry to say that on this occasion I do not
40
think that the language which the noble Lord has used in his Amendment is preferable to what is there already, for this reason: if he takes the first Amendment to which he spoke, Health Boards would be empowered to pay only travelling and other allowances et cetera. But their wider duty under the Bill at present is: "shall defray the reasonable expenses". This is wider because it could cover, as I think the noble Lord recognised in his remarks, certain other matters; and in this case it would, for example, be the payment of secretarial expenses or postage, which I think he mentioned, or telephone bills.
The new wording also only provides for the payment of travelling and other allowances to members of committees recognised under this subsection, and it would not cover such allowances to members of sub-committees which are appointed under subsection (8) of the clause. This is very important. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that he might perhaps reconsider what he has said, because surely it is better to ensure that the payment of such expenses is a duty rather than a power of a Health Board. It is for this reason that this particular subsection was so worded.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also spoke to his alternative Amendments which are not quite so wide as the first Amendments. Here our main feeling is that it is not made clear that travelling and other allowances are a part of the reasonable expenses which Health Boards are under a duty to provide. They do not just have a power to do so, they have a duty to do so; and the same approach applies to members of sub-committees as to members of the main committees. Therefore while I am entirely in sympathy with what he is trying to do, I suggest that on this occasion the subsection is correctly worded.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me whether the words now in the Bill cover the points I made at an earlier stage about the expenses of women in public life?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, they do not cover the question which the noble Baroness raised as to whether women have to either buy more hats or have more hair-do's because they are in public

41
life. That is not as yet considered in our society to be a reasonable expense. It covers such matters as having to provide, for example, someone to look after a child and, under certain circumstances, possibly a home help.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may have the permission of the House to speak again, I am very disappointed at the response of the noble Baroness because I think the language in the subsection is defective. Committees do not lose remunerative time, it is the members who do. In Clause 14 the wording is set out specifically to pay to members of Health Boards, not to Health Boards, not to compensate Health Councils for loss of remunerative time, but to compensate the members of these councils. Here this wording is not correct. I hope that on a reconsideration of this matter the noble Baroness may yet find my wording improves the Bill. I am going to give notice that I will withdraw these Amendments but I intend to come back even yet, unless the noble Baroness speaks a third time to say that she has had better thoughts. I will come back at Third Reading. It is something I do not like to do, but it is important that we should try to finalise the matter here where the discussion has taken place.
I certainly recognise the noble Baroness's point that, by seeing that the Health Boards may pay allowances, I am altering it from a duty to a power. That is rather simply remedied. I could do it now by a Manuscript Amendment, if that were acceptable, to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may", so that it is reinstated as a duty to pay these allowances. I must admit that it seems to me, as I think it is implied in other parts of the Bill where the possibility of people being co-opted to sub-committees is recognised, that the power to pay committees or the expenses of committees would include the power to pay members of sub-committees. If the legal interpretation is that a sub-committee of a committee would not be covered in this way, then it becomes quite a simple matter to use the words: "Pay to members of committees and sub-committees". So I can meet all these points of objection which the noble Baroness has raised by subsequent Amendment at Third Reading.
42
What the noble Baroness has not done in any way is to remove my belief that the language used in this clause is defective in that it is proposing to make payments to a body which does not incur the expense; and I think on a strict interpretation of the wording of this provision the members would not get anything, because the power was not to pay them individually but to pay the body collectively. If people were going to take things at their face value—and we are supposed to take legislation at its face value—it might conceivably be that compensation to, say, three members of the committee is added up and then is divided among the total six members of the committee, each of them having a share.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in view of the importance of the matter to which the noble Lord has just spoken, I hope that my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will have another look at this question.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as my previous intervention was merely an interrogation of the noble Baroness, I hope that I may now be allowed to say that I am deeply disappointed in her reply to my question. This would be a very good opportunity for her as a woman Minister, if I may say so, to look seriously at the problem I raised. I raised the point partly facetiously but basically very much in earnest. She has not, for example, satisfied me on the woman who is doing a part-time job. At the moment she is not allowed, as I understand it, to claim for loss of remunerative time if what she is doing is part-time work. Some very capable women who have domestic responsibilities do part-time work. Because their work is part-time, they may be able somehow to organise it so that they can attend a committee. But who is to say that they are not in fact losing something by it?
Similarly, there is the question of domestic help. As I said before, it is not always by any means the most useful or convenient way of organising it to have the help at the very time when you yourself are engaged away from home on a committee. It may be much more effective to have the domestic help when you are home to supervise it. I believe that at the moment in comparable situations

43
the regulations provide that a domestic help must be in the home when one is in the committee. Any intelligent woman knows that that is nonsense. I have much too great a respect for the Minister not to believe that she could not somehow, if she really set her mind to it, try to set an example in this Bill by altering it in these two specific ways, at any rate—on the question of domestic help and the question of part-time work. These conditions could be altered in favour of capable women, whom I am sure we all hope will be enabled to serve on these bodies. The reason why I put this point to her in the form of a question was that I had hoped that other allowances might be interpreted to cover such situations. If she can assure me of that, then I would not trouble her further. But if she cannot, we may have to try to do things at later stages.
LORD HOY: My Lords, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, when my noble friend Lady White raised this point, I omitted to deal with it at the end, but I raised the question of women who are members of local authorities. As I understand it, at the present time they can be compensated for having to engage domestic help because of their municipal responsibilities. What I am certain we should all like to know is that under these proposals women members of these committees are not going to be less favourably treated than the present members of local authorities. That point should not be difficult to answer. If we know that they are not going to be less favourably treated, then we can go to the other two points. Should not we, when we are making this change, change the conditions to meet the points raised by my noble friend Lady White? Before we move from this Amendment (I do not know what my noble friend Lord Hughes proposes to do) I think the House would be grateful if the noble Baroness could assure us on those two particular points.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me a question before I had sat down I believe that I can technically, with the leave of the House—this is not my Amendment—speak twice and therefore take the opportunity of trying to reply to the points
44
made. Lady White is quite right in drawing attention to the words "other allowances" in the subsection, which of course cover the question which I mentioned earlier on home helps and perhaps on somebody to mind a child while the lady in question is serving on a committee or a sub-committee.
In direct reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, the provisions made here are no less favourable than those he mentioned concerning those who serve on local authorities. On the much wider question raised by Lady White, I feel that we should have great difficulty in trying to define what was a reasonable expense for a woman in public life. I am very sympathetic to the point because one could, for example, say that because one was in public life one had to have a new garment, which otherwise one would not normally have had. But to try to define "reasonable expenses" to that extent is really beyond the scope of this particular Bill, and it does not seek to do so.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("including") and insert ("and may pay to members of committees").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, which gives me the opportunity of speaking again quite properly and without obtaining special leave. I hope that, reinforced as I have been by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness will undertake to have another look at this matter, because the clause as it stands is defective. It could detract from the value of what the noble Baroness said at the last stage on the words "and other allowances". I must confess that I am rather surprised at the way in which the noble Baroness has replied to my noble friend Lady White on some of these points.
The Bill does not lay down exactly what is covered by "other allowances". It is a matter on which presumably the Secretary of State and his advisers give advice and take decisions in due course. Even if at some time in the past, when the Scottish Office were not blessed with

45
a woman among their Ministers, they took the line that a home help, for instance, was not going to be paid for unless she was employed when the woman was attending a committee, I see no reason now why the Secretary of State, with the benefit of the guidance of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, should not alter that ruling. It does not need something specifically put in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to decide that if a woman is away for three hours at a committee and has a home help, when she is at home, she may be compensated. It is a perfectly easy thing for the Secretary of State to do. I should have thought that the noble Baroness could have assured my noble friend that her point would be taken care of. I am not so certain about the "hair-do", and so on, and my noble friend Lord Hoy merely asked for an assurance that women should not be less favourably treated than men in this regard. Of course no woman would be satisfied with the sort of "hair-do" that would be perfectly satisfactory to me, for example; it would not be of the slightest use to her that she could get equal treatment to myself. It may be that what the noble Baroness said about other allowances does not cover all the points which my noble friend would like to see covered; but there is no reason why it should not cover a great many of them, and I think this is the sort of field which could he made a little wider each time it is looked at, and expenses for women which were previously not considered reasonable might be brought in at the next stage.
However, what I propose to do in this connection is to have a word with my noble friend Lady White after this Report stage, but I hope that, after she herself has had a word with the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, if it should prove to be necessary to do something further we might have our "Women's Lib" Amendment on Third Reading also. In the meantime I beg to move Amendment No. 7 (to be followed in due course by Amendment No. 8) and I hope the noble Baroness can now take the advice tendered to her by her noble friend and my old friend, Lord Strathclyde. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I feel that have covered this point thoroughly, and
46
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the noble Baroness will realise that of course I entirely agree with the purpose they had in mind. But I think it necessary to say that compensation and allowances to members of a committee are in fact part of the committee's expenses, and therefore it is not necessary to refer in a particular subsection to "members of a committee" because it is assumed that their expenses are part of the expenses of a committee.
On the other point put by the noble Baroness, about having a home-help in the house when the member who is serving on this committee is present or when the member is not present, the noble Baroness expressed the view that it was much more helpful to have a home-help when she was under supervision. Of course this is entirely a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree with the noble Baroness. If I had a home-help I would rather have somebody come to help when I was not present, because when I was present I could perfectly well do it myself, and in actual practice a great number of home-helps are also at the same time looking after the children. They combine the two jobs. Therefore in that way I fail to agree with the noble Baroness. None the less, I agree that there should be the flexibility to permit this if it is necessary. On that point I think it is possible, although I am not absolutely certain and I will make sure about it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, on her first line of attack on my Amendments, put forward points which I felt had some validity in that I was altering a duty to pay these allowances to a power to do so; and I indicated that if that was the objection it was easily remedied. The second line was that it might not cover members of subcommittees if I referred only to committees, and I said that I could easily alter that on a subsequent Amendment. In my view, the third line of attack with which the noble Baroness has been furnished is a poor one by comparison with her first one and I do not find it necessary to make any alterations in what I would do in order to meet that. It has been the regular procedure in your Lordships' House that when attention is drawn to the fact that a different form of language appears in one Part of the Bill from that contained in another Part, if

47
it is possible to accomplish the purpose by using the same language throughout, Amendments to use the same language are almost invariably accepted. For some reason best known to the Minister's advisers, they are on this occasion departing from what is almost a principle, and it is only because of the fact that I accept the remarks made by the noble Baroness about sub-committees and the Amendment changing something from a duty to a power that I am now prepared to withdraw the Amendment. But as this will be the second occasion when I shall be submitting an Amendment in the light of guidance which I have received from the noble Baroness I shall on Third Reading put this Amendment down again, strengthened in the way she has indicated. I hope that her advisers will make a better job of it at the fourth attempt than they did at the first, second and third attempts. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [National Consultative Committees]:
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 2, after ("may") insert (",with the agreement of a national consultative committee,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider with this Amendment the next one, No. 10. The effect of these Amendments would be to alter Clause 18(3) to read:
"Where the Secretary of State considers it necessary, he may, with the agreement of a national consultative committee, appoint additional persons to be members of that Committee."
It was during the debate at the Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, sought to delete subsection (3) altogether, and at that time I undertook to reconsider the position. It is as a result of that debate that we now have these two Amendments for the consideration of the House. I should just like to say that this power would of course be rarely used, but it could, for example, be used in relation to a medical committee to appoint one of the consultant advisers to
48
the Secretary of State in a particular specialty, and as it is unthinkable that any person would be appointed without the agreement of the committee I hope that these Amendments will prove acceptable and will improve the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reconsideration of these paragraphs.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("a national consultative committee")and insert ("that committee")—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 comprise the same set of Amendments in relation to Clause 18 as Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in relation to Clause 16. At Third Reading I shall put down an improved Amendment to Clause 18, and therefore I do not intend to move Amendment No. 11.
Clause 19 [Common Services Agency]:
4.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, these are the Amendments which gave rise to the comment of the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 13. They are I think a natural parallel to what has now been done to Clause 13. I put the case for them at Committee stage and I think it would be abusing the patience of your Lordships if I were to state the arguments again. All I need to say is that the case for them has now been strengthened by the Amendment to Clause 13, and I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible now to accept Amendments Nos. 15 to 25. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("shall have power to") and insert ("may by order").—(Lord Hughes.)
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, when these Amendments were originally put down on the Committee stage I said then that in view of the large number of regulations

49
and orders contained in the Bill I doubted that it was necessary to make the content of Clause 19 subject to orders. On the other hand, the Agency is a very important body and of course it is a new body. While at the time I said that I thought that Parliament had many means of finding out which functions would be transferred, nevertheless I feel that perhaps the arguments made then had real substance and I have great pleasure in accepting all the Amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would move Amendments Nos. 16 to 25 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("may")
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("direct") and insert ("may by order provide")
Page 11, line 42, leave out ("from time to time")
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("may")
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("direct") and insert ("may by order provide")
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("from time to time")
Page 12, line 12, leave out ("may")
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("direct") and insert ("may by order provide")
Page 12, line 15, leave out ("from time to time")
Page 12, line 18, after ("may") insert ("by order").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Co-operation between Health Boards and local authorities]:
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 26:
Leave out Clause 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I owe your Lordships an apology for not being able to be here at the Committee stage, when the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, moved an Amendment in my name to which my noble friend replied that the words adding to the field of consultation adjacent authorities in England were not necessary because consultation in fact already happened, which seems a good reason for not putting it in the Bill. Since the Minister says that so precisely, I feel that there must be full consultation between authorities in Scotland, too. I can hardly believe that this is not so and
50
that consultation does not in fact take place. Therefore it seems to me that if there were no purpose for my words at an earlier stage there can be no purpose in leaving the clause in the Bill. All of us, from our earliest days as Parliamentarians, have had it rubbed into us that not only is nothing to be gained but that it is a mistake to add words to a Bill which only recite something which already happens or which add nothing to the Bill in general. Since I cannot believe that there is not already consultation between authorities in Scotland, I feel we might very well leave this clause out of the Bill.
I put in the additional words because I found it was an advantage that there should be consultation with the authorities in England, where, owing to the slightly different systems, it might be all the more difficult for it to be carried out. Furthermore, the final words refer to the health of the people in Scotland, and I thought it of advantage to have closer connections with the authorities on the English side of the Border, not least since we have had recent cases of tetanus and smallpox. Since I cannot believe that consultation with authorities in Scotland is not already complete I can think of no good cause for leaving this clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while I certainly appreciate the help of my noble friend Lord Inglewood from South of the Border in trying to assist in organising our Scottish affairs, nevertheless I fear I cannot accept his Amendment. This particular clause, as he rightly says, makes it quite clear that the purpose is to secure and advance the health of the people of Scotland, and we feel it is necessary to have this co-operation as a statutory duty because the absence of any formal obligation to co-operate in the provision of health services until now has been recognised as one of the weaknesses of the present system. Therefore, in the years since 1948 there have been many attempts in various ways to overcome the tendency to operate in separate compartments, and it is for that reason, which is the background of the whole of this Bill, that we are trying to bring about a united Health Service and that we have this particular Clause 20, which seeks co-operation between the various health services within the borders of Scotland.

51
So far as co-operation over the Border into England is concerned, my noble friend particularly drew attention, for instance, to a notifiable disease. Of course, if it were a disease of a serious character there is no doubt whatsoever that the medical officers of health in my noble friend's country would certainly instantly acquaint the Department concerned over the Border in Scotland. It is also a fact that if it were a serious disease the Health Board itself would of course instantly be aware of this fact. As at the Committee stage I instanced the various ways in which co-operation does take place over the Border, I do not think I can accept this particular Amendment, which seeks to delete a clause which we believe is necessary to draw attention to something which is very important to us in Scotland. Therefore, I hope my noble friend, on reflection, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the procedure under which we operate at Report stage I thought deprived me of the opportunity of saying to the noble Baroness how grateful I was for her having accepted the Amendments to Clause 19. If I now do so, and now come to her support on Clause 20, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will not think that in supporting the noble Baroness I am merely repaying a debt on Clause 19. That is not so. If the noble Lord refers to the Committee stage discussion, or the Second Reading debate—I do not remember which it was—he will find that I expressed the view that Clause 20 was rather vague and was a pious aspiration, and that if people did not in fact do what it was suggesting there was no way of enforcing it. But it seems to me that what the noble Lord is doing is going the wrong way about it. If he had been seeking to strengthen the clause, I might have found myself supporting him.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, at the Committee stage I did seek to strengthen the clause, but my noble friend would not have it, and I find in this case half a loaf no better than no bread.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been here he would have realised that he was seeking to amend
52
the clause in a hopelessly impossible way. He was inviting local authorities and education authorities to co-operate with their opposite numbers on the other side of the Border in order to secure and advance the health of the people of Scotland, when in fact he made it perfectly clear at Second Reading that what he wanted to do was to advance the health of the people on the other side of the Border. He therefore did not amend it in the proper way. Now he is seeking to amend it by taking out the clause altogether. How on earth can you promote co-operation by removing from the Bill the clause which requires co-operation between Health Boards and local authorities? It may sound very good logic when you get to the other side of the Border, but a long time ago the noble and learned Lord who normally sits on the Woolsack used an expression which I think could appropriately be ascribed to that sort of reasoning. I think this clause is weak in that it is merely a rather pious statement, but to take it out altogether certainly does not improve the Bill. I am therefore very glad that the noble Baroness has found it possible not to succumb to this raid from over the Border.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, in view of the great feeling, even if not the logic, of noble Lords who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. When it comes to the English Bill, I shall move a further Amendment requiring co-operation with the authorities on the Scottish side of the Border, in order to secure advance in the health of the people of Scotland and of England.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Designated medical officers]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 13, line 2, at end insert—
("() The Health Board concerned, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may give to the post of a designated medical officer a title appropriate to the functions he exercises or the district or area in which he exercises them.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the last stage quite a little disquiet was expressed both by Lady Tweedsmuir and by myself about this rather cumbersome

53
description, "designated medical officer". Because of what the noble Baroness then said, I tried to find a way of getting round this. I started off by seeking to remove from the Bill every reference to "designated medical officer", and when I got up to, I think, 47 Amendments in different places without knowing when I was ever going to reach the end of the road, I decided to try another line altogether. I decided to leave in the reference to "designated medical officer", but making it quite clear, by adding the words in Amendment No. 27, that no one was to be described in everyday life as the "designated medical officer".
I gave the noble Baroness prior notice of the Amendment which I intended to table, and I received a letter from her. I wonder whether I may have her permission to read what she said to me about the "designated medical officer", because if her words go into the Record and she also says something about the point, that will suffice, and I will withdraw the Amendment. I am moving it merely in order to get these words in. The noble Baroness wrote to me as follows:
"Secondly, there is the matter of the designated medical officer' in Clause 21. Since the debate I have thought about this a good deal. I fear, however, that I cannot offer either a better expression or a better way of securing the necessary objective. The trouble is, I think, that the Bill gives more prominence to the 'designated medical officer' than his functions as such perhaps justify."
And the words "as such" are underlined.
"The term is not intended to be an alternative to 'medical officer of health': there will be no appointments advertised for a 'designated medical officer', nor is this a title by which the doctors concerned will ordinarily be known. These factors will no doubt be known by whatever title best describes their total range of responsibilities in an area or district, and I understand that no statutory provision to that effect on the lines of the Amendment you have proposed is needed to secure that result. What will happen is that from among its team of medical officers with relevant experience the Health Board will 'designate' particular officers for the purposes of carrying out (on the now comparatively rare occasions on which the need arises) certain specific functions imposed on the present medical officer of health by existing statutes. (It seems unlikely that there will be much need for identifying a specific officer in this way in future legislation.) These particular officers may be given the responsibility of advising the local authority in other matters as well, but they will be doing this as medical officers of the Health Board with appropriate
54
qualifications and experience, not specifically as 'designated medical officers'; and they will not be the only officers of the board available to advise the local authority. To refer to them as 'designated medical officers' in relation to their specific statutory functions as such (which are contained in Schedule 5 to the Bill) seems to convey what is intended more neatly than the many other possibilities I have considered. The expression has not, so far as I know, occasioned adverse comment from the profession, nor did the local authority associations or the members of the working party on co-operation with local authorities object to it or suggest any alternative. In the circumstances I have concluded that, unlovely though it may be, the expression is the most convenient one for the fairly limited purposes which it serves."
I took the opportunity between stages of talking to a medical officer of health expressing to him my views about the term, "designated medical officer". He said to me, as the noble Baroness has said in her letter, that they had accepted this language for use in the Bill not because they expected that anyone would be officially described as a "designated medical officer" but because it was a convenient way of transferring to someone on the Health Board functions which at the present time are exercised by medical officers of health. He informed me that the term which was being used among the medical people themselves, and I believe among the universities, was "community physicians", and this term has already crept into some university courses. Therefore it became quite obvious to me that the titles, if any, which might emerge in the course of the years which lie ahead may produce something just as descriptive of the functions as "medical officer of health" was, and may produce descriptions which are just as acceptable to the community as the title "medical officer of health" has proved to be.
It seems to me that my Amendments have served a useful purpose, in that they have made it quite clear that there is no intention that someone should have conferred upon him for daily use the unlovely title "designated medical officer". I now move the Amendment (and shall subsequently beg leave to withdraw it) in the hope that the noble Baroness may be willing to take the opportunity of adding a few words.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has really said everything there is to say about this particular

55
provision of "designated medical officer", because he read from my own letter to him. I agree with him that the term "designated", even in legislation is, as I called it, "an unlovely term", and I searched about. I even went so far as Roget's Thesaurus to see what other terms there were. I saw that we could have had "an appointed medical officer, a selected, a nominated" or even one "destined or devoted to a purpose or a fate", which I hope will not be the work of the "designated medical officer". However, I think that in practice the officer concerned will attract a name to himself, as the noble Lord has said already, and this term is merely for the purpose of legislation. I am glad that he has put my letter on the Record, and I think we shall just have to leave the matter where it is.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Assistance to voluntary organisations]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("furniture") and insert ("goods, materials,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28. I cannot help noticing that there are two other Amendments to which I might perhaps speak at the same time, although they are not going to be moved by me. I think that Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 all seek to do exactly the same thing. But I suggest that my Amendment is perhaps the most acceptable, because the Bill would then read: "goods, materials, vehicles or equipment". The point of this Amendment is that vehicles and equipment are not covered by the expression "goods or materials", but furniture is covered and should therefore be deleted if goods and materials are included in this clause. As we are all trying to do the same thing, I hope the noble Lord will agree that this is a good Amendment. I also hope that the House will accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said. Amendment No. 28 seeks to accomplish the same purpose
56
as Nos. 29 and 30 which are in my name. Amendment No. 28 has the merit of accomplishing the same object in less words and I am delighted to support the noble Baroness. This is a useful Amendment, because in course of time it may be that the most useful help which the Secretary of State can provide to some voluntary bodies is to give them goods or materials rather than more major items, and it might have been doubtful whether he could properly do that under the Bill's original drafting. I therefore support Amendment No. 28.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Transfer of certain sun, to the employment of the Agency]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31 which is consequential on Amendments already accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 24, leave out ("a direction") and insert ("an order").—(Lord Hughes.)
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am very glad to accept this consequential Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Regulations, orders and local enactments]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32, which is consequential on the noble Lord's Amendment to Clause 13(1).
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 34.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments of Enactments]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 56, line 46, at end insert—
("The Immigration Act 1971
157. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (medical examination after entry), for the words 'such medical officer of health' there shall be substituted the words 'the chief administrative medical officer of such Health Board' and the words 'of health' shall be omitted.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, may I also refer to Amendment No. 34? Both Amendments are necessary to replace a reference in the Statute to the medical officer of health, as that post will no longer exist. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeal of Enactments]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BFLHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 36, at end insert—

("1971 c.77.

The Immigration Act 1971.

In paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, the words "of health", where second occurring.")

—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TRANSPORT (GRANTS) BILL
5.4 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This short Money Bill has two purposes. The most important in the present circumstances is to encourage British Rail to create a large number of extra jobs over the next two years. This will be achieved by Clause 2, which provides for the Board to accelerate a number of employment-generating investment projects. Those already planned involve 1,000 jobs in shipyards and about 800 in the rail workshops at Derby, York and Shildon. This does not include the secondary effect on suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors. The sum of £5 million mentioned in the clause does not of course represent the gross cost of the projects which the Board plan to accelerate. The total value of these stands at around £50 million, and includes such items as 600 new inter-City coaches, four ferries (three for the Isle of Wight and one for the Harwich—Hook service), 360 new hopper wagons and various track and signalling improvements. Under the clause, the Government will contribute the additional cost of carrying out the projects at an earlier stage than originally planned.
The second purpose of this short Bill is to enable the Boards to reconcile their
58
statutory duty to make both ends meet with their social obligation to restrain price rises. For this purpose, the Bill provides for special grants to the Railways Board and to the National Bus Company. The House will be aware of the history of the C.B.I. initiative to restrain prices. It was announced in July last year and was welcomed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was clearly right that the major nationalised industries should support that initiative. British Rail and the National Bus Company were willing, like the other nationalised industries, to play their part. But this placed them in a special difficulty, for in 1971 British Rail are expected to be about £15 million in the red and the National Bus Company about £1 million. Nor do the longer-term prospects of either Board suggest that they are likely to be able to offset these losses against future profits.
As the House will be aware, Parliament has given both Boards the statutory financial duty to break even "taking one year with another". Compliance with the C.B.I. initiative without some form of special assistance would clearly in these circumstances have left the Boards in breach of this duty. The Government have therefore concluded that they should be given these special grants: £27 million to British Rail and £7 million to the National Bus Company. It is, however, important to be clear that though these grants have their origins in the price restraint policy, they are not specific compensation for the losses incurred by the Board as a result of the C.B.I. initiative. The grants represent the sums needed to give the Boards a chance, with good management, to break even in 1972 and thus to put them in a position to fulfil their statutory duties.
The figures in the Bill are the outcome of negotiations and have been agreed between my right honourable friend, the Chairman of each Board and, of course, the Treasury. The House will note that the grants are not open-ended. The sums payable to the Boards have been fixed in advance and will not be subject to review in the light of events during the year. So there remains every incentive for proper management. If the Boards are able to improve their situation, the fact that the grant is fixed will gain them a corresponding benefit. And if they do

59
less well than expected they will have to deal with that situation, too. To sum up, the Bill will help to keep down prices and to create new jobs. On those grounds, I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I very much regret that I was unable to be present at the outset of the noble Lord's speech: I happened to be in a Committee and it took rather a long time to get hold of me. The result was that I missed the opening paragraph of the noble Lord's speech. I am sorry about that, because I gather he made some reference to figures which appear in the Bill and said that they were not to be taken as substantive and, in certain circumstances, could be very much improved upon or added to. Was the noble Lord talking about Clause 2 and the £5 million mentioned therein?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, because if the noble Lord took me to mean that he misunderstood me. I was at some pains to make it clear that these sums have been fixed and are not adjustable in the light of circumstances.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I intervene for a second? Did not the noble Lord say that the sum of £5 million, which appears in the Bill, might well mean ten times as much; and did he not use the figures 5 and 50 in this respect? I was not quite certain what he meant.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in that particular paragraph of my speech (in which I was referring to the purposes of Clause 2), I was making the point that the £5 million mentioned in the Bill is not the gross cost of the projects that will be brought forward as a result of this payment, but that the gross cost, and therefore the extent of its effectiveness, is £50 million—ten times as much.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; that certainly explains the point. I was under no illusion as to this £5 million: I realised that it was merely the cost of bringing the
60
work forward, and not the total cost of the work itself. This I was fairly clear about; but I understood that there was some little doubt about the figure which the noble Lord had used.
I think the Minister was right to stress (and I take it for granted that he has stressed) the limited nature of the Bill itself. Otherwise, the House might find itself entering into a long discussion on the amount and the nature of the grants payable under the 1968 Transport Act; that is, in relation to the unremunerative services run as a part of the social need services of the country. I understand that these are not embodied in this Bill, and therefore I think we ought not to discuss them. I propose to confine my remarks to the terms of the Bill, which I regard as uncontroversial, and it will not be opposed by us on this side.
My Lords, the Bill needs to be carefully examined in order to see whether the sums provided for in Clause 1 are sufficient to comply with the Government's requirements, as embodied in the C.B.I. initiative, as to holding price and fare increases within the 5 per cent. limit. On that aspect I note that in the other place on February 2 Mr. Eldon Griffiths said, in effect, that the figures of £27 million and £7 million were arrived at only after the most vigorous scrutiny, and that the sums had been agreed with the Treasury. I understand that the noble Lord has made exactly the same point here this afternoon. He further made the point that the Railways Board would be left in a position where it would be barely able, even with this grant, to meet its statutory obligations. The fact that this Bill had its Second Reading in the Commons on February 7 makes it clear that the vigorous scrutiny and the Treasury agreement took place before the miners' strike had so devastatingly hit the economy of the country and, of course, the finances of the Railways Board. What has to be remembered in this connection is that coal and coke traffic accounts for nearly one-half of the Board's revenue from its freight train traffic, and certainly well over one-half of the tonnage. In 1970, coal and coke carriage brought in some £96 million. On the face of it, my Lords, it looks as though a seven-week stoppage of the pits and a further period during which output will inevitably fall well below the normal output must mean a

61
loss of income to the railways of some £13 million—and there will be no savings to be offset against that loss. That £13 million seems to me to swallow up immediately nearly one-half of the sum allocated to the railways from the £34 million provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill.
That decline in coal receipts is only one factor in the sums we have to do; for, to the loss of coal traffic there must be added the cost of the economic recession, which was calculated to have cost the British Railways some £18½ million in 1971. I realise that a part of that may have entered into the calculation for the period to be covered by the Bill. As to the period for which the grants set out in the Bill are to run, it will be, as I read the Bill, for one year only. It will not be an annual grant for the period of the C.B.I.'s initiative, if that runs beyond the one year, and if the C.B.I. initiative on the 5 per cent. runs over into the next financial period we may well see another such Bill early next year. Indeed, if my calculations are near the mark, we ought to be seeing another such Bill during the course of this Session of Parliament. In this connection, I noted the use by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, of the fashionable word "special" when seeking to justify this grant-in-aid.
My Lords, the last comment that I have to make about the Railways Board's position is to repeat a part of a sentence from the Board's 1970 Report:
"The Board will be able to remain viable only if the existing freedom to vary prices according to the financial needs of the industry and market is retained."
Certainly the Board cannot remain viable if it is unable to raise its prices and does not receive sufficient by way of grant-in-aid compensation to offset the loss incurred. There is just one other factor in connection with the statement of the Board about remaining viable: if prices are held back for a period and the grants are then stopped, the resulting price increase will come with devastating steepness. This is one of the factors that must be taken into consideration in this connection. If at the end of the period this Bill is intended to cover the Railways Board is then to say, "We must now be viable; we must increase our prices to the extent necessary", I am afraid the increase will be a very steep
62
one indeed, and the Railways Board—and indeed, I am sure, the Government of the day—will be under some pressures and in some difficulty as a result. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, comes to reply he will deal with those aspects of the matter under discussion.
My Lords, some of the factors that have mentioned in connection with the railway undertaking must apply to some extent to the National Bus Company. Less transporting of miners to the pits; a tendency for people to stay at home during threatened and actual black-out periods; and the general effect of a continuing, and even much enhanced, trade recession must all be hitting the National Bus Company very hard indeed, for there seems to be no possibility of catching up to-day the passenger receipts that were lost yesterday.
Like the Railways Board the National Bus Company is expected to maintain reasonable financial equilibrium by means of fare increases introduced at the earliest possible moment after it has become obvious that they are necessary. The National Bus Company suffers from the fact that there is always a delay caused by the procedure before the traffic commissioners when seeking permission to raise fares. This is something which is estimated to have cost the National Bus Company some £3 million in 1970. It is bound to be a worrying prospect for the company if fare increases are to be held back this year and then, at the end of the C.B.I. initiative period the company has to ask for a steep rise to cover the deficit which it will then have to face, not only because the company has not been able to increase fares to cover the loss (which I think is inevitable) over and above that taken care of by the £7 million grant, but also the loss sustained by reason of the restrictive nature of the traffic commissioners' procedure. These are some of the factors which emerge from this Bill.
I must admit, my Lords, that I have very little to say about Clause 2 of the Bill because it seems to me to been pretty straightforward way of trying to bring forward expenditure in order to add to employment prospects at a time when such expenditure is sadly needed. I repeat that I understood what the noble

63
Lord was saying about the fact that this £5 million was the cost, the price, only of bringing these schemes forward and was not the value of the amount of work which would shortly be put into the economy as a result of this Bill. Altogether, this is a Bill which we have no wish to delay; but I must add a warning that it will have to be followed quite soon by another to offset the effect of the coal strike and the continuing recession in which we find ourselves and with which the economy of this country is beset.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must apologise for having missed the opening remarks of my noble friend who began rather earlier than I expected. I think Clause 1 is inevitable in this Bill; but I particularly welcome Clause 2, although I regard it as very late and very little. I believe that when private investment is held back through lack of confidence and when money is piling up in the economy, it is the Government's business to borrow and to spend on those things which will not get done in a period of full employment and which there is now a wonderful opportunity of getting done. If only Ministers would regard the present situation as an opportunity and not as something to weep over we should get going much quicker. I could have advocated these policies in the unemployment debate, but I was laid up at the time.
Railway material goes straight to heavy industries; and I do not think that bringing forward £5 million is really half enough to do the job I have just mentioned. Many railway schemes can be shown to show a profit on the capital invested, but I want to put forward another yardstick. With reference to the roads, all sorts of learned statisticians produce figures to prove that delay on the roads costs so many tens or hundreds of millions of pounds a year. How they make their calculations I have no idea, and whether they are accurate I do not know but those of your Lordships who happen to live in the Southern Region of British Rail will have noted the inevitable derailments which occur at intervals. Those derailments produce utter chaos throughout the entire suburban commuter system. If delays on the
64
roads produce these great losses, undoubtedly delays of one or two hours or more in the worker getting to office or factory must presumably produce similarly great losses.
I understand that these derailments are caused through mixing modern stock and old short-based goods wagons in the same goods train which is travelling too fast for the old ones. I should have thought that it would have been a very wise move for the Government to advance the railways sufficient money to get these old wagons replaced as quickly as possible. All this is grist to the mill of heavy industry and the community would benefit by the elimination of these appalling delays and frustrations, mental as well as physical, caused by not getting to work at the right time. For that reason, I suspect that this £5 million is quite inadequate. I even wonder whether British Rail have a programme to replace these wagons. If they have not, I am sure that it would be of great benefit to the economy for them to produce one very quickly and to place orders as soon as possible.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance the House has given to this Bill and for the approval expressed for its purposes, particularly the purposes set out in Clause 2. I hasten to confirm, for the benefit of my noble friend that as the noble Lord, Lord Champion was good enough to endorse, the value of the projects brought forward as a result of this grant is not £5 million but £50 million. It includes (and perhaps my noble friend did not hear me say this) 360 new hopper wagons, which I think is what he was talking about. There are limits to the number of projects you can bring forward; nothing is gained by bringing forward projects which are not in themselves profitable and productive. Nevertheless, I am grateful for what noble Lords have had to say about that.
I am also grateful for what Lord Champion said about the new circumstances created by the coal strike. He is right to infer that the calculations and negotiations (to which I referred) in arriving at the £27 million and £7 million for the Railways Board and the National Bus Company respectively were calculations and negotiations undertaken and completed before the coal strike. The coal strike creates a new situation. The

65
noble Lord was right to remind us of the damage caused to the economy, and to the economy of these particular bodies, by that strike and of the additional difficulties with which it has involved them. The only point that I would make by way of conclusion is that that reinforces the importance of passing this Bill, whatever may happen in the future.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

FORESTRY POLICY
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what, in their view, are the respective functions of the private and public sectors within the National Forestry Programme over the next 50 years. The noble Earl said: My Lords, may I at the outset thank those noble Lords who have put down their names to take part in this debate. Among them one sees some very distinguished foresters with considerable experience. I am grateful for what I am sure will be their enrichment of this short debate. In raising this Question on Her Majesty's Government's forestry policy over the next 50 years I have gone perhaps a little beyond what would appear even to the most faithful supporters to be the expected life of the present Administration. I mention this because, as every noble Lord who follows the welfare of forestry will know, each new Administration tends to show a wish to examine, to review and to state early on in its life its policy towards forestry and to confirm (as one hopes it will continue to confirm) its continued support for the industry. This stated policy tends on average to be examined and reviewed every five or ten years with the obvious possibility occurring at each review of a fundamental change of emphasis or support. Yet these relatively frequent statements of policy are in respect of an industry unique in its long-term requirements and very dependent upon confidence and stability for its success.
I appreciate that in raising this Question tonight I do so at a time when yet another forestry review is under consideration by my right honourable friend. And as the latest Forestry Commission Annual Report has stated, this review was set up in December, 1970, some 14 months ago. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to inform us how soon the outcome of that review will be announced and whether it will be in the form of a White Paper rather than just a Statement. I believe that would be appreciated by the industry. I am sure it would be welcomed if my noble friend would endorse the Government's general support of and faith in this long-term industry.
My noble friend will know that surrounding the present review the forestry programme faces a number of criticisms, and I believe that to-night he could usefully comment on some of them without prejudicing the outcome of the review. Most of these criticisms, perhaps rather naturally, concern the role of the Commission, the Government agency, who, besides administering the grants and controls over the private sector, own in their own right some 3 million acres of woodlands, representing some 50 per cent. of the nation's timber-producing forests and woods. In fact they are the, largest landowner in the country, the largest State-owned forestry in Western Europe. On present form they are increasing their boundaries by over 50,000 acres a year.
The work of the Commission since 1919, when they were formed, has been commendable, both in national terms and also in forestry generally. I believe that they have fulfilled their original terms of reference with distinction. I wish to pay my tribute to what they have achieved in the past and for all that they are achieving at present in promoting the general interests of forestry, particularly in respect of research, nature conservation and, more recently, the increasing demand for public recreation. But I believe that no one would disagree with the view that since the formation of the Commission some 53 years ago, the conditions, priorities and objectives have changed. No longer may it be argued that the Forestry Commission's job is to develop afforestation for strategic reasons, as was the case in 1919. The

67
Commission's present terms of reference are to be found in three Acts, the 1967 Forestry Consolidation Act and the two Countryside Acts of 1968, one for England and Wales and a separate Act for Scotland. As the House will recall, the terms were, first, a general duty to promote the interests of forestry, including the development of afforestation for home production and the supply of timber, and to build up an adequate reserve of growing trees. Secondly, the Corn-mission have a duty to promote forestry research, and indeed they have done very valuable work in this connection. Thirdly, they are to promote nature conservation, and fourthly, to promote facilities for public recreation.
My Lords, I will turn briefly to the first duty laid on the Commission, to promote generally the interests of forestry and, more specifically, to build up adequate reserves of growing timber. There are. I believe, a number of informed people in industry who question how much further the Forestry Commission, as a Government agency, should go in the acquisition of further land and the extension of their existing estates. To date the Commission have, as I have said, built up an acreage of some 3 million acres of forest. So far the taxpayer has paid out, I have assessed, £220 million of capital to the Commission over 50 years. With accrued interest of £216 million, the round total appears to be £440 million of taxpayers' investment. The present annual payment to the Commission is running at £13 million, with an additional £2 million being paid out through the Commission by way of grants to the private sector. This is all sizeable public investment, and I believe that the Government should make absolutely clear what are their objectives and the return on that investment.
To pause there for a moment, if one looks at the last year's annual report and the harvesting trading account it is, I think, a little confusing, and perhaps unfair on the Commission, to see that the income from the sale of produce and so on came to £6·8 million and the cost of these sales came to £5 million, leaving a balance of £1·7 million. Yet there is then put in a deduction for cost of plantings, plantations and thinnings up to the time of sale of £4 million, leaving a deficit of £2·3 million. The questions
68
that arise from this are, first, do the Government see the Commission continuing to expand alongside the private sector at the present rate of 50,000 acres a year? Or would the nation's resources be better used in encouraging the private sector to take on the major role of the expansion of forestry? It seems to me at the moment to be about 50 per cent. in the private sector and 50 per cent. in the Commission. Is it better to encourage more expansion in the private sector with private investment? What is the nation's adequate reserve of growing trees, measured in acres, as stated in the 1967 Act? Will there really be a world shortage of timber by the year 2000, as forecast by various prophets, or will the thousands of acres of timber from the developing countries be released on to the world markets by then?
How confident are the Government that by the turn of the century the synthetics industry will largely have replaced the timber industry in the use of materials for building? What role do the Government wish home forestry to play in reducing the £750 million worth of imported timber and thereby relieving the strain on the balance of payments? These are the fundamental questions which are being asked, and I hope my noble friend will touch upon them in his reply. I believe that the future role of the Commission is changing rapidly. In saying that, I do not advocate for a moment that this fine body should be dismantled. But I believe that they have now reached the stage where they have built up a large estate of forestry by astute and commendable management. In my view, that landholding is now large enough, when taken together with the private sector, to meet adequately the nation's need for a reserve of growing trees. I believe that the role of the Commission in the next decade, and perhaps in the next 50 years, should be more to encourage the growth of the private sector; to examine and tackle the problems facing the marketing of home produced timber; to deal with nature conservation and the special problems of amenities in forests, and, obviously, the increasing demand for public recreation as well as the other vital jobs which are being handled in connection with research, education, training, advisory work and encouragement of private forestry. I think that

69
there should be less emphasis on the expansion of their own estates.
On the subject of amenity, the Commission have come under considerable criticism in recent years and one must say immediately that they have defended themselves stoutly regarding the preponderance of conifers planted on their estates. One sees from the latest annual report that the total planting by the Commission last year amounted to some 70,488 acres and only 427 acres were broad leaf trees; that is, under 1 per cent. In the private sector the percentage was a little better at 6 per cent. Besides the obvious commercial reasons for planting conifers, which are difficult to counter, there are two aspects which I believe to be worthy of consideration, and which I hope my noble friend may refer to tonight. The first is that at present there is no disparity in the planting grants between broad leaf and conifer plantations. It seems to me that with an agreed objective of providing more broad leaf plantations to assist in amenity there should be an inducement to increase grants for broad leaf plantations. The second aspect in encouraging the broad leaf plantations is the control of the grey squirrel. I understand that this problem is increasing to worrying proportions, and when one considers that whole plantations of broad leaf trees can be ruined by squirrels in one night, the presence of the grey squirrel in any numbers cannot encourage forestry consultants to advocate the planting of plantations. I believe that the reintroduction of the assistance for the control of grey squirrels by the Commission would be generally welcomed.
Another isolated feature concerning amenity is the control and management of our hedgerows. I believe that the Commission could play a big part in preventing, as so often happens, large areas of hedgerows being destroyed. It is not often realised or appreciated that not only is there a visual loss of amenity, but also that damage to wild life, the loss of birds' nests and other homes of wild life is very considerable. Some form of control of the widespread destruction of hedgerows would, I believe, add much to amenity and the conservation of the countryside.
Turning briefly to the Common Market, I should like to ask my noble friend what effect, if any, the Common
70
Market may have on forestry. Will there be any change in the financial structure or support to bring us in line with other European partners? And is there a Common Market forestry policy which in time we should have to accept? I should like to ask one other question on the Common Market that specifically involves the plywood industry. As my noble friend will know, we import some 97 per cent. of our plywood, mainly from Commonwealth countries. At the present time no tax is paid on this imported material. Could my noble friend advise us whether these arrangements will remain, or whether there will be a common external tariff which could raise the cost of plywood coming into this country?
Turning briefly now to the private sector, I believe that it is generally agreed that with the grant payments and the tax allowance the private sector over the years has been very fairly treated and has no cause to grumble at the support that it receives. The Commission play a vital role in its welfare, and the rapport, one understands, between the two sectors is very good. But there is a cloud in the sky which from time to time must cause unease in the private sector. It is the very thought that the support received, which is essential if the private sector is to expand and attract long-term investment, could be withdrawn at the proverbial stroke of a pen. It is particularly for this reason that I believe that at time of national forestry reviews there is concern that policies may change which could make a nonsense of the long-term planning of the industry. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to spell out, both to-night in the words of my noble friend, and in a few weeks' time in the expected review, their continued support for the industry, in general, and the increasing role that the private sector should play, in particular.
5.44 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I should like to add a few words. I must declare an interest in forestry, and I may say that I feel happier practising it than I do in addressing your Lordships. I have worked closely in forestry with the Forestry Commission and with private forestry for many years. I feel that great achievements have been made by the Commission, and I hope it will be agreed

71
that private forestry has made its contribution. I think it is fair to say that State forestry organisations are more suited to the larger forests and woods; but wherever they can undertake growing and management of the smaller woods also, so much the better. It is more up to the owners on the spot, who can more suitably look after the smaller woodlands on their lands. The two tasks are in no ways antagonistic; they are complementary and I think both very necessary.
It so happens that the owners of smaller woodlands are proportionately more concerned with hardwoods, and I find that the population in the countryside is always asking for a larger percentage of hardwoods and mixed woods, and not to go in too much for the darker conifers. We are probably more concerned with the amenity and the landscape. We know that the Forestry Commission have been doing a great deal in the last few years in those respects, and there is also a responsibility upon us. If the work is to be well done, and if the men are to be well housed and looked after, the growing of hardwoods in small woods in inevitably a more costly business. In forestry we are all embarked primarily on timber production, but it is becoming more and more required of us to pay full attention to conservation and amenity. I think this is where encouragement from Parliament will be more necessary, and will be variable, as well as in making it financially possible to grow good commercial timber.
A viable and productive forestry cannot come suddenly in a few years' time, and I submit that great progress has been made since 1945. I would urge that this be allowed to continue progressively, and anticipate that in another 25 years' time we shall have a viable forestry industry which will have gone much further towards paying for itself and will not require the financial support which it now receives from Parliament. I think all in forestry welcome the closer co-operation with Parliament and with Government to ensure that both the Forestry Commission and private forestry can continue during the next 25 years to establish a sound and economic industry immensely to the benefit of Britain.
5.49 p.m.
LORD DULVERTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord
72
Kinnoull for giving us the opportunity of having a brief debate about forestry this evening. Like my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, I must declare an interest, having been engaged for the last 25 years or so—not quite so long as he has—as a keenly interested forester both in the Midlands and in the Highlands of Scotland. I too am aware that the Government have been thinking hard in recent months about the future pattern of forestry, and to some extent one will be in a better position to discuss this subject if and when we know the results of their thinking. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a debate on whatever Paper materialises when the Government are in a position to produce their thoughts and the results of their deliberations. It is clearly good and timely that the Government are doing this, for as my noble friend has pointed out the role of forestry is changing and has changed. But I think that so many new considerations have come to the forefront in the forestry field during the last year or two that it is timely for us now to sit back and think, as Her Majesty's Government are doing.
Since the days when the Forestry Commission were charged with establishing first and foremost, if not solely, a wartime reserve of timber, the facts attaching to timber growing have changed. Not only has the importance of this original role dwindled and diminished, but forestry in its own right has become an industry—a small one by contrast with Continental standards but still an important one, particularly for the depopulated rural areas. Furthermore it has become the basis of a growing industry in wood processing. Log mills, sawmills, chipboard mills and other processing plants are steadily increasing in numbers and are employing a not inconsiderable number of people, thus contributing some useful savings to our import bill to the extent of £700 million worth of timber. But besides producing timber the foresters and forest planners are having more and more to consider other factors and other uses for the forests, for which there is an increasing public demand. The amenity of the countryside and the way in which this is affected by the nature and composition of the forests is something that arouses an emotion akin to passion in some quarters. As an aside, here I should like to refer again to the point made

73
by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull concerning the pressure for planting hardwoods, a point with which few foresters would disagree. It is impossibly difficult to attempt it—and indeed it is virtually a write-off—unless we can do more about controlling the grey squirrel. I believe that in their vast forests the Forestry Commission themselves may have felt the impact of this problem less than have some parts of the private sector, partly because the private sector has planted a higher proportion of hardwoods in recent years and partly because private woodlands tend to be so scattered that it is more difficult to deal with this pest.
However, to continue with the changes in the pattern and the demands upon forestry, one demand which has once more been referred to this evening—and again it is a growing one—is for country recreations in which the forests may have a useful role to play. Their capacity for absorbing numbers of people who are in search of peace, quiet and fresh air and, equally important, for absorbing them unobtrusively is in fact immense. This recreational use of forests must be and is being recognised as of growing importance. I know that the Forestry Commission themselves would regard it as a proper role to play and they have already made a good start towards making provision for this demand. The private sector also, I must confess, in a smaller way, is making a beginning; and I am sure that landowners as a whole are taking note of the trend and are not unsympathetic towards playing their part. But the question must be raised, particularly in the case of the Forestry Commission, that some special component of their vote from Parliament should be earmarked for the development of recreational accommodation, such as car parks, picnic sites, lavatories and so on, which are far from inexpensive to install.
The ecology of the forests and their relationship to the environment as a whole is another subject that is again rightly engaging more and more attention, and this attention is not invariably attended by complete understanding. I hope that the Forestry Commission themselves may be able to do even more than they are doing at the moment in educating the public about the environmental factors by means of which the forest
74
brings many people to the countryside. Such matters are far too little known about. The past history and the derivation of our forests over the centuries is hardly known about, so that people regard the bare hills and the uplands as being our native and natural state, whereas very largely they were covered by various sorts of forest and are bare to-day only as a result of human interference and indifference. Competition of forestry land use with other land uses is another subject which is arousing great interest, and this too is often impassioned. So we look forward to the production of the Government's thoughts and we welcome the fact that they are taking a comprehensive look at these things.
Yet there is one matter connected with the review that is a matter for regret; that is the fact that as a result of these extended deliberations the review of the grants to private forestry has been somewhat delayed. Perhaps I might explain a little. Your Lordships will know of the general gist of the dedication agreements which were introduced soon after the war and the covenants by which the private landowner or trustees for land could enter into an agreement with the State and the Forestry Commission to dedicate certain areas of land to forestry, which would remain managed as productive woodland—I think the expression is "in perpetuity", but at any rate until the arrangements were terminated by mutual consent. This is a solemn binding contract between the two parties, and written into it is the fact that grants from the Government to the private sector will be reviewed every three years. The last of the three years was up on October 1, 1970–18 months or so ago—but so far the Government have not been able to produce or publicise their review of the private forestry grants, which is now 18 months in arrears. That is almost a breach of contract, and I hope that it may be regulated before very much longer and that we can look forward to the production of the whole of the Government's thoughts.
It is perhaps late in the day to make any suggestions to Her Majesty's Government for consideration for incorporating in their thinking about forestry. Nevertheless, I would venture to point out one particular matter of which I have long been conscious. It is not a direct forestry matter, but I hope that my noble friends

75
on the Front Bench will bear with me if I spend a moment or two—and I will try to be brief—on a matter which is very closely connected and tied up with forestry. For years now we have heard about the integration of land uses. We have paid lip service to the integration of farming, forestry and all the other things. We have done something, but only very little, about it. The private sector is in a much better position to integrate than the State sector. Whoever may be responsible for management and planning of a private estate has, perforce, to fit together his picture of plantations, farming, perhaps caravan parks, and cottages. All the land uses have to be fitted together, considered and understood. In the public sector the Forestry Commission are charged with planting a forest, not with developing farms. I want to concentrate on the farming point.
My Lords, forestry has been criticised in recent years for ousting the hill sheep farmer. A large amount of land has been bought up from the hill sheep farmers and put down to forestry. But do not let us forget that many of those hill farms were really not viable, and economically were reaching a point of standstill. However, the criticism obtains that you can eat sheep but you cannot eat trees—and of course that is true. I believe that we shall one day be able to eat trees, because the chemists will find a way of breaking down the fibres into some palatable form of substance—though I would rather not partake of it myself. The point I am leading up to is that in the light of the developments which have gone on at the Hill Farming Research Institute, and in other similar organisations, it will be perfectly feasible to produce as many sheep or cattle on a fraction of the acreage they now occupy under the free-range system, provided that capital is put into the land to improve it, to grow grass and clover where sedges and heather grow to-day. It will not be possible to do this everywhere, but there are many hill areas where it would be possible to improve a few hundred acres and to provide the necessary fencing and access roads which will be required if you go in for forestry. So there is a fine opportunity of sharing the high capital cost of providing access roads and fencing and then improving certain hill areas with a
76
view to more intensive stock management and higher production.
In the West Highlands of Scotland, with which I am familiar, sheep were introduced on a free-range system about 200 years ago. They have caused a deterioration both in the herbage and in the land itself, which is very thin and infertile land in any event. So the cumulative effect of these 200 years of sheep farming has resulted in the production of a hill flock of ewes sinking to the level of 50 or 60 lambs per hundred ewes—and they are not very good lambs, either. A well-managed stock farm, with better grazing and better stock management, can easily produce 150 lambs of far better quality than the hill land from a hundred ewes—in fact 150 per cent. of lambs against 60 per cent. This is off a fraction of the acreage now used for free-range grazing which, incidentally, employs only a man or a man and a half per 2,000 acre hirsels. I believe that if grants on a scale similar to those given for forestry were given for the improvement of certain areas of the hills, sheep and cattle farming and forestry could get along well together. My earnest plea to Her Majesty's Government is that they should look into the matter more closely than I believe has occurred in the past, either on their part or the part of any Government, because it could be of importance to the hill lands. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some encouragement that this point will be looked into. I shall be happy and willing to supply him with better facts, figures and details than I have troubled your Lordships with this evening.
6.7 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I intervene in your Lordships' debate only briefly this evening to welcome my noble friend Lord Kinnoull's Question and to support all that he has said on behalf of private forestry. Like my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, I must declare an interest as a forestry owner and as one who is on the executive committee and council of the Timber Growers' Organisation. Much of the wide-ranging speech that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has made has probably been taken from the recent case for forestry which was submitted by the Timber Growers' Organisation, the contents of which I am

77
certain are well known to my noble friend on the Front Bench who will be replying to the debate, and to many others in the forestry trade.
Whether or not the timing for this debate is correct, I am sure that all in the forestry industry will welcome what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has said: that we appreciate that far-reaching discussions are taking place between Her-Majesty's Government and the Forestry Commission. We welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe who had to leave his place a moment or two ago, has been present. We are always pleased when the captains of great nationalised industries come to your Lordships' House to listen to the debates. On the other hand, perhaps it is sad from our point of view that they cannot take their seat on the Cross-Benches and give us the benefit of their expertise as private individuals; but that is a different matter. I am sure that on behalf of the Timber Growers' Organisation I may wish the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, all success and happiness in the great undertaking of which he has been in charge this year, and I hope he will be in that position for many years in the future.
It is a difficult time, no doubt, for the noble Lord who will reply, but, along with noble Lords who have spoken, we welcome the fact that the Government are taking part in this review; but we hope that the matter can be brought to fruition a little more speedily than would appear to be the case, as my noble friend Lord Dulverton has suggested. Nevertheless, when the case is put forward no doubt there will be Papers and that will be the time for a much more detailed debate in your Lordships' House. I know that noble Lords on both sides of the House will welcome those Papers when they arrive.
We have heard that the Forestry Commission are the largest nationalised forest owner in Europe, holding forests to an extent of some 3 million acres. They are, of course, the major competitor to private forestry growers. The private forestry industry consists of something in the region of 1·6 million acres, against the nearly 3 million acres of the Forestry Commission, as the up-to-date acreage now is. Of this 1·6 million acres some 60 per cent. is under the dedicated scheme
78
or under a managed woodland scheme, as has been described by noble Lords this evening. Those dedicated and approved woodland owners could well be called owners of forestry businesses; and it is on behalf of the serious forestry businesses that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has addressed his remarks to the noble Lord who will be replying. Of those private owners it is inconceivable, but apparently true, that in the whole of the United Kingdom there are only 12,000 owners of woodland whose woodlands extend to more than 10 acres. The average size o0f a private woodland is about 140 acres. That shows the kind of fragmentend ownership with causes the industry many problems, to which we very much hope that the noble Lord and the Department, along with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the Forestry Commission, will be devoting their talks.
There has recently been a report, called the E.R.U. Report, from a body set up by both the Forestry Commission and private growers to examine the problems both of the Commission and of private woodlands. The report was financed with generous help from the Forestry Commission. At least now we do know more facts more clearly than before. It has made private woodland owners and all in the timber and forestry business think extremely carefully. Whether or not the conclusions of this report are the right conclusions, we hope that light will be given by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, after they have had their consultations and when Papers are presented.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said that £750 million worth of forestry produce is imported into this country. Of course, out of that only £230 million—still a formidable figure—is in fact timber or timber-like produce—90 per cent. of our softwood and 75 per cent. of our hardwood requirements. There is therefore a very large make-up which private forestry and State forestry can give to the saving of imports of timber and timber-like commodities. As we have heard, as Forestry Commission plantations come to fruition, and plantations such as those belonging to the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, in Scotland, and the noble

79
Lord, Lord Dulverton, come into fruition more and more valuable timber will be available to the industries which we have heard are starting and which indeed will make great progress in a very few years towards the closing of this import gap. Except for the rain forests of the United States of America this country is perhaps the most favourable country for growing timber in the temperate zones of all the world. Timber merchants will probably say that it is too favourable, with the result that quality deteriorates. Nevertheless, the bulk will be there, and it is bulk that these industries about which we have heard require. It is still said that in the very near future Europe will become a not timber importing area even when European Russia is taken into consideration. Surely, this makes it still more important that even in this country, with our small timber resources, we should make every contribution we possibly can to the requirements that Europe will need as a whole in the near future.
As has been said this evening, we are quite certain and say with confidence that both State forests and private forests will be able to contribute in a very much greater proportion than they are able to to-day, as soon as plantations resulting from over a quarter of a century of the dedication covenant begin to bear fruit. We therefore hope that in the very near future it will be possible to make a restatement of the principles of the dedication covenant, nearly a quarter of a century old, brought up to date to suit modern conditions. We hope that there will be a restatement of what Her Majesty's Government consider is the role of the Forestry Commission; and, speaking as a private grower, I hope that it will be possible for the Forestry Commission to receive every support from the Government to enable them to carry on the great work that they are undertaking in the interests of forestry in this country. Not only have we heard that they are the greatest timber land owners in Europe; they are also acknowledged to be the source of the greatest expertise on temperate forestry throughout the world. It is most interesting to hear foreign timber owners and those connected with foreign Governments in timber owning pay tribute generously not only to the Forestry Commission of the last
80
quarter of a century, but to the days when forestry by man-made principles started after the First World War.
My Lords, speaking again as a private individual, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to enable forestry to continue for the next fifty years under one Ministry, rather than three Ministers and a good many other Departments with a finger in the pie. I appreciate of course that this is a very different question from that which is asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, this evening, but it is one which I hope will be receiving consideration in due course from Her Majesty's Government. There is obviously urgency. As we have heard from speakers this evening, we welcome the review that is being made. We hope that there will be just a little more speed to bring a result from that review, and that Papers will be placed before your Lordships' House for a more wide-ranging and informed debate, with due notice. My Lords, we look forward to fifty years of continued prosperity for the industry, which we believe will be the case.
6.18 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I too welcome, like some other noble Lords, the opportunity to discuss forestry, thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I also must declare an interest as a private forester in that I run a mixed forest and hill farm in Scotland. I should like to repeat what other noble Lords have said; and that is that in all my dealings with both the public and private side of forestry I have found those involved to be a most dedicated band of men with identical objectives. I believe that this, in one form or another, is what most of us have been saying in this debate.
The role and function of the Forestry Commission has proved itself already over the years since the war in rebuilding the country's natural forests, which became seriously depleted between 1939 and 1945. Private forestry, as the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has said, has made a very large contribution and continues to do so. In Scotland, including the depopulated areas of the country, the forestry-based industries and the large forests that have been created by the Forestry Commission and private forestry are providing long-term employment in places

81
where there is no hope and no chance of employment, and are preventing for the first time the drift away from the countryside. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord when he is giving his considerations to this matter in the White Paper, will bear in mind the role of employment in regard to the forestry industry in parts of Scotland where there is at present serious unemployment.
The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, mentioned some of the most important and troublesome things for a forester. These are the difficulties, and the antagonism involved with the hill farming community. I am both a hill farmer and a forester. I think a great deal of misunderstanding has been created. This is due partially to unfortunate things said in the wrong places, and partially to not explaining the functions or objectives of foresters to hill farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, has touched on another of the main troubles of the hill farming industry to-day; namely, that the hill farms have had to be abandoned through lack of capital, lack of care over the years and lack of capital investment. These are among the reasons why land has become available for foresters and the table issued by the Scottish Hill Farming Research Institute confirms that over a 50-year period the output per acre is better from a forest than from a hill farm.
I hope that both in the role of forestry and of hill farming the noble Lord will reconsider the basis of the system of grants given to hill farmers. At the moment the present production grants are not enough to maintain the future of a hill farm, and I believe that the same kind of capital grants available to a forester should be reapplied to those in the hill farming industry, because a hill farm is a capital-intensive business in much the same way as a forest. I also believe that a mixed hill farm and forest can be operated with benefit to both and with a saving in costs. Various tables that I have been able to obtain from the Scottish Hill Farming Research Institute show this to be so.
I would like to think that the Government are going to be forward-looking enough to take into consideration the future livelihood and hopes of people living in the countryside in Scotland. They can see little hope at the moment
82
because of lack of capital and lack of understanding by the Government agencies which are trying to assist them, perhaps with the right intentions, but in the wrong way.
I wish to end on almost a frivolous note concerning the amenity side of forestry. All forests have come under heavy criticism for despoiling the countryside with large blocks of green. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Denham, to consider whether it is at all possible to prevent the Forestry Commission from planting in straight lines. No natural forest grows in a straight line. One thing that makes the Forestry Commission blocks, and indeed some private forestry, stand out as eyesores, is simply and basically a planting policy based on rectangular blocks, presumably in order to make it simpler to count the number of trees. I cannot see any other reason why these square blocks are allowed. If it is a question of simple arithmetic and nothing more, then I feel that the people who design these blocks should be foresters, not accountants. The Government would be doing a great service if somehow they managed to deter the creators of these right-angled lines which make the forests so obviously artificial and therefore open to criticism as spoiling rather than adding to the environment. This is such a simple matter that I hope the noble Lord will be able to do something about it. Perhaps he will let me know. I think we can only wait with great interest for more Papers; and from what a number of noble Lords have said there appear to be a number of questions to be asked and a lot more details to be discussed.
I should like to make one final point. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was having the same difficulty with the figures presented by the Forestry Commission as I have experienced. They are presented at the moment in a way that makes it difficult for me to comprehend the exact output per acre of a forest; and if somehow, as we are now learning in the hill farming business, output per acre rather than profitability in this country should be used to assess the effectiveness of our investment it would be an advantage. I believe that forestry as well as farming should come under this criterion when it comes to figures. The figures quoted in Government papers are

83
far too manifold and they are usually incomprehensible in determining the output per acre, and I would like the noble Lord to consider some way of simplifying the forestry figures produced, so that they are in some ways comparable to those for other forms of farming and other ways of making a living off the land.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down as I understand that he is a private forester may I ask how he tackles the problem of forestry in relation to scenery? I have had my home in Argyll for a number of years, during which time a number of beautiful panoramas have been ruined by the growth of trees.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord has asked that question. It is basically a matter of contour planning. One of the objectives is to put large blocks of trees over the contours so that they are not necessarily visible either from the roadside or from where the view can be seen. Secondly, one considers how one plans the rides. Again one should get away from straight lines and right angles and merge the forest naturally in with the contours of the hill. The other thing is to incorporate—which I have not yet done—broadleaved trees. The Forestry Commission have attempted to do this in some cases by putting the broad-leaved or hardwood trees on the surrounds of a forest. Regrettably this is not effective. It is rather like a badly framed picture. I think one has to plant separate hardwood blocks and also mix the species of softwoods. A valley has to be landscaped in the same way as a garden. So I cannot answer the question specifically without knowing the particular view the noble Lord has in mind but I should be pleased to have a discussion with him later.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I apologise to the whole House and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, that owing to difficulty in getting a taxi I was not here for their speeches.
My qualifications, such as they are, for speaking to-night are that I look after some 600 acres of woods in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and that I am Vice-Chairman of the Yorkshire
84
Division of the Forestry Society. I also have a very versatile machine called a "Gnat" which will go into almost any part of my woods. But these woods are in a remote hill area where the population has been dwindling for a long time, and this tendency has been accentuated recently by amalgamations. Our farms were fairly small, being about 60 or 70 acres, and when one becomes vacant we add it to the farm next door to make a more viable unit of some 150 acres. Of course this means that there is a spare farmhouse.
I am sure that forestry has a vital part to play in stemming the depopulation of the hills. One of the difficulties in the matter of the drift from the hills is that the Forestry Commission themselves have been reducing their labour force considerably over the last few years. For example, in Wales it was reduced from 3,091 manual workers in 1950 to 1,846 in 1970, and according to the experts, Messrs. Johnston Grayson and Bradley, the authors of Forest Planning, if the present increase in productivity per worker of about 2 per cent. per year continues, in thirty-five years' time half the labour force will be able to do what the existing labour force does now. So if forestry is to continue to play the same part in stemming rural depopulation as now, it will be necessary to plant twice a year.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, said, what we should all like to see now is really integrated forestry, woods integrated with farms to provide shelter, woods with properly organised access to provide the recreation we all need for our tired spirits, and woods properly integrated into the landscape. I think all noble Lords would agree that some amenity planting in national parks, and indeed outside national parks too, would be a joy to everybody. But who is to carry it out? The landowners, certainly, the farmers, yes, the Forestry Commission, I should very much hope so, although not all their efforts in the past have been quite what they might have been. There is a very nice avenue of chestnut trees which they planted in Compton Forest on either side of the road, but unfortunately the conifers were left on their own and they completely grew over the chestnuts. I wonder whether national parks committees could not undertake some amenity planting. I

85
believe the Peak Park Planning Board is already doing some of this, and I would suggest that one answer might be for the Forestry Commission to do it as agents for the national parks committees.
What about shelter belts? I am sure everybody here and a great many people—farmers, landowners—outside have often thought, when driving through the hills, that it would make all the difference to a farm if it had a shelter belt. Yet in spite of very generous grants from the Government, up to 70 per cent., one sees few of these actually being planted, and I wonder where the fault is here. Perhaps it is that the farmer has always regarded trees as belonging to the landowner rather than to him, if he is a tenant farmer, and maybe what is needed is a real drive by the Agricultural Advisory Service to convince farmers that a shelter belt in the long term would be of tremendous benefit to them.
What about those neglected woodlands that one sees as one drives about the country? I am sure all noble Lords have seen woods most carefully planted, and then unfortunately nothing done, and they turn into a kind of woodland slum, with serious overcrowding rather like back-to-back houses: trees which have never had a chance at all. These are presumably in private ownership, but they are a potential national asset, and surely we should not just stand by and see these things getting worse and the trees falling down as time goes on. Ought it not to be possible for some sort of warning to be given by the Forestry Commission, with a due interval of time allowed, and then if the necessary management was not undertaken perhaps the Forestry Commission could undertake it themselves and charge the cost to the owner, less the receipts from any sales. In our small island we cannot just allow these valuable national assets to fall down through lack of management. I should like to come back to my main point, which is that I believe that forestry has a very important part to play in stemming the drift from our hills.
6.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I must apologise for not putting my name down to speak. I want to make one or two very short remarks, entirely on private forestry. Although I admire
86
the Forestry Commission enormously and I am good friends with them, other people have spoken about them and I do not wish to do so. I would not claim to be a forester, but I am an interested party. In my part of the world I am the kind of chap, they say, who plants a "puckle o' trees" every year. I do it every year and now I have 500 acres. I do it on the estate on the bits of ground that are too rough, too steep or too bad to make use of in any other way. It costs money, but as I do it on a small scale every year I enjoy it and the pain is not really very great. Costed out as the Forestry Commission have to do, one loses a great deal of money by planting in that way, but costed out as I have done it, which is not proper costing, it is different.
I planted one particular two-acre plot of sitke spruce 20 years ago and I got a grant which I think was £14–£7 an acre in those days. The planting was done by estate foresters, and so on. The cost was minimal, really. I thinned it for the first time after 20 years, and the income was £400 and the cash wages £200—I am not going into dead accuracy, but near enough. Therefore, I have not lost a great deal of money. But of course the Forestry Commission are not allowed to work in that way. They have to pay compound interest on their investment, compound interest on the land; so should I, by rights. Nevertheless, the landowner who has bad land should make use of it and should go and plant trees as I am doing. They are softwoods, but if you have small blocks of softwoods as opposed to vast areas of them they do not look anything like so bad.
The other great point is that you have to plant economically in straight lines and you have to thin paying attention to the lines; and after you have had your second or third thinning your amenity value increases. So I would say, do not be too impatient. The forester cannot be impatient. If anybody wants to know how to contour ground and make a forest look good, read Capability Brown's book called The Forester. I manage a piece of land that he laid out where unfortunately the 1953 winds blew down all the trees, but it looked superb as a forest. The point is that the trees were planted in straight lines, because of the cost of weeding and the cost of thinning otherwise. So one has to harden one's heart.

87
I would say one thing about the grey squirrel. The grey squirrel is a rodent, and a rodent can be controlled by Warfarin. I cannot imagine why people are allowed to use Warfarin to control rats in England but not to control grey squirrel, as we can in Scotland. We have had one or two fairly successful experiments using Warfarin. I am not sure what has happened about it now, since I took an interest in it, but it is a possibility; and as the two animals are rats, one outside and one inside the building, I do not see why Warfarin should be allowed in one case and not in the other.
With regard to shelter, the exposure tables which are used by the mountain rescue and survival people show—I cannot quote accurately, but this is the gist—that if you have two degrees of frost and a 30 miles an hour wind your exposure is equivalent to something like minus 25 degress of frost. Figures of this kind are not publicised enough. One could do a sum showing how much food can be saved by planting shelter belts, because of the food the animal does not have to eat to keep warm. None of these things are done. I have had the experience of three of my tenants—I have only six—asking me to plant shelter belts for them on their ground. To say that farmers cannot see "a good bet" when they see it happening around them is a mistake: they can. I think that we do not "plug" that point as hard as we should do.
There is one great point, though I do not think it has been made to-day. What are you going to do with the trees after you have grown them? What must be considered now, when forests are growing up, is filling in so that the timber is concentrated in areas near some processing factory. A modern chipboard mill requires something like 1.000 to 1,500 tons of thinnings a day. That means 50 20-ton lorries. If the thinnings have to be transported 100 miles, that costs, on the ton-mile basis, something of the order of £2 10s. a ton; and the lorries are basically carrying a good deal—60 per cent. or so—of water. Therefore the transport angle, and the processing part of the business, really must be looked at. I do not know who has been remiss, but the forestry industry seems to have grown without any planning of the use of the final product. This is unfortunate, and it is high time that we started to try to
88
put this matter right. Not all roads and bridges will carry a 20-ton lorry. If a grower has to use a small lorry and send his stuff 100 miles to be processed, the price he can be given by the processor is not attractive. It is debatable whether assistance to forestry would not be better given in assistance to either transport or processing, rather than to the forester himself. I do not grumble too much at the level of the grants now; I think they are not too bad.
6.42 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down to speak, but after this afternoon's debate I should like to dispute one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton; that sheep have caused a deterioration of hill grazing. This is not my experience. Has the noble Lord never heard of the golden effect of sheep's feet? I agree with him that the hill grazer should receive help from the Government. How is this help to he achieved if we join the Common Market? Can any sum paid in subsidy be deducted from the contribution to the Common Market? The Government can help the cause of spreading fertiliser, even if there is no road, by the use of the air. In addition, a fertiliser subsidy for hill farmers should be essential. Can the noble Lord, Lord Denham, enlighten us on these points?
6.44 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I very much regret that I have no interest to declare in this matter. I would very much like to have one, but unfortunately I have not except the interest of one who has always taken some interest in this whole subject and looks upon afforestation as something of tremendous value to the country. I am bound to say that the noble Earl's Question has evoked some well-informed and worth while speeches, and I have been glad to sit and listen to them. I am also glad that the noble Earl has explained why he is asking his Question, because I must admit to being a little puzzled by the timing of it in view of the fact that in December, 1970, the Government announced that the responsible Ministers were
"to review various aspects of forestry policy, including the return on the public money invested in forestry",

89
and that the review would
"include cost-benefit studies which would relate to both the public and private sectors".
My puzzlement really stemmed from the fact that the Government have indicated, by replies to Questions in the other place, that they are about to announce the result. The most recent answer given said that the review is nearing completion, and that the Government hope to make an announcement soon. I know that when Governments say "soon" it does not mean to-morrow or in the very near future, but I imagine that the review must be just about reaching its conclusion.
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, telling us they were still in negotiation with the Government, in view of the statement which I had read arising out of the Question. I must admit that I thought the whole thing was now pretty well settled within the Ministry by the responsible officers concerned. It seemed to me that the Question was ill-timed, because I thought it was too late to influence the Government's thinking on this matter and too early to examine and comment on the published result of the review. Nevertheless, the noble Earl has certainly started a debate that is well worth while, and I am sure that when the review does come and the result of it is published either in a White Paper or in some other way, the debate today will be of help to us in understanding it. This industry has been under constant review, and certainly there were critical examinations of the objectives of the Commission in 1958, again in 1963, and certainly before the Act of 1967. I have little fault to find with that, for I am strongly of the opinion that in a rapidly changing world no industry, be it public or private, can regard objectives, whenever fixed, as fixed for ever. In the case of the Commission, the broad objectives were fixed as long ago as 1919, even if slightly modified by the post-1939/1945 Acts.
I regard the objectives as being sound in 1919, and I certainly think that the objectives are sound to-day. But that is the question we should be asking: are the objectives sound to-day? If we decide that they are sound to-day, are the actions of the Commission designed and carried out in a way which will achieve the best results for the nation both in the near future and as far distant
90
as the year 2,000 and beyond? This is not an industry where we can decide and take action thinking only of tomorrow. The growing of timber is a long-term process even with softwoods, and a longer-term process if you are growing hardwoods.
I am very much of the opinion that the actions of the Commission, carrying out the objectives given to them, have led to desirable results and will continue to do so. The broad objectives of the Commission I take as being the creation of a strategic reserve of timber to provide a valuable import saving, and to provide employment in areas subject otherwise to great depopulation, and in striving towards these objectives to provide for the sort of countryside conditions that enhance the quality of life and the quality of living in this country of ours. I regard the latter as of very great importance in an age when increased and increasing leisure is with us.
The Commission have told us in their most recently published Report what they are doing in this field. There have been nearby one million "camper nights", as they put it. I must admit that I found the term a little difficult and had to think what they meant but I think I understand now. Those camper nights were of course spent at camp sites provided by the Commission. Furthermore, something like 15 million day visits have been made to picnic sites, forest trails, and so on. That enjoyment of amenity is considerable, especially when added to the fact that the Commission have some 10,000 miles of road from which—Oh the joy of it!—the motor car is completely banned.
From the amenity aspect, I have seen considerable criticism of the Commission's policy of planting soft, dark-leaved timber. We heard a little about it to-day, but not very much. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made reference to it, as did other noble Lords. I do not go along with that criticism. Perhaps my æsthetic susceptibilities are not sufficiently well developed. But in many areas that I know in Wales I am strongly of the opinion that softwoods add considerably to the beauty of the area in which they are planted, especially if, wherever possible, they are offset to some extent by adjacent broad-leaved deciduous varieties of hardwoods. As I have seen for myself,

91
that is being increasingly done. But even where that is not possible, I prefer softwoods to miles of bracken on sour lands, some of which are at present growing only cotton grass. Good timber on those lands is of value to the nation as a whole, and I certainly support it. There is always a fuss when one does something. When one plants dark-leaved timber or softwood timber there are objections at the outset. It is rather like making a new reservoir. Initially there is tremendous opposition to it but eventually people say that there has been a tremendous improvement to the landscape. I believe that the same thing applies in the case of timber. It is true, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that if you can fit it into the contours of the land you should do so. But do not be afraid of planting softwood simply because some people do not like its dark foliage.
Turning to the economic aspect, I am delighted with the nation's investment in land. There has been a tremendous investment in land by the Commission. Land which was bought at very low prices has appreciated considerably, and there are now some 3 million acres of such land which have been bought as the result of the nation's forestry policy. The employment factor, too, is of great importance to a rural economy faced, as it would be, were it not for the forestry, with total depopulation; for employed in the forests there are some 24,000 people and in the wood industry some 12,000 people. I recognise the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, made, that increased productivity inevitably leads to a reduced employment of people. This is something which we cannot deplore, except for its effect upon the rural populations in those areas which are tending to be more and more depopulated. In this country we dare not stem the tide of increased productivity. What we must do—and this is something that we ought to consider in relation to employment as a whole—is to use to better purpose the additional time that is made available as a result of better machinery and so on. I believe that we can do this when we learn how to employ leisure and how to give people leisure in proper circumstances.
Considerable numbers in vast country areas of hill and mountain land are em-
92
ployed, for in addition to the men actually employed there is the benefit to the countryside of the people who have to serve them. So, despite the fact that we have lost people, there are villages that have been created with people there to serve them, and the countryside is helping to keep those people alive and to serve them with what they require. I ask your Lordships to look at the example of the pulpmill at Fort William. There are 900 people employed there, and £1,750,000 is paid out in wages every year. What a difference that has made to the Fort William area! Almost all of your Lordships know it. I happen only to have passed through it a few times, but as a result I know something of the area.
The import saving, too, is considerable and will be increasingly important as stands of timber reach maturity. I understand that we import annually some £700 million worth of wood and wood products. If we can save only 20 per cent. of that—which we look like achieving towards the end of the century—it will be well worth while in the circumstances of this country's relationship with the rest of the world. I shall not say anything about private forestry, which has been so well covered by those who really know the subject. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, and others who have spoken, know this aspect so well. But I was glad to hear the noble Duke pay tribute to the Commission. It is right that he should do so, because I believe that the Commission and the private forester have worked very well together. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who knows the subject so well, also paid them tribute and made an extraordinarily good speech, as did so many others. I ought to refer to them all individually.
My Lords, I believe that this has been a well worth while debate. I still regard the balance that has been struck between the public and the private sectors as a reasonable one, and I believe that events have proved this to be so. It has worked well in the past and I see no reason why the balance should be changed now, although some small aspects have been mentioned to-night. But very little should be changed, because the policy has worked well and I am enough of a Conservative to say, "If something works

93
well, don't mess about with it." Altogether, I hope that the review will not seek to change the broad objectives, or interfere unduly in the work of the Commission. I am still of the opinion that we should work towards the 5-million acre mark. I hope that this debate to-day will have a good effect on the remaining questions to be settled—if there are any. But if not, I am sure that it has done us all good to listen and to take part in the debate.
6.58 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for having prompted a most stimulating discussion on a subject in which I know many of your Lordships have a strong and sympathetic interest, although opportunities to debate this in depth arise only rarely. My right honourable friend and his right honourable friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, recognise the need for an up-to-date assessment of the role of forestry in the economy of the countryside and, indeed, in the economy as a whole.
Your Lordships have heard much of the Statements in another place about the review of forestry policy which has been taking place. This review has been comprehensive and wide-ranging. It has covered future policy for both the Forestry Commission and the private sector, and has had regard to the balance between the two, and it is the first review of forestry policy to have been supported by a detailed cost/benefit analysis. My right honourable friends cannot yet say when it will be possible to announce the Government's conclusions from this review, but they are considering what form of announcement will be most suitable. To this extent, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, to-day's debate has therefore been slightly premature. Your Lordships will not expect me to anticipate the Government's conclusions, and I am sure my noble friend understands that at this point in time I can only assure him that the views which he and other noble Lords have expressed will be carefully noted and taken into account by Her Majesty's Government. Although this debate has come a little too soon in one sense, it has been of particular value in that it has given us an opportunity for a preview, as it were, of the diverse fac-
94
tors which arise in the formulation of future policy for the forestry industry. While we may not agree with everything that has been said, we will weigh all these views carefully in the balance of our consideration of what is best both for the Commission and for the private sector.
Several noble Lords have raised individual points, and I will try to answer some of them as shortly as possible. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked how the Common Market would affect forestry policy. There is no common forestry policy within the Community. There are aspects of the Mansholt plan which might have long-term implications for afforestation, but I understand that these have not yet been fully or formally endorsed by the Community. Meanwhile, we do not see any effects on the existing grants for forestry as a result of entry into the Common Market, whose members all in some form or another subsidise forestry in both the State and private sectors. My noble friend also talked about the future uses of timber and the possibility of a world shortage of timber, with competition from synthetics. I am assured that all these factors and many others like them have been taken fully into account in the Government's review.
My noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch particularly referred to the amenity aspect of forestry. The importance which is attached to amenity tree planting has been demonstrated by the announcement made last week in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He has decided to make 1973 a tree planting year. The planning of the campaign will be undertaken by a committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Sandford. There is greater awareness than ever before of the need to safeguard our environment, and tree planting can do much to enhance the amenity of the countryside and to improve the urban scene. With the losses of trees which we are suffering as a result of Dutch elm disease, it is opportune at this point to encourage more amenity tree planting. This is something in which everybody can help, and full participation by private individuals and bodies should ensure the success of the tree planting year.
My Lords, we must also in this context bear in mind the contributions which both

95
the Commission and private woodland owners have made towards the perpetuation of existing woodland landscapes and the creation of new ones. The Commission are often criticised for not planting hardwoods widely. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that this criticism is ill-directed, because the Commission's expansion has been very largely in the Highlands and the uplands—and, I should say, Wales—where generally it would be vain to expect them to plant hardwoods with any prospect of success. At the same time, the Commission recognise that the maintenance of hardwoods where they can thrive is essential to the conservation of the landscape. Noble Lords will have welcomed the recent public assurance by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that an objective of the Commission is to perpetuate by active management the living character of the woodland landscape for future generations to enjoy. Private woodland owners, for their part, have a long tradition of planting for both amenity and timber. Without this, the landscape we know to-day would have been infinitely poorer. Amenity and the production of timber are not inevitably and intrinsically opposed, as is sometimes implied. There is clear evidence that they are joining closer together in the concept of woodland management which is accepted today by everyone who has the widest interests of forestry at heart.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dulverton raised the point about a review of grants for private forestry. This is still under consideration by my right honourable friends. I cannot anticipate their conclusions this evening, but they are fully conscious of the private sector's anxiety for an early decision. If any increase were to be agreed in the rate of the grants—and I cannot, of course, promise anything at all in this direction—it would be backdated to October 1, 1970. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in a speech with which I very much sympathised, asked that straight lines and rectangular blocks should be avoided as much as possible. The Forestry Commission now employ an eminent landscape consultant for both general and specific advice in the landscaping of plantations. The noble Lord can, I think, rest assured that so far as the Commission are concerned rectangles are a thing of the past in the
96
planting of new plantations. The Commission are in fact most concerned with improving both the shape and the visual texture of their forests.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, raised the question of shelter belts. Integration between hill farming and forestry in practical ways, such as planning where possible the layout of plantations for shelter and the provision of sheep passes through plantations, is constantly taking place, and I am sure that the Commission will continue to keep it in mind wherever it is a practical and sensible proposition. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, also mentioned the reduction in the Commission's labour force. This has been brought about as a result of technological change and improvements in management practices. None the less, the Commission continue to make a significant contribution to employment in the rural areas.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven was concerned, as others of your Lordships have been, with the problem of the grey squirrel. He raised the question that was also raised by my noble friend Lord Dulverton on another occasion, as to whether Warfarin could he used for the control of the grey squirrel. I should like to remind him of what I said during the course of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. My noble friend Lord Dulverton put down an Amendment at Committee stage in order to make the use of Warfarin legal. I could not accept the Amendment, but I gave an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government would consult with wild life and other interests with a view to introducing an Amendment in another place that would make it possible for an Order for Affirmative Resolution to allow the use of Warfarin for this purpose. I think the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, on sheep was a little wide of the Question we are discussing this evening, and perhaps it would be stretching the patience of your Lordships if I dealt with it now; but I will write to him about this point.
My Lords, I think this debate has been extremely useful. I regret that I have not been able to be more specific on the main general future policy, about which my noble friend was asking. I can however assure him that before very long he will have his Question answered

97
and perhaps at that stage your Lordships will wish to return to the subject in more detail. My noble friend Lord Bathurst hoped that when this occasion arose we would have a wide-ranging and expert debate. This debate has shown the wide-ranging expertise available in your Lordships' House. Meanwhile, I should like again to express my thanks to my noble friend for raising this Question today in a manner which cannot fail to be helpful.
LLOYDS AND BOLSA INTERNATIONAL BANK BILL [H.L.]
NEATH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.