Sitting of 24 June 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Attorney-General if he will now take steps to bring into operation the Sections of the Legal Aid and Advice Act with regard to the provision of legal advice.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 17th June.
  Mr. Fletcher: While appreciating that, and while everyone, I am sure, welcomes the Lord Chancellor's recent announcement, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say what sort of response has been received, and whether it is to be hoped that these Sections will be brought into operation later in the year?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot, at the moment, say what response there has been to this proposal that has been circulated by the secretary to the Law Society. I think that all of us who are concerned with legal aid and advice hope that the response will be prompt and entirely satisfactory, so that this new, additional service can be brought into operation at the earliest possible moment.

  ARCHBISHOP MAKARIOS
  Brigadier Clarkeasked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings against Archbishop Makarios, on his entry into the jurisdiction, for complicity in the murder of British Service men in Cyprus, on the basis of the Grivas diaries and other
  214
  documentary evidence in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Attorney-General: For obvious reasons, it is not desirable to disclose, in relation to offences alleged to have been committed outside the jurisdiction by a person now outside the United Kingdom, whether any decision has been taken to prosecute him if he comes within the jurisdiction; and it is also not desirable that I should reveal what instructions, if any, I would give to the Director of Public Prosecutions should Archbishop Makarios visit this country.
  Brigadier Clarke: I am very grateful for that Answer, but does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that there are many people in this country who consider that Archbishop Makarios has blood on his hands, and should never have been invited here, and, if he comes here, will my right hon. and learned Friend deport him, hang him, or do something to stop him landing here?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: While not condoning in any way what has taken place in Cyprus, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he agrees that, in view of the very delicate situation, and the statement made by the Prime Minister last week, Questions of this character are to be deprecated?

  ACTIONS FOR ENTICEMENT
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish actions for enticement.
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Lipton: But does the Attorney-General think that it is necessary or desirable in the public interest that the courts should be exploited so that people can make money in this rather sordid way? While this kind of case is, fortunately, rare, could not it be left to the divorce courts to make suitable provision for injured parties?
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that there is any question of the courts being exploited for the purpose of making money. Damages are awarded and assessed, by a jury, very often, to compensate for the injury suffered. I certainly do not think that there is any general demand for the abolition of this cause of action.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Underground Chamber, South Unigarth
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Works whether his Inspector of Ancient Monuments in Scotland has yet completed his investigation into the nature, extent and contents of the underground chamber recently discovered at South Unigarth on the mainland of Orkney; and if he will make to the House a comprehensive statement on the subject.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): Yes, Sir. The structure consists of a low entrance passage and a chamber, roofed with large stone slabs, which measures approximately 12 ft. by 10 ft. and is 3 ft. high. The whole structure, which is substantially intact, has throughout its history been underground, but was probably associated with a surface dwelling which has disappeared. The only article discovered was a hammerstone of uncertain date.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that detailed reply, may I ask him whether he realises that this and similar discoveries are of great interest to archaeologists and historians? Will he, therefore, take steps to issue a White Paper relating this and kindred discoveries to each other?
    Mr. Molson: I am sure that the archaeologists concerned will have other ways of obtaining information of this without a White Paper.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is this underground chamber big enough to hold the whole of Lady Violet Bonham-Carter's party?

    Corfe Castle, Dorset
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works if, in view of the dangerous condition of Corfe Castle, Dorset, he will take the necessary steps to bring Corfe Castle into his guardianship in order to carry out the necessary repairs and regulate further access.
    Mr. Molson: My Department is negotiating with the owner of Corfe Castle, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

    Roman Wall, London
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works if he has now completed his inquiries regarding the recent destruction of a stretch of the Roman Wall of London between Cripplegate and Falcon Square; what steps he is taking to prevent further demolition; and if, in conjunction with the City Corporation, he will proceed immediately with the plan for the creation of a sunken garden to preserve and expose the external face of the wall down to the level of the ancient city ditch.
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the recent demolition of a fragment of London Wall near Falcon Square was inadvertent. With the object of avoiding another such incident, the City Corporation has repaired and strengthened the fencing round the remains of the wall in this vicinity and will provide any further protection which may appear necessary. It is also reaffirming its instructions that those concerned with operations near the wall should be most careful to keep clear of it. As the hon. Member knows, it is the intention of the City Corporation to preserve and display this stretch of wall, with a public open space adjoining it. I understand that the City Corporation proposes to carry out this work when it can best be fitted into the general redevelopment of this area.
    Mr. Fletcher: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he suggest to the City Corporation that it would be desirable to complete this work, which it can quite conveniently do, in advance of its general scheme of development in the area?
    Mr. Molson: I am approaching the City Corporation with the suggestion that it might be desirable for further exploration to take place before large-scale building work begins in the neighbourhood.

    Donnington Castle, Newbury
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Works what further restoration work on Donnington Castle, Newbury, is to be done this year; and when the galvanised sheeting blocking the entrance will be removed.
    Mr. Molson: The final stage of the repair work to the gatehouse roof will start in July; this will be followed by

    217
    repairs to the two turrets. Galvanised sheeting has been erected to prevent entry to the gatehouse while work is in progress. This is to protect visitors from danger of injury and also to safeguard materials stored during repairs. It will be removed when the roof repairs are completed, which I hope will be about the end of March, 1959.

    House of Commons (Terrace)
    Mr. Whitelawasked the Minister of Works how often the flowers and plants in the boxes on the Terrace of the House of Commons are changed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The plants in these boxes are changed two or three times a year, depending on the weather.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that dead rhododendrons remained in those boxes for a week after we returned from the Whitsun Recess? Is this not rather surprising, in view of the very high standard usually shown in these matters, and will not my hon. Friend agree that it is most important for his Department to give an outstanding example of the highest standards of British horticulture in the House of Commons, as it undoubtedly does already all over the Royal Parks?
    Mr. Nicholls: It is generally agreed that the standard in the Royal Parks is particularly high, and I was glad that my hon. Friend said that the terrace is usually good too. On this occasion, I agree, the change could, perhaps, with some advantage, have been made earlier.

    Chiswick Park
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works whether he will restore the bridge, temple and other garden architecture at Chiswick Park so as to make it in keeping with Chiswick House.
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir, I hope to carry out this work in due course.

    National Gallery (Adjacent Site)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Works if he will take steps to acquire for future extensions of the National Gallery the vacant site in Tragalgar Square adjacent to the west side of the National Gallery.
    Mr. Molson: I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on 10th June.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he and the Government will never be forgiven if they allow this site to slip through their fingers? Can he say whether there have been discussions with the Canadian Government? Is there any information about the Canadian Government's need of the site?
    Mr. Molson: So far as I am aware, the site is not yet on the market, though there have been indications that it is likely to be. Hon. Members will not expect me to say more at this juncture.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Minister bear in mind that the acquisition of this site is very necessary both in the interests of the collection itself and in the interests of the general appearance of the square? Will he do everything he can to expedite a decision on this very important matter?
    Mr. Molson: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely soon to receive a deputation from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members on both sides will support him in any representations he makes to the Chancellor for taking this unique opportunity to acquire a site which it may not be possible to acquire during the lifetime of any Member of Parliament except at this particular moment?
    Mr. Molson: I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

    Roman Hypocaust, London Coal Exchange
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to ensure the preservation of the Roman hypocaust beneath the London Coal Exchange.
    Mr. Molson: The Roman hypocaust beneath the London Coal Exchange is scheduled as an ancient monument, and three months' notice is required under the Ancient Monuments Acts of intention to carry out any works affecting it. If

    219
    proposals for the demolition of the Exchange proceed, the City Corporation has promised to consult my Department on means of preserving the hypocaust.

    Barrow Hill, West Mersea (Tumulus)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to prevent further damage by trees and animals to the tumulus on Barrow Hill, West Mersea.
    Mr. Molson: I am looking into this and will write to the hon. Member.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Cotton Industry (Shirley Institute)
    Sir J. Barlowasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is satisfied that the Shirley Institute is adequate to the requirements of modern developments for the present-day needs of the cotton industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. The British Cotton Industry Research Association—to give it its full title—provides an excellent example of progressive development and has achieved the confidence of industry and a high international reputation. My noble Friend has recently visited the Institute and is confident that the Council and Director of the Shirley Institute will continue to direct their programme of research effectively to those problems whose solution will be of the greatest benefit to the cotton industry.
    Sir J. Barlow: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he say what financial support the Government are giving to this Institute and whether it will be increased if the work of the Institute expands?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes. The grant last year was £84,000 and some extra hundreds. If the industry contributes more, then, for every £100 extra from the industry, the Government will increase their grant by £50.

    Atmospheric Pollution
    Mr. Willeyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the
    220
    Council, what publication is made of the measurements of air pollution made by, and submitted to, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Summaries of measurements of air pollution made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and by the 364 organisations co-operating with the Department are published annually by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in a Report entitled "The Investigation of Atmospheric Pollution."
    Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary encourage the widest use of this information, and can he say how many of these organisations are local authorities?
    Mr. Nicholls: The widest use is made of it. Of the 364 organisations, 331 are local authorities.

    Research Grants
    Mr. Kershawasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, by what outside bodies the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is advised on grants for promising researches in science and technology in universities, colleges and other institutions.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is advised on grants for special researches by the Research Grants Committee of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, though the Committee may seek the views of outside referees on any application. The Chairman of this Committee is Professor P. M. S. Blackett, F.R.S., and its members are scientists of distinction in relevant research subjects. The Chairman of the University Grants Committee and the Physical and Biological Secretaries of the Royal Society sit as assessors.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend able to say how the present expenditure on nuclear physics research and other research compares with expenditure in previous years?
    Mr. Nicholls: There has been a steady growth on both. The grant this year for nuclear physics was £330,000, Last year, it was £192,000. Apart from nuclear

    221
    physics, it has grown from £80,000, two years ago, to £155,000 last year and £320,000 this year.

    Small Harbours (Design)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what investigations the Hydraulics Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has made into the improvement in design of small harbours used by fishermen.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Hydraulics Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has recently studied the problems affecting three fishing harbours in the United Kingdom; Southwold, Great Yarmouth and Eyemouth. As a result, at Southwold wave action can be reduced and the entrance made safer for ships of greater depth; at Great Yarmouth a redesigned South Pier will reduce turbulence and the immediate danger of undermining from scouring. Also useful information dealing with the bank of sand that builds up at the entrance of Eye-mouth Harbour has been obtained from experiments on a scale model.
    Mr. Mawby: Does the Hydraulics Research Station undertake to advise on all harbour improvement works?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, it does, up to the limit of its capacity. It undertakes research when the harbour authorities invite it to do so, provided that they are prepared to pay the cost.
    Mr. Woodburn: In view of the discoveries about the sandbank at Eye-mouth, has the Minister any information about what will be done about it now that we know?
    Mr. Nicholls: It is for the harbour authorities themselves to put into operation the results of the investigations carried out by this research department.

    Coil Spring Industry
    Mr. Braineasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps have been taken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to ensure that the research facilities available to the coil
    222
    spring industry are adequate in relation to the facilities afforded for research on other forms of springing.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Coil Spring Federation Research Organisation, which is supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has recently completed plans for the construction of a new research laboratory in Sheffield to provide better facilities for research on the characteristics of springs and the materials used. It is hoped that ultimately all forms of springing will be investigated.
    Mr. Braine: Is membership of this research organisation open to users as well as to manufacturers of springs? If the industry supports the organisation, can my hon. Friend indicate whether the Government will give the organisation further help?
    Mr. Nicholls: I should like to give my hon. Friend a good answer on his birthday. The position is that, provided the industry raises £7,000 a year, the Government grant will be £4,000. Above those figures the Government will give £100 for every £100 subscribed by the industry, up to £4,000.
    Mr. Braine: That is a very good answer.

  SCOTLAND

    Employment
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Scotland's population at 30th June, 1957, had increased by 37,000, that 35,000 Scots people migrated to other countries, and that this is partly due to unemployment in Scotland; and what steps he is taking to induce Scottish people to remain in employment in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I am aware of the figures quoted by the hon. and learned Member. Emigration is, of course, prompted by a wide variety of motives. The Government's economic policy continues to be directed to the maintenance of a high level of production and employment and new measures to assist in the provision of employment in localities where a high rate of unemployment exists and is likely to persist are contained in the Distribution of Industry Bill now before the House.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the best way of dealing with this problem to put light industries into the North-East and the Highlands of Scotland because they are peculiarly suitable, having regard to the fact that high freight charges handicap heavy industry? What steps has the Minister taken to move light industries into the area?
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. and learned Member knows, every effort is being made to encourage this kind of development by the provisions which I have described in my Answer. Our aim is to help in this very important matter.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the loss of population suffered by Scotland by migration last year was by far the greatest since 1929 and that but for that loss of population the unemployment figures for Scotland would be very high indeed?
    Mr. Maclay: I do realise that very serious fact. It is interesting that a study of the loss of population by emigration in relation to local pockets of unemployment does not give any clear conclusions. It is evident that the reasons for emigration are complex.

    Teachers (Special Recruitment Scheme)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the shortage of teachers, he will continue the increased publicity in respect of the Special Recruitment Scheme which is proving beneficial.
    Mr. Maclay: I have arranged that the increased publicity, which has recently produced over 2,000 inquiries, will be continued.
    Mr. Hannan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his reply will give great satisfaction in Scotland? Will he go further in seeking avenues in which the scheme can be publicised in view of the great problem that exists?
    Mr. Maclay: I am prepared to consider any new suggestion of how to get even wider publicity.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now given consideration to the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Education that awards to graduates undergoing training
    224
    should be increased and awards under the Special Recruitment Scheme should be reviewed; and what is his decision.
    Mr. Maclay: This recommendation is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Hannan: Since these are the only two remaining recommendations of the Advisory Council, and since the scheme is making such a contribution, will the right hon. Gentleman make a decision quickly, in view of the programme confronting Scottish education in the next two or three years?
    Mr. Maclay: I fully realise the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that a decision will be reached very shortly.

    Driving Offences (Drink and Drugs)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases of driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs, reported to the police in Scotland in 1957.
    Mr. Maclay: 2,384.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure is double that of only five years ago? Since this is creating great problems for the administration in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider increasing the penalties even to the extent of depriving people, such potential murderers, of their licences?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows that the recent provisions provided fairly substantial penalties. I am watching the effect of the Act very closely, but so far I have no reason to suppose that the powers of the courts are inadequate.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is not prevention better than cure or even punishment? Where there is a great number of motor cars outside a roadhouse, would not it be advisable sometimes for a policeman to see that the person who comes out drunk never gets into his car, which is a lethal weapon when he is in it?
    Mr. Maclay: That is an interesting suggestion, which I will consider. It raises some other interesting points, too.

    Independent Schools
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount in grant was paid to Fettes, Loretto, Glenalmond, the Ladies' College of St. Andrew's and other schools of similar type in Scotland for 1956 and 1957, respectively; and what fees were charged for the same years in the primary and secondary departments to pupils by those private schools which are grant-aided.
    Mr. Maclay: No grant is paid to these or other independent schools. Information as to the fees charged is not available in my Department.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Secretary of State give me some idea of what supervision and control the Department has over these schools?
    Mr. Maclay: That is another question, which the hon. Gentleman should put upon the Order Paper.

    Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to assist the City of Dundee following his recent visit there.
    Mr. Maclay: I was very glad to have the opportunity of visiting Dundee and of discussing its industrial problems with local interests on 23rd May. I am considering the representations and suggestions made to me during my visit in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers, as appropriate.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment figures in the jute industry, which have just reached me this morning, show that the situation there is steadily worsening and that the figure is now more than 15 per cent.? Is the Secretary of State also aware that there will be intense disappointment in Dundee if the right hon. Gentleman's on-the-spot investigation does not produce really decisive action from the Government to remove uncertainty from the jute industry and bring more jobs to Dundee workers much more quickly?
    Mr. Maclay: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will realise that the programme of diversification is not too unsatisfactory. Six factories approved since
    226
    last autumn is fairly good going, although I agree that a great deal more has to be done. We are watching every possible chance to help the situation.

    Herring (Sale to East Germany)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps are being taken by the Herring Industry Board to facilitate and increase the sale of herring from Scotland to East Germany this year and in the coming years;
    (2) to what extent, and in what way, the Herring Industry Board has been advising and assisting persons anxious to sell herring to East Germany.
    Mr. Maclay: For a number of years, the Herring Industry Board has arranged to sell cured and quick-frozen herring to East Germany in exchange for fertilisers and other goods, and it also notifies the appropriate trade associations of any opportunities which may arise for private sales. Some contracts for the current year have already been concluded and negotiations are proceeding for further contracts.

    Cumbernauld (Playing Field Accommodation)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the new town of Cumbernauld is planned to have mean net residential densities ranging from 70 to 120 persons per acre with an overall density of 32 as compared with 18 in other new towns; and if he is satisfied that under this plan sufficient easily accessible playing field accommodation will be available for children.
    Mr. Maclay: While the detailed provision of playing field accommodation has not yet been fully worked out, I am satisfied that the general standards which the Corporation has in mind will provide adequate playing field accommodation for children.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the exceptional densities which are to prevail in certain areas in this new scheme, is not it absolutely essential that there should not only be ample playing space but playing space that is easily accessible? Will the Secretary of State look into the statement that has been made that the proposed space for playing spaces is now waterlogged and not usable at all?
    Mr. Maclay: I certainly will look at that point, which is a different one from that which was asked in the Question on the Paper. I would remind the hon. Member that the Development Corporation is working to two acres per thousand of the population, which apparently is the normal standard for new developments.

    Rivers Forth and Devon (Pollution)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the deteriorating condition of the River Forth, with the result that salmon and other fish float dead from pollution; and what steps are being taken to deal urgently with purification.
    Mr. Maclay: As I told the right hon. Member on 2nd July last, there have been occasional complaints of fish dying from pollution in the tidal parts of the Forth over which the River Purification Board has at present no control. A draft Order extending the Board's jurisdiction to the tidal waters of the estuary was published in May this year, but has been the subject of objections which are now being considered.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Secretary of State investigate the possibility of scientific methods of counteracting the pollution, even if he cannot get pollution stopped immediately? Would he also see whether preventive measures could be taken against some of the worst forms of pollution until such time as the Board can get its major operations into order?
    Mr. Maclay: I understand that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has been examining the possibility of curing pollution by re-aerating or oxygenating rivers, but all the evidence so far shows that that is an almost impossibly expensive method of doing it. The cure must lie in prevention rather than in action after the event.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the beginning of pollution in the Devon near Dollar; and what steps he will take to prevent any development of this destruction of the amenities of the Devon.
    Mr. Maclay: I assume that the right hon. Member is referring to pollution of the river resulting from the driving of two
    228
    new shafts at the Dollar mine. I understand this pollution is only temporary and that the National Coal Board is co-operating with the Forth River Purification Board in minimising it while it lasts. I have not heard of any damage to fish.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the Secretary of State keep in mind that if he can get the hydraulic analogy for nipping it in the bud, he will stop this pollution before it starts, so to speak, in this part of the Devon, which is one of the most beautiful rivers in Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: This is a question of a mixture of water and sandstone brick which has been getting into the river. It is hoped to get over the trouble very quickly indeed.

    New Town Development Corporations (Rents)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his directive to new town development corporations to increase their rents.
    Mr. Maclay: There was no formal directive, but my views on the low level of the existing rents and on the course of action I thought the Corporations should follow were made clear to them in discussion.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that this scheme was laid before the Development Corporations, that they asked whether in the Press statement they could use the words that it was a directive and that the Minister of State said that they could use those words? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Development Corporations had any power to alter or modify the scheme laid before them?
    Mr. Maclay: The position is that a scheme was shown to them. My words are correct; there was no formal directive in the technical sense of the word. I have to be frank about that. There was no formal directive. I think my first Answer made clear that my views were made very plain to the Development Corporations. I should like to examine the hon. Member's later question very carefully before I give a reply to it.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Has not the right hon. Gentleman done his utmost to encourage

    229
    the Development Corporations, if he has not directed them, to determine new rent levels which are precisely those which he asked local authorities to work towards over a period of years? Is not the increase much too sudden in this case?
    Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept that increases of the order of 7s. 6d. a week at East Kilbride and 6s. in Glenrothes are too severe as increases in standard rents, especially when account is taken of the rent rebate scheme, which is a very fair scheme indeed.

    Roads (Grants)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, in view of the improvement in the nation's financial situation, no grants are being made available to local authorities in the current financial year for unclassified roads in Caithness and Sutherland in spite of their importance to agriculture and forestry.
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why grants have been refused to the County Council of Ross and Cromarty under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, for the year 1958–59.
    Mr. Maclay: Grants are being paid for a number of projects at present under construction in Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland, but I regret that the need to restrict grants still continues and that it has not so far been possible to offer grant for any new projects to start this year.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is not it a bad thing to withhold grants for essential road repairs while unemployment is running at a rate of 7·2 per cent. and many thousands of pounds are being paid out to keep men idle? Would not it be better to put them to work on the roads?
    Mr. Maclay: I am only too anxious to get on with urgent road work where-ever it is humanly possible and consistent with economic conditions, but I should point out that the amount of employment given by extensive road works is relatively very small, although I agree that it is an element in reducing unemployment.
    Mr. Woodburn: If the amount of employment is necessarily small, that means that not much labour is used in the
    230
    making of roads. That seems all the less reason for closing them. Would the Minister say whether even after a war, in our hardest times, there was ever any stoppage of the development of these roads in the Highlands?
    Mr. Maclay: There is no stoppage now. Work is going on. At the moment work is going on in Sutherland where grants of £20,000 have been approved, in Caithness £8,400, and in Ross and Cromarty £25,000.
    Mr. Grimond: Would the Secretary of State agree that one of the things which makes minor roads so expensive is the stopping and starting of projects? Cannot he represent to the Treasury that the annual grant for this purpose sometimes leads to considerable extra expenditure? Since there is an indication in the private sector that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is relaxing the squeeze a little, can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the relaxation may reach the public sector?
    Mr. Maclay: This work is continuous and that is why it must be phased gradually to avoid the kind of disruption to which the hon. Member refers. The second part of his question is one which is constantly in my mind.

    Tenants, Renfrewshire (Notices to Quit)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Renfrewshire tenants regarding evictions under the Rent Act; and from which areas within Renfrewshire.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received representations about notices to quit under the Rent Act from seven tenants in my constituency and from one in Paisley.
    Mrs. Mann: Are any of these tenants in the Gourock area?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not know whether I should have included Questions in the House from the hon. Lady as one of my constituents in Gourock. I regret that I omitted to do so. Of those to which I referred, five were in Gourock.
    Mrs. Mann: Is not the right hon. Member aware that he is not likely to have any representations from me because

    231
    I own my own house? Thirty-five of his constituents in Ashton Gardens are threatened with eviction. Can he tell us what he intends to do about it? Will he now admit that there are hardships under the Rent Act?
    Mr. Maclay: It is still too early to tell whether any notice to quit will result in eviction. I have never disguised the fact that there might be some individual cases of hardship, but I do not believe that it is widespread, and I think that the hon. Lady must agree with that.

    Ingleby Committee
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the Ingleby Committee's terms of reference and work concerning juvenile courts, remand homes, approved schools, and prevention of cruelty to, and exposure to moral danger of, juveniles; and why such a committee has not been set up for Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware of the Committee's terms of reference. The Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care has already explored part of this field; and I intend to seek the Council's advice on any recommendations made by the Ingleby Committee which fall within its province and are relevant to Scotland.
    Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the overcrowded remand homes, the overcrowded approved schools and the overcrowded Borstals of Scotland and take some action along the lines recommended by the Ingleby Committee?
    Mr. Maclay: I have listened to the hon. Lady's supplementary question carefully and I will consider it very carefully.

    Legal Aid and Advice
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to give effect to the legal aid and legal advice provisions under Sections 5 and 7 of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949.
    Mr. Maclay: I hope to bring Section 7 of the Act into force towards the end of this financial year and to follow that by bringing Section 5 into force in the next financial year.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that to bring those
    232
    Sections of the Act into force would not only tend to reduce the cost of the scheme but would greatly assist persons contemplating legal proceedings? Is he aware that his announcement will be received with satisfaction?

    Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many road improvement schemes in Scotland under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, he has so far approved; how many have been completed; and the mileage involved.
    Mr. Maclay: Sixteen schemes involving 43 miles of road have been approved. I have not yet been notified of the completion of any of these schemes.
    Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of them have been started?
    Mr. Maclay: Most certainly. Some of them may have been completed, but I might not yet have had notification of completion.

    Sea Wall, Eastfield
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has received from Edinburgh Corporation concerning tide and storm damage at East-field; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Maclay: Edinburgh Corporation recently informed me that it had the condition of the sea wall at Eastfield under active consideration, with a view to the action which it might take under the Coast Protection Act. I am awaiting a further report from the Corporation.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Edinburgh Corporation has had this matter under active consideration for several years? Is not it time that he gave the Corporation a bit of a jog and got something done?
    Mr. Maclay: I am certain that the Corporation will take note of the views expressed by the hon. Member.

    Forth Road Bridge
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce

    233
    that a start has been made in building the Forth Road Bridge.
    Mr. Maclay: The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board has, with my approval, recently placed a contract for site-clearing work at South Queensferry which is an essential preliminary to the construction of the bridge; and I understand that a start was made on this work yesterday. The Board is pressing on with the negotiations for the two main contracts, and I hope it will be possible to begin work on the bridge itself in two or three months. I have no doubt that the contractors will be anxious to complete the work in the shortest possible time.

    Water Mains, Coldstream
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a complaint by Coldstream Town Council about the frequent incidence of water-main fractures owing to the heavy traffic which passes through the town; whether he is aware that this has necessitated repeated expenditure on digging up and renewing pipes; and what action he proposes.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received an inquiry from the Border Burghs' Convention about the protection available in law to Coldstream Town Council against damage caused by very heavy traffic passing through the Burgh. As the main road through Coldstream is used for the movement of heavy indivisible loads, I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who administers the regulations governing such movements.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether we can take it that some helpful action is likely to result?
    Mr. Maclay: The whole question is rather complicated and I think it may be helpful if I write to my hon. and gallant Friend about it.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further legislation he intends introducing to deal with agriculture in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: I am not at present in a position to make any announcement about future legislation.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister give us an assurance that if any future legislation dealing with agriculture in Scotland comes to his attention it will be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee? The Committee on the Agriculture Bill, which affects Scotland, contained only 6 Scottish Members out of 45. A very large number of Scottish Members have wished to put points for their agricultural constituents but have been unable to do so. The whole thing is grossly unfair to the farming community of Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: I do not accept that for one minute. Replying to the main question, I am not prepared to hypothecate, if that is the right word, about the future.

    Housing, Leith
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been closed in Leith since 1945 and 1954, respectively; and how many houses have been built.
    Mr. Maclay: The number of houses closed is 289 since 1945 and 177 since 1954. The numbers built since these dates are 187 and 171 respectively.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of these figures, which prove the continued decline in population in this part of Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is now taking to expedite the building of new houses and slum clearance?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member may well be referring to the Leith Port site. Plans and specifications have been prepared there and it is hoped to invite tenders shortly.

    Atomic Power Station, Hunterston
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the atomic station at Hunterston, Ayrshire, is to be used for production of material for military purposes.
    Mr. Maclay: Her Majesty's Government are concerned solely with the possibility of securing additional sources of military plutonium should the need for them arise. I cannot at present forecast what use, if any, would be made of Hunterston in these circumstances.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Times published an article saying that

    235
    plutonium for military purposes is to be manufactured at Hunterston and this has caused great alarm in the district as raw material for atom bombs will be manufactured in a big industrial area, which is near to the constituency of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Maclay: The reply I have given is based on the facts as they are at present.

    RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT, WALES
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong representations from Wales concerning the periodic tests for radioactive fall-out, he will give instructions that reports are to be written in a non-technical form easily understandable to the public; and whether, to reassure the population in the upland areas of Wales, he will publish in simple non-technical terms the incidence of fall-out and the level of strontium 90 in these areas, and give in non-scientific terms information which will help lay persons in assessing the danger from strontium 90 fall-out.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): We are considering whether we can improve the presentation of the results of measurements of fall-out. I would point out, however, that the assessment of the significance of these results is a complicated and technical matter. The forthcoming Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation will, I understand, contain an up-to-date assessment of the health hazards due to radiation.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the Prime Minister look at this matter again, because in Wales people are getting alarmed and, from the Western Mail of today, we understand that water in Wales is to be tested for strontium? All the people would like to know in simple language what it really means to them and whether they can carry on earning their livelihood at sheep farming, particularly in the Welsh hills.
    The Prime Minister: In simple language, I am advised that the levels do not constitute any danger to the human population, but I am sure the hon. Member would understand that there is always
    236
    rather a difficulty in trying to express these highly technical results in too simple a form because one might then be accused of not keeping precisely the balance. In simple language, I have tried to answer this supplementary question, but for the more technical language I would rather await the reports of the experts.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there are continuous references made to this matter in the Press and that widespread concern is created? While appreciating the difficulties, may I ask him if, when he has had this Report, he will consider whether people can be reassured—that is what they want—that the dangers so often spoken about are not very real?
    The Prime Minister: I have tried my best today to give that assurance, and I say there is no evidence to suggest that these levels constitute a danger to the human population. While keeping a balance and not being accused of misrepresenting the facts but trying to state them in rather more understandable forms, I should say that the levels will not constitute a danger to the human population.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister make the United Nations Report of which he spoke available as a White Paper for the House and the country to see and, if necessary, can it be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider the form of this publication and whether it should be re-published in the form of a White Paper. I will also consider the question of an explanatory memorandum, but I have to be very careful in doing so not to be accused of in any way trying to re-write the Report or making my own gloss upon it. I should have thought it would be better to leave the Report as it is, but I will consider the suggestion.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am obliged to the Prime Minister, but will he bear in mind the great difficulty in obtaining United Nations documents and the importance of having the full text of these Reports?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I will see to that.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister tell us the date of the latest report of the Medical Research Council on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: There is to be a further report covering the 1957 figures to be issued in the next few days.

    ATOMIC ENERGY (COMMONWEALTH CO-OPERATION)
    Mr. Pearlasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate discussions with Commonwealth Governments on the need to create a Commonwealth atomic energy organisation.
    The Prime Minister: Co-operation with Commonwealth countries in atomic energy matters is already so close and continuous that I do not think there would be any advantage in creating any formal organisation. I am not aware of a desire for any such organisation on the part of other members of the Commonwealth. We have, however, invited all Commonwealth Governments to send delegates to an informal meeting of Commonwealth nuclear scientists in the United Kingdom this September as foreshadowed in Command Paper 237 last year.
    Mr. Peart: While I welcome an informal meeting of scientists on this matter in September, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that if European countries can create a formal organisation like Euratom, with which we may be associated, there is surely a need for a formal arrangement for a Commonwealth organisation, and that many people feel that such an organisation would have tremendous influence in the world, not only for developing atomic energy but in the wider sphere of Commonwealth organisation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; but I should not like to deal with what we might discuss at Montreal. Up to now it has been the tradition of the Commonwealth to deal informally and not to set up these formal bodies. That may change and we may end by setting up some of these bodies, but I will certainly consider what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Mason: Taking first things first, is not there an urgent need to initiate
    238
    discussions with Euratom immediately in view of the United States' Euratom agreement issued this morning? Secondly, why have we been lagging so lamentably behind the United States with all our experience in nuclear reactor production for electricity, so that the Americans have been able to step in and capture this European market with a £120 million programme?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has succeeded in a supplementary question in raising an entirely different question and altogether misrepresenting it.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Does not the agreement between the United States and Euratom point to the value of having a specific international organisation to deal with this problem? Might not we use that experience with the Commonwealth to avoid being pushed out there by the United States?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Glad as I am to find the hon. Member rallying to the Commonwealth, that is not really a question which arises from the original Question.

    EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Prime Minister whether, in his proposed meeting with General de Gaulle, he will endeavour to secure a co-operative attitude to the negotiations for a European Free Trade Area.
    The Prime Minister: We shall have many important matters to discuss, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the French Government will have been told of the great importance Her Majesty's Government attach to the speedy conclusion of an agreement on a Free Trade Area.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the fairly reasonable certainty of the "Little Six" organisation starting next year, a great many arrangements are being made among the different firms in those areas and, unless this is decided fairly soon, it may be that there will be consolidation between the Six which will preclude the proper organisation which might come if the European Free Trade Area could be started earlier?
    The Prime Minister: It is, of course, a great regret to us that there has been delay in negotiations waiting on the preparation of a joint decision by the Six. That in its turn has waited on the political situation in France. That is one of the reasons, among others, why I hope in this visit to Paris at the end of this week to clear up this matter, as well as many other matters.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    New Factory, Swansea
    Mr. Garner-Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can yet state the outcome of the negotiations undertaken by his Department about the setting up of a large factory in west South Wales.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce that arrangements between the Board of Trade and Pressed Steel Company of Cowley, Oxford, have now been concluded by which the Government will provide them with a large factory at Swansea where the company proposes to manufacture refrigerators.
    The company estimates that it will employ in this factory some 2,000 workers within eighteen months of the date of occupation and build up progressively over the ensuing four to five years to a labour force of around 4,000.
    Mr. Garner-Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that this will give enormous satisfaction to all Welsh hon. Members on both sides of the House? Can he give us an assurance that he will apply the same pattern of procedure to the problems of unemployment in North Wales?
    Mr. Erroll: Naturally the Board of Trade is glad that these arrangements have been concluded, but I should like to emphasise that this is only part of the normal work on which the Board of Trade is continuously engaged.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: While we welcome this announcement, may we be assured that the Board of Trade will continue its efforts in north West Wales and other parts of the Principality?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: And in Stoke-on-Trent.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer to this Question appeared on the tape at ten past one today and that the Department was careful to point out that it had no connection with the strip steel mill? May we take it, therefore, that Scotland's prospect of having this mill is very much better than it was?
    Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member should not draw any such conclusion from this announcement.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Television Tubes (Purchase Tax)
    Sir N. Hulbertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under his regulations, a television tube which has to have the gun replaced attracts Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Customs and Excise has now ruled that repair costs of television tubes must now bear Purchase Tax with the result that an £8 job will now cost £12 16s.; and if he will rescind this new administrative imposition.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Insertion of a fresh gun in a television tube amounts to the manufacture of a virtually fresh tube, and tax is therefore chargeable under the law. This is not a new imposition, and I see no reason to amend the law.
    Sir N. Hulbert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an engine, wheels and body can be replaced on a motor car without the whole vehicle attracting taxation for the second time? Why cannot this principle be applied to television tubes?
    Mr. Amory: Without more study, I am not sure that I would agree that there is a very great deal that a television tube and a motor car have in common.
    Mr. Boardman: Would not the Chancellor agree that the imposition of this tax will tend to encourage people to buy a new tube instead of paying for this very expensive repair; that they will be enouraged to spend £18 where, previously, £8 was sufficient? Will he try to appreciate the utter futility of the Government talking to the trade unions about stability while their own policy is so blatantly inflationary?
    Mr. Amory: No. This is really a question of drawing a line—and it is a very difficult thing to do—between where a repair stops and a new component starts. If a person who has sent the tube for repair gets back the same tube and the same gun, repaired, Purchase Tax is not charged on the cost of the tube.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the public are being exploited by the repairers, and that, frequently, the sets are not repaired at all, and that this very heavy tax which has to be paid falls very hard on those receiving small pensions? Would he look at the evidence on this matter that I sent to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a few months ago?
    Mr. Amory: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would see that I got that evidence that he submitted. I do not think that I have seen it yet.
    Mr. Isaacs: Can the Chancellor say whether, before this imposition was made, representations were made to his Department by the manufacturers of new tubes?
    Mr. Amory: I should like to repeat that there has not been a new imposition. There may, in some quarters, have been misapprehensions about the position, and I hope that any misapprehension has now been removed by the recent Press notices on this subject.

    Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
    Mr. Edeasked the Chancellor of of the Exchequer the cost to public funds of the recent proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1770.
    Mr. Amory: About £2,100.

  HOUSING

    Prefabricated Houses (Public Open Space)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration he has given to the possibility of allowing local authorities to retain prefabricated houses in good condition on
    242
    public open space for the temporary rehousing of elderly or disabled persons rendered homeless by the operation of the Rent Act, 1957.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I do not think that this will be necessary.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Wood Green Council estimates that after it has made every effort to help families threatened with eviction under the Rent Act, there will be up to 100 tenants against whom landlords may be seeking orders for possession next October? In those circumstances, is not it quite wrong that the Council should have to give up 56 perfectly good prefabricated bungalows in 1960, although they would provide ideal accommodation for some of these elderly, homeless families?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the position in Wood Green will, in fact, be better than the hon. Lady now apprehends. In any case, as I think she knows, I have no power to grant an extension for these 56 bungalows on public open space, without fresh legislation.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Derelict Aerodromes (Clearance)
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will consult with the Air Ministry in the interests of good town and country planning with a view to ensuring effective clearance of derelict aerodromes and, in particular, of concrete bases or wartime huts on the disused sites.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on this subject, but I am afraid that clearance of the concrete bases is very expensive and there is a limit to the amount of money which can be spent on this sort of work.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Lincolnshire hope that he will give the greatest urgency to this matter in his consultations with

    243
    the Secretary of State for Air, as the countryside is still littered with these derelict buildings, some ten years after the end of the war?
    Mr. Bevins: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and we are currently discussing this matter with the Air Ministry.

  NYASALAND

    African National Congress (Delegation)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what demands he received from the Nyasaland African Congress delegation; and what reply has been given.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The delegation which called on my right hon. Friend on 13th June made a number of requests, which he said he would note, about new constitutional arrangements in Nyasaland, a subject on which the Governor will in due course be submitting proposals to him. I am circulating the agreed record of the meeting in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend that a feeling of despair in Nyasaland with regard to the imposing of Federation is likely to grow unless the legitimate demands put forward by the Congress in regard to increasing the very minor African representation in Nyasaland is attended to?
    Mr. Profumo: The form of the constitution, of course, remains my right hon. Friend's responsibility. I hope for an agreement on the changes which have been recommended to him, but if there is not any agreement then, as my right hon. Friend told the delegation, it will be for the Governor to submit his recommendations to my right hon. Friend.
    Following is the record:
    On Friday, 13th June, 1958, the Secretary of State for the Colonies received a delegation from the Nyasaland African National Congress which had asked to put before him their views regarding the Nyasaland Constitution. The members of the delegation were Dr. Banda, Mr. Chipembere (Member of Legislative Council), Mr. Chisiza and Chief Ntaja.
    244
    In welcoming the delegation, the Secretary of State said that he received them as representing the views of the Nyasaland African National Congress and not of all the African people of Nyasaland. The delegation, in reply, stated that in their view they did represent African opinion, both Chiefs and people.
    The delegation asked that the African population of Nyasaland, which was in an overwhelming majority, should be given a fair share in the government of the territory, and that in particular the Constitution should be amended as follows:—

    (i) A Legislative Council of 40, made up of 32 African members, 6 European members and 2 official members.

    (ii) An Executive Council of Cabinet status of at least 9 members.

    (iii) All members of Legislative Council and Executive Council, except the two official members of Legislative Council, to be elected by universal adult suffrage on communal rolls until such time as there could be one common roll

    The delegation expressed concern that the European settlers had refused to take part in the current discussions. They said that Africans keenly desired that the Legislative Council should be fully representative of African opinion before the review of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland due in 1960.
    The Secretary of State assured the delegation that he understood these anxieties. He recalled that, when the present Constitution was introduced, he had expressed the hope that the four years during which it would remain in force would be used by all concerned in Nyasaland to try to work out some new form of constitutional arrangements which would assure security and opportunity to all and would, at the same time, be less likely than the present system to foster a purely racial approach to politics. If it was impossible for agreed proposals to be produced it would, of course, be for the Governor to submit his recommendations. He knew that the Governor had had discussions with representatives of various communities in Nyasaland preparatory to formulating proposals. He understood that Sir R. Armitage had not yet reached any conclusions, but he was expecting to receive recommendations from him after his return to the territory from leave in August. In these circumstances he would take note of the delegation's views but he was not in a position to comment on them.

  CYPRUS

    Murders
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Greek Cypriots have been killed in Cyprus in the course of communal rioting since the beginning of May; and how many are thought to have been murdered by Turkish-Cypriot terrorists.
    Mr. Profumo: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "twelve" and to the second part "none".
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Turkish Cypriots have been killed in Cyprus in the course of communal rioting since the beginning of May; and how many are thought to have been murdered by E.O.K.A.
    Mr. Profumo: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "None". As regards the second part, two Turkish Cypriots were shot dead during the recent period of communal tension, though not in the course of rioting. Responsibility for the murders has not been established.
    Mr. Robinson: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by Dr. Kutchuk, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, in which he said that thousands of Turks had been murdered by Greeks in the recent disturbances? Does not he feel that in the present very difficult times it is a particularly violent and dangerous statement to make?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that what I have said in my Answer will put the matter in its right perspective, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me to make any comment at this very serious moment.

    Maronite Community
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provisions regarding the Maronite Community are contained in the new plan far Cyprus.
    Mr. Profumo: While the Maronite Community is not specifically provided for in the new plan for Cyprus, the intention would be to bear in mind the interests of this community when the system of government is worked out. The community would benefit from the general advantages to the people of the island as a whole, which would accrue from acceptance and working of the plan, in particular to the extent that the resources of Cyprus are devoted to progress instead of to violence.
    Mr. Teeling: Will my hon. Friend remember that, under the Radcliffe Scheme, the Maronite Community was, I think, to have been given at least one
    246
    Parliamentary seat? Will he always bear in mind that they are neither Greeks nor Turks—if anything, they are of the Lebanon—and have always been extremely loyal to us, and are now quite anxious about their future?
    Mr. H. Fraser: If my right hon. Friend is not able to offer any specific constitutional advantage to these very loyal subjects of the Crown, will he consider righting their long-standing objection to the fact that one of their churches has been taken over and made into a rather unpleasant and unfortunate museum?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that this might be a matter that we could consider at a later stage in the consideration of the plan.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Atomic Power Stations (Plutonium Production)
    Mr. Masonasked the Paymaster-General why Her Majesty's Government have decided to modify atomic power stations, primarily planned for peaceful purposes, to produce high-grade plutonium for war weapons; to what extent this will interfere with the atomic power programme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): At the request of the Government, the Central Electricity Generating Board has agreed to a small modification in the design of Hinkley Point and of the next two stations in its programme so as to enable plutonium suitable for military purposes to be extracted should the need arise.
    The modifications will not in any way impair the efficiency of the stations. As the initial capital cost and any additional operating costs that may be incurred will be borne by the Government, the price of electricity will not be affected.
    The Government made this request in order to provide the country, at comparatively small cost, with a most valuable insurance against possible future defence requirements. The cost of providing such insurance by any other means would be extremely heavy.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Paymaster-General aware that, as far as I am concerned, it is a disgusting imposition on what was primarily termed a peaceful programme in nuclear energy? Of course, I am pleased to hear that it does not interfere with the atomic energy programme prepared by the Government—although I accept that with some measure of reservation? Was this really necessary, in view of the fact that we are producing, perhaps at a slow rate, plutonium from our present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—although we are producing plutonium from our present—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is still Question Time for another thirty seconds. The hon. Member ought to utilise the time by asking a question.
    Mr. Mason: Particularly having regard to the fact that the Dounreay atomic breeder is coming into production very
    soon, was this imposition on our peaceful atomic power programme really necessary?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman says that it is an imposition. The only imposition on the country would have arisen if the Government had met our defence requirements for plutonium by means far more expensive than those proposed in this suggestion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath.]
The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 182.

Division No. 168.]

AYES

[3.30 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Alport, C. J. M.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Richmond)

Howard, John (Test)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Duncan, Sir James

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Duthie, W. S.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Arbuthnot, John

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Armstrong, C. W.

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Hurd, A. R.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs, Evelyn

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Erroll, F. J.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Baldwin, A. E.

Fell, A.

Hyde, Montgomery

Balniel, Lord

Finlay, Graeme

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Barber, Anthony

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Barlow, Sir John

Fort, R.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Barter, John

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Batsford, Brian

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Gammans, Lady

Joseph, Sir Keith

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Kaberry, D.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Keegan, D.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Glover, D.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Black, C. W.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Body, R. F.

Godber, J. B.

Kershaw, J. A.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Goodhart, Philip

Kirk, P. M.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gough, C. F. H.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Braine, B. R.

Gower, H. R.

Leavey, J. A.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Brooman-White, R. C.

Green, A.

Leburn, W. G.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Bryan, P.

Grimond, J.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Campbell, Sir David

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Carr, Robert

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Gary, Sir Robert

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gurden, Harold

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Cole, Norman

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Cooke, Robert

Hay, John

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Cooper, A. E.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

McKibbin, Alan

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hesketh, R. F.

Maciay, Rt. Hon. John

Cunningham, Knox

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Currie, G. B. H.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Dance, J. C. G.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Maddan, Martin

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastie)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hope, Lord John

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hornby, R. P.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Drayson, G. B.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Marshall, Douglas

Mathew, R.

Powell, J. Enoch

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Mawby, R. L.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Profumo, J. D.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Redmayne, M.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Renton, D. L. M.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Vane, W. M. F.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Neave, Airey

Robertson, Sir David

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Nicholls, Harmar

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wade, D. W.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Roper, Sir Harold

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Wall, Patrick

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Russell, R. S.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Oakshott, H. D.

Sharples, R. C.

Webbe, Sir H.

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Shepherd, William

Webster, David

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Page, R. G.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wins, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Partridge, E.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Peel, W. J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Woollam, John Victor

Peyton, J. W. W.

Storey, S.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Studholme, Sir Henry

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Summers, Sir Spencer

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Pitman, I. J.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Teeling, W.

Mr. Hughes-Young.

Pott, H. P.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Grey, C. F.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mason, Roy

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mitchison, G. R.

Awbery, S. S.

Hale, Leslie

Monslow, W.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hamilton, W. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Balfour, A.

Hannan, W.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Mort, D. L.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hastings, S.

Moss, R.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Hayman, F. H.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Benson, Sir George

Healey, Denis

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Blackburn, F.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Herhison, Miss M.

Oliver, G. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Hewitson, Capt, M.

Oram, A. E.

Boardman, H.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Orbach, M.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Holman, P.

Oswald, T.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Owen, W. J.

Bowles, F. G.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Paget, R. T.

Boyd, T. C.

Hoy, J. H.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hubbard, T. F.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hunter, A. E.

Parkin, B. T.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paton, John

Carmichael, J.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Pearson, A.

Champion, A. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Peart, T. F.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Janner, B.

Pentland, N.

Clunie, J.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Popplewell, E.

Coldrick, W.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Probert, A. R.

Cove, W. G.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Proctor, W. T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Randall, H. E.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Rankin, John

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Jones, Jack (Rctherham)

Redhead, E. C.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Reid, William

Deer, G.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Reynolds, G. W.

Diamond, John

Kenyon, C.

Rhodes, H.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Dye, S.

King, Dr. H. M.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lawson, G. M.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lewis, Arthur

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Fernyhough, E.

Lindgren, G. S.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Finch, H. J.

Lipton, Marcus

Skeffington, A. M.

Fitch, E. A.

Logan, D. G.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Fletcher, Eric

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Forman, J. C.

McCann, J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McGhee, H. G.

Snow, J. W.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

McGovern, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Gibson, C. W.

McInnes, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Spriggs, Leslie

Greenwood, Anthony

Marion, Simon

Steele, T.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

250

251

Stonehouse, John

Watkins, T. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Winterbottom, Richard

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

West, D. G.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Swingler, S. T.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Woof, R. E.

Sylvester, G. O.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Wigg, George

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Tomney, F.

Willey, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Viant, S. P.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Mr. J. T. Price and Mr Wilkins.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  AGRICULTURE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(APPLICATIONS FOR DIREC TIONS TO SECURE GOOD ESTATE MANAGEMENT.)
(1) The tenant of an agricultural holding may in the prescribed manner and after giving the landlord of the holding notice in writing of the proposed application apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for a certificate that the landlord is not fulfilling his responsibilities in accordance with the rules of good estate management and the Tribunal if satisfied that the landlord is not fulfilling his said responsibilities shall grant such a certificate and shall give such directions to the landlord as the Tribunal is satisfied are required to secure that the landlord fulfils his responsibilities to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management.
(2) If any person to whom a direction is given under this section contravenes or fails to comply with the direction he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds.—[Mr. Willey.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I can speak with some brevity, because I expect that the Clause will be accepted by the Government. All that it does is to provide a measure of equity between the landlord and tenant. It is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill very properly places certain new obligations upon the landlord. Clause 4 which has had the support of hon. Members on both sides, places upon the landlord obligations to comply with certain statutory requirements.
We wish to go rather further. We feel that the definition of good estate management which still remains should be reinforced by some sanction. In the course of our discussions upon the Bill we have considered the imposition of sanctions upon the tenant in this matter, and hon. Members on this side feel not only that the definition should remain but that there should be an obligation upon the landlord to maintain a standard of good estate management, just as there is upon the tenant. I should have thought that that proposition would be equally
254
acceptable to both sides of the House. I concede at once that some sanctions can already be called in aid against the landlord. I realise that the tenant can plead in aid the Maintenance, Repairs and Insurance of Fixed Equipment Regulations, 1948. But the new Clause provides that the tribunal should have a general residuary power to make the necessary directions in respect of good estate management.
My reason for anticipating the acceptance of the Clause is that in Standing Committee the Minister said:
"Good estate management is defined as management to enable an occupier of the land who is reasonably skilled in husbandry to maintain sufficient production in respect of both the kind of production and its quality and quantity. We have to remember that good estate management serves the occupier by giving him the facilities to do his job on the farm. … It is right to require the Tribunal to serve directions in cases where, having regard to the requirements of good estate management, there is a reasonable case for them and also to do it only in those cases where the ordinary remedies available to the tenant do not apply. … Where he has those remedies, for instance, under his tenancy agreement, or under the model Clauses of the Agriculture Regulations, 1948, he ought to use them. Those will cover practically all repairs."
He went on to say that the purpose of the Clause was
"to catch repairs which slip through an agreement or the model clauses to which I have referred."—[OFFICIAT REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1958; c. 749–50.]
I should have thought that there was no issue of principle between us. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to justify the imposition of directions to secure good estate management at large, and that is the very purpose that we are endeavouring to secure in the Clause.
3.45 p.m.
I would mention another factor which is not unimportant. We have been discussing the right of the landlord to appear before the tribunal and seek a sanction by way of notice to quit. I think that everyone would concede that in those circumstances it is only fair and equitable to allow the tenant to issue a counter-notice. This is a very salutary provision. Where one party has the right to go to a tribunal it is only fair that the other party should be provided with the means to state a case against, by means of a counter-notice. If it is not done in this case the provision will be unfair to the tenant. In this further

255
respect I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the provision. I should have thought that this simply drafted and explicit new Clause would be non-controversial and, therefore, readily acceptable to the Government.
I concede that difficulties arise whenever one provides sanctions. We do not wish to appear anxious to impose new penalties, but if we provide directions we must provide a sanction, and the only effective one is to provide a penalty by way of fine. I hope that with that explanation, and in the realisation that the Clause is clearly in accord with the objects of the Bill and the provisions affecting landlord and tenant, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is proper to provide a sanction, on the ground of good estate management, and be willing to accept the new Clause.
Mr. Sidney Dye: I beg to second the Motion.
The Bill seeks to give the landlord and tenant system a new lease of life, with the landlord having rather the stronger hand than at present. If we are to continue the landlord and tenant system in agriculture we should establish beyond doubt that the good tenant should be able, through the land tribunals, to seek redress against the bad landlord, who is not maintaining the fixed equipment of the holding in a proper manner. To have sound agriculture we must have good estate management, and that must clearly be seen to be the case. Where the system falls down we ought to provide a specific way in which the tenant who suffers can obtain redress. That is the purpose behind the Clause.
I, too, should not have thought there would be any difference of opinion between hon. Members on the two sides of the House. I should have thought that everybody would agree that our agricultural land is far too precious to be left in the ownership and management of landlords who will not do their full duty by the land and by their tenants. We are asking for specific powers to enable the tenant to seek rectification where the landlord is not carrying out his functions in the way that we would want. We must strive for higher agricultural standards year by year. We fully recognise that British agriculture has made
256
progress and it should not be allowed to go backward because of the failure of the landlord to carry out his obligations. There are many good tenants and we want them to have the right beyond doubt of obtaining redress.
At present, the landlord can get rid of a bad tenant. I do not think that there is anywhere the power for a good tenant to get rid of a bad landlord. All we are asking for is that the sanction of law should be given to the good tenant to enforce his landlord to carry out his duties as a landlord in accordance with what are now accepted as proper standards of estate management.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). Listening to him, I almost became convinced that he was right and I was wrong to take the attitude that I have to take. As I have learnt during the last few weeks, his powers of persuasion are very considerable, but those powers are not backed with the logic which he infers he has to back his case.
I dislike being in any way suspicious, but I regard the proposed new Clause as perhaps being a rather ingenious way of restoring the power of supervision and direction. I do not want to go into that general argument, because we have discussed it during the various stages of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to remind me of what I said in Committee on Clause 4, dealing with a similar portion of the subject of the proposed new Clause.
May I remind the House of our views on fixed equipment directions? It can possibly be argued that the value of disciplinary powers was not to be found in the power to supervise and dispossess, but in the power to serve fixed equipment directions, either under a supervision order or in isolation under Section 14 (3). The fixed equipment directions have given the tenant what he wanted. But, in fact, without the power of dispossession, they would be useless.
There is power under the 1947 Act to deal with non-compliance, but the total penalty is a fine of only £100. This procedure is useless, since £100 in relation to the total cost of the work is far too small and I think that probably £200,

257
as suggested in the proposed new Clause, is equally inadequate. The effective power was the power to enter, do the work and recover the cost. Unless that power exists, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman could hope that his new Clause would effectively operate.
The tenant has adequate remedies for neglect of repairs in his right of recovery through the courts under paragraph 13 of what we know as the model Clauses which were embodied in the Schedule of the regulations dealing with maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment. When there is neglect in making improvements the tenant has the right to obtain his requirements through Section 50 of the 1948 Act. When the new powers which are given to the tenant under Clause 4 of the Bill are added to this right, a considerable power is built up which the tenant can use against the landlord who is not doing his duty.
Even if the proposed new Clause could be made effective with the penalties envisaged, there is the danger that the State would be merely relieving the tenant of the need to use the remedies which are available to the tenant under the various provisions which I have just described.
Turning to the special features of the proposed new Clause, the first point is that the tenant is given a statutory right to apply for a certificate of bad estate management upon which the power to serve directions will rest. The old disciplinary powers did not give him any such right. If he complained, the State did not necessarily have to take action. So in this respect, the proposed new Clause is a greater interference with the landlord than anything that is contained in the 1948 Act.
I have already mentioned that the inadequate means of enforcement—that is, a fine of up to £200, which, if the proposed new Clause were passed, would make it rather ineffective—is a further reason why we would not be wise to accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). Nothing short of the old power of dispossession or very heavy inhuman penalties can provide adequate backing for fixed equipment directions. We are not prepared to go as far as that, nor
258
is the hon. Member, judging from the fine that he proposes.
With those points in mind, attractive as the proposition may be on paper and attractive though the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and Norfolk, South-West may have made it appear to the House, I can but advise my hon. Friends to reject the proposed new Clause, despite the moderate and reasonable way in which it has been moved and seconded.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: When the Minister started by saying that the Clause was an attempt to restore the supervisory and directive powers of Part II of the Bill it seemed to me that although my hon. Friends may have put the matter attractively, as far as he was concerned, at any rate, they had not put it comprehensively, because he cannot understand in the least what the new Clause is about.
The whole point of the Bill is that the Government are moving out of agriculture as a supervisor and director. Estate management ceases to be the concern of the Government and they no longer propose to enforce it. Good husbandry ceases to be the affair of Government and they are no longer prepared to enforce it. Rents, and, indeed, all the costings which go to the prices which they still guarantee, cease to be the affair of Government, and they contract out. That leaves a vacuum.
If the Government are ceasing to concern themselves with good estate management, it seems desirable to provide that the tenant, who may no longer rely on the Government, can at least take action himself. That is what the Clause provides. It is the very opposite to the provisions of Part II, which were that the Government should take this responsibility. The Clause provides that in the absence of the Government the tenant shall have the right to do it himself.
Various objections have been put forward to this. First, it is said that it is already covered by paragraph 13 of the model Clauses. I would point out, first, that the model Clauses are not compulsory and, secondly, that the Bill has put landlords in a very strong position to be able to dictate substantially the terms of the tenancies which they grant. The demand for farms greatly exceeds the supply. We know that that is the position

259
in farms as it is in housing. The Government are giving the landowner the whip hand. They are leaving him free to settle the terms of the contract, and he can exclude any of the model clauses he chooses. But even the model clauses do not provide machinery one quarter as effective or as immediate as that provided by the new Clause.
The Minister then refers us to Section 50 of the 1948 Act. That, too, deals with something quite different. It deals with improvements which the tenant wants to put up himself and for which he wants the landlord's consent. If the landlord will not consent, the tenant can apply to the Minister for consent and have claims in respect of that improvement, in the event of the tenancy coming to an end, as though the landlord had consented to the improvements which the tenant produced. That is a very long way from this Clause.
As a final argument, the Minister says that the old Part II did not give the powers. I should be repeating myself if I said that it was quite unnecessary to give them when the Government made this their own concern and when estate management was the concern of the local agricultural committee, which was there to enforce it. That has gone, and nothing at all has been put in its place.
The landlord can do all these things. He can go to the rent tribunal and ask for a certificate of bad husbandry. On that, he can bring in the great sanction of taking the man from his home. He is taking the man not only from his business, but from his home, which is a very formidable sanction. This is essentially a partnership of agriculture, in which both the landlord and the tenant have a duty.
In all conscience, that is the justification of the landlord system, because landlordism in agriculture is not a passive thing; it involves duties which, if well organised, play a great part in the effectiveness of agricultural production. Is there any semblance of justice in saying that when the State steps out of this obligation the land tribunal for bad husbandry shall be provided for the landlord, but nothing shall be provided for the tenant when the landlord fails in his obligation?
The Minister says that the sanction which we have provided here is inadequate.
260
I do not think that it is. If the landlord fails to comply with the order, proceedings can be taken and a fine up to £200 can be imposed. If he still does not comply with his obligations, the land tribunal can be approached again and the procedure can be followed until he does.
If the Minister is serious in criticising this and saying that it would be more effective to provide that the tenant may do the work and charge the landlord with the things the omission of which has caused complaint, when he obtains his certificate, that would be an addition which I personally think would be convenient and which I should welcome. It could certainly be introduced in another place if the Minister undertook to do so. Do not let us lose this proposal simply because the Minister feels that the sanction is inadequate.
I would not mind taking the sanction out altogether and making such a provision on obtaining the certificate from the land tribunal. It is very much simpler, more direct and more available a procedure than going to the courts under the lease, even if the lease carries the right provision. The tenant could then go there and, having got his certificate, could do the work.
We should remember that failure to comply with the duties of a good landlord is not necessarily failure to put up a new building when requested. It is failure to do his repairs and to deal with the communal water supply. It is failure to deal with the drainage system affecting drains off the farm. It is failure to deal with ditches which take the water off the farm. It is failure to do many things which makes it impossible for a man to farm his farm decently. Once he has got this certificate that authorises him, either on or off the farm, on the land of the landlord, to do what the landlord has omitted to do. There we have an effective sanction, which will solve this very real difficulty, which we know exists.
At present, there is a blank. The Government have stepped out, and they have left nothing to fill up the vacuum. They have not given the tenant effective power to protect himself when they withdraw the protection which they formerly gave him. I ask the Minister, at this stage, because, clearly he did not understand what this

261
Clause is about, to reconsider this, because whatever else we can say, this is surely a very reasonable demand.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), said that he would be disappointed if the Minister did not accept the Clause. I confess that I would not be disappointed, because blessed are they who expect nothing, because they will not be disappointed.
We know from the attitude of the Minister that he is there definitely to protect the landlord against the farmer, and when he says that if this Clause were adopted it would mean a greater interference with the landlord, he is quite right. We believe that, in certain circumstances, the State and the community should have the right to a greater interference with the landlord, if it is necessary in the interests of good husbandry and increased food production.
Not only are the landlords and the farmers interested, but the community and the State also come in. When the State gives large sums of money every year in subsidies which find their way into the pockets of the landlords in increased rents, the State is entitled to interfere, if necessary, in the matter of bad estate management.
As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, it not only applies to fixed equipment. Good husbandry means other things as well. I have in mind a landlord in my own constituency who proceeded to enter on a farmer's land without giving adequate notice—not giving more than 24 hours' notice—plough up the land and plant trees upon it. I submit that the tenant should have a right to go to the Land Court and prevent the landlord, in the interests of good agriculture, from doing anything like that. I know that it would cause something of a sensation if the farmer applied to the Land Court and a penalty of £200 were inflicted on Lord Strathclyde, who happens to be the Minister who speaks on agricultural matters in the House of Lords.
These are cases in which the State is definitely interested in giving the farmer an equal opportunity to see that the landlord fulfils his obligations to carry out good husbandry. The Minister has shown that all that he is concerned about, as
262
he says, is to see that there is no greater interference with the landlord. He is for the landlord against the farmer, and for the landlord against the community all the time.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: I, too, wish to say a few words in support of this Clause. I think that it is a good one, of which the Minister would be well advised to take note.
The Minister is an unusual Minister, something like a Test match cricketer named Bailey, going in to bat No. 5 or No. 6, giving nothing away, and a complete stonewaller. He has a habit of telling this side of the House how persuasive we are, but he, too, lacks nothing in the art of persuasion. I listened to him very carefully as he said that the farmer already has sufficient means and methods of safeguarding himself. I do not believe that for a moment, because I have had experience of cases in my own constituency. There was also one very glaring case of a young man in Dorset.
I will not bore the House with long quotations, because we have had Questions in the House about Mr. J. F. Barratt, of Knapp Cottage, Vimy Farm, Corscombe, near Dorchester. The Minister knows all about this young man, and it is no good his talking about model clauses, because this young man has been banging his head against a wall for months. He is a well-known Dorset farmer, and the condition of his farm was well known. Yet he cannot get any further forward with the means of safeguarding himself which the Minister has said are now available, and have been available for some time, for young farmers of this sort. This is the one quotation that I wish to make about this farm:
"The General Purposes Committee which visited the holding consisted of two landlords and the county secretary … Prior to their visit I had the very great pleasure of conducting perhaps one of the largest and best farmers in the South-West over the holding. He spent the whole afternoon with me in spite of heavy rain examining every field. He then came to the same conclusion as the above officials of the N.A.A.S. that this was an obvious case of very bad estate management. He also agreed that the Minister's ruling is completely contrary to the facts. In addition, he pointed out that in his opinion I was banging my head against 'the Tory wall', and in spite of the injustice of the case they would not admit their errors."

263
There are these cases which come up before Members of this House, and we ask Questions about them, but get no further forward. When the Minister tells me that it is possible for a tenant to defend himself, I say that it is not so. I did not believe the Minister when he told me that what could happen in the final resort is that the tenant could take his landlord to court. Of course, so can anyone, but it is an expensive game, and people in this small farming community have not got the financial backing with which to take a wealthy landlord to court and make him admit his faults.
I submit that there is need for a sanction of this kind. Lawyers like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) can talk in legal jargon about equity and all the other means of getting a fair deal, but we are in a more mundane sphere and talk of something that cuts both ways. We should like to see a Statute that cuts both ways, not merely giving a fair deal to the landlord but giving it to the small farmer as well.
I ask the Minister to look at oases like this again, so as to provide more safeguards for such people. People like Mr. Barratt have no safeguards whatever. He will be forced out of his farm and livelihood and may be forced to leave the district. Even at this stage, I ask the Minister to look at the matter again.
Mr. Frederick Peart: I should like the Minister to reconsider his position, because I hope that we shall have a reply to the extremely important point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
The Minister referred to the powers in Section 50 of the 1948 Act. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that he could not have read that Section. The Section, a copy of which I have here, deals with the approval of the Minister to consent in certain cases. If the farmer wishes to have improvements he must seek the consent of the landlord. That is quite a different matter from what we are suggesting in the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
We are seeking to give the tenant opportunities to impress upon his landlord the need for good estate management.
264
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has said that it would be virtually impossible for the normal tenant to take his landlord to the courts. Such a procedure is costly; it is inconvenient. It would be far better to have the tribunal procedure. Even if there were no sanction, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said, even the granting of a certificate would be adequate in certain cases.
The simple fact is that the Government are, in the Bill, showing bias towards the landlord. They are, as my hon. Friends have said over and over again, shelving their responsibility. The whole policy of the Government, the removal of certain powers and responsibility for good estate management and good husbandry, illustrates that the Government are following the ideological doctrine of past Tory Governments, and in this sense they are being doctrinaire. We have argued this over and over again. The refusal of the Minister to look at this new Clause sympathetically shows again that the party opposite is being doctrinaire. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not wish the Government, the State, representing producers and consumers, to have responsibility.
What is the responsibility we wish the State to have? To see that landlords shall manage their estates well and efficiently. We wish the State to be responsible for agriculture, and that we should have good estate management. I hope that the Minister, instead of refusing to consider our new Clause sympathetically, and following a doctrinaire policy, will look at this again, will not be doctrinaire and will try to keep agriculture out of politics in the sense that his ideology may not have this effect. It is reasonable to suggest that provision should be made for a tenant to make representations if he feels that the landlord should provide good estate management. Even if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept full power, the new Clause would still enable the granting of a certificate, which would in certain circumstances, I am sure, have a beneficial effect.
I hope that we shall have a better reply to the case for the new Clause than we have had yet. Section 50 of the 1948 Act has nothing to do with this new Clause. That deals with an entirely different situation.
Mr. George Darling: With all due respect to the Minister, I think that he was misleading the House when he said that the tenant is already sufficiently protected against a bad landlord. He quoted the model clauses and also Section 50 of the 1948 Act which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) have demolished. He also mentioned Clause 4 of the Bill.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look again at Clause 4. We had a discussion on this matter in Committee, but I think it is worth pointing out again that the protection which the Minister thinks is given by Clause 4 does not, in fact, exist. The operative words of subsection (2) are:
"The Tribunal shall not direct the landlord to carry out work under the foregoing subsection unless they are satisfied—
(a) that it is reasonable so to do having regard … to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding …"
The landlord can go to the tribunal and say that at some time in the future he will make rearrangements on his farms and on that holding in particular. In those circumstances the tribunal will have to decide in the landlord's favour and the tenant will lose the protection which the Minister is trying to assure us he will get under that Clause.
Subsection (2) of that Clause goes on to say that the Tribunal will have regard to
"any other material considerations."
The landlord can bring in anything under the words "any other material consideration", and if he can make a case before the tribunal that the holding should not be improved, the tenant has no protection under the Clause.
I would ask the Minister to give us a further assurance about subsection (8) of Clause 4, which he quoted as giving protection to the tenant. When will it come into operation? We have still to find out what the appointed day is. So far as I can see the tenant is not at present sufficiently protected. The Bill weighs everything in the landlord's favour. For that reason, I cannot for the life of me see why this very modest new Clause should not be accepted. There cannot
266
be equity unless such a new Clause is included in the Bill.
Mr. Hare: I have listened to the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite. As I expected, they have supported the speeches made previously by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says that demand for farms exceeds supply. I am delighted to hear that he admits that the Government's agricultural policy over the last few years has created such confidence in the farming industry in the Government's policy. I am delighted that the hon. and learned Member shares my view about the prosperity of the farming industry and the confidence which that industry has in the Government.
Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman recollect any time when the demand for farms did not exceed the supply.
Mr. Hare: Yes. When the hon. and learned Gentleman and I were a little younger, in 1930 and 1931, and possibly a little before and after those years, the greater demand than supply which exists today certainly did not exist. However, I do not want to make a purely party point on this.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was supported by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who, I think, was more honest than the hon. and learned Member, because the hon. Member for Workington said quite clearly, "I think that the normal rights which are available to the tenant through the courts are too expensive. I would much rather that all this should be done for him by the right to go to the tribunal." He was much more straightforward than the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
I am saying that there are these considerable powers which are available to the tenant through the three main sources which I mentioned: first, the model clauses and the ability to secure return for repairs if the landlord fails to carry them out; secondly, Section 50 of the 1948 Act, which enables the tenant to go in and make the repairs or improvements at his own expense and then receive compensation when his tenancy ends:

267
and, finally, the new security which is given to the tenant under Clause 4 of the Bill. These are very considerable rights which the tenant has, and if properly exercised, I believe that they will secure his case.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) raised the case of Mr. John Barratt. It is a little difficult for me to remember the full details. As far as I remember it, a landlord, who was not well off, had spent a considerable amount of money on the holding. He was not receiving a very high rent. The tenant asked for certain improvements to be made. The case went to the county agriculture executive committee, which took the view that it was not a matter in which it was right to intervene, on the basis that, if the tenant wished those improvements to be made, he could have taken advantage of Section 50 of the 1948 Act.
In view of the amount of money already spent by the landlord on the holding and the rent, it was not, in the Committee's opinion, right or just to intervene. I will check that when I have more time, but I think that that is the answer to the particular case which the hon. Member for Rugby had in mind.
Mr. J. Johnson: Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the answer to this question is. If the tenant is aggrieved, as, of course, he is very much, what is his next step beyond appeal to the county agriculture executive committee, where he does not think that he has had a fair deal? We want something above that, as is suggested in the new Clause; a higher authority to which he can go.
Mr. Hare: I hope that I made it clear that, in the opinion of the local people, who are probably better able to judge than the hon. Member for Rugby, who does not live in that part of the country, or I, it was up to the particular tenant to take the advantage of Section 50 of the 1948 Act and do the work himself. If his tenancy lapses, he is given a valuation and he is recouped for the value of the improvement he makes on behalf of the landlord.
As I say, persuasive and reasonable though the arguments have been, I would still ask my hon. Friends to reject the new Clause.
Mr. A. J. Champion: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) said that the Minister was nothing but a stonewaller. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman does not do it in as grim a manner as some stonewallers I have seen on the cricket field. However, judging by what he said about the prosperity of the industry under the Government, I can only think that when he was last in Ireland he kissed the Blarney Stone. If he is trying to persuade the agricultural industry that it is more prosperous under the present Government than it ever was before, he is the only one who knows anything at all about the industry who would suggest any such thing.
Mr. Hare: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I was merely thanking the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for the unsolicited tribute he paid to the prosperity of farming in his speech.
Mr. Champion: The fact that there is still prosperity remaining is due entirely to the 1947 Act and the Government of that day.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): The hon. Gentleman should not believe that.
Mr. Champion: I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to look at farmers' incomes over the period since he has been in his present office and the Government have been in power. The fact is that farmers' incomes are down, and farmers are about the only section of the community whose incomes have fallen in that time. Moreover, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so clearly showed, their share of the national income has fallen, too.
I agree with the Minister that there is a demand for farms far exceeding the supply today. I can remember a time in the 'thirties, also, when the demand for farms was not up to the supply. The Tory Government of that day produced such conditions in agriculture that people would not keep their farms going and the landlords just could not get tenants for many of their farms.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has refused the blandishments of my hon.

269
Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The Government have produced a Bill which, as it stands, is weighted wholly in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, except in so far as it gives the tenant a right to go to the tribunal and take some process against the landlord so that he may carry out requirements placed upon him by Acts of Parliament and regulations made under them.
The Minister recognises, also, that the Bill has this further effect. The repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act removes all sanctions against the bad landlord who continually neglects his job and his estate, apart from some provisions of the 1948 Agricultural Holdings Act which, I am bound to admit—I am sure that the Minister will agree—are complicated and have not the simplicity of action provided for in the new Clause. What we propose would give a simplicity of action to the tenant which would enable him to proceed against a bad landlord in a reasonably easy way, without resort to the courts.
No one can pretend that there are not bad landlords now, landlords who have for generations neglected to provide the farmer with reasonably efficient fixed equipment with which to farm the land. The position has been deteriorating. The landlord and tenant system may break down under the bad landlord. It is our task in this House, and it ought to be the task of the Government, to find a way to deal with the really bad landlord.
Under the 1947 Act, there was power to deal with a bad landlord by supervision
and eventual dispossession if he did not mend his ways. The Minister has said that the tenant had no power to complain, but everyone knows that the county agriculture executive committees, knowing the circumstances of those cases and, perhaps, hearing from the tenant himself, did have the right, even the duty, to intervene and place a bad landlord under supervision, eventually dispossessing him if he did not do the job of a good landlord and provide the tenant with reasonably efficient fixed equipment. These rights were there. They are being removed by the Government in the Bill.
All we are saying is that we ought, at least, to preserve some right for the tenant to complain against a bad landlord and have some sanction against him. It has been said that the amount put in the Clause is not enough. I would say that even the act of the tribunal in granting a certificate would itself be a useful measure, even if the sanction of the fine we suggest is opposed. I certainly think that, if a landlord had had a certificate of bad estate management against him, his right to go to the tribunal and ask for possession of the farm would be lessened as a result.
We regard the Minister's reply as quite unsatisfactory. We regard him as representing the landlords against the tenants. In the interest of the tenant, we shall divide the House against him.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 247.

Division No. 169.]

AYES

[4.40 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Burke, W. A.

Dye, S.

Albu, A. H.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Awbery, S. S.

Callaghan, L. J.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Carmichael, J.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Balfour, A.

Champion, A. J.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Fernyhough, E.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Clunie, J.

Finch, H. J.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Coldrick, W.

Fitch, E. A.

Beswick, Frank

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Forman, J. C.

Blackburn, F.

Cove, W. G.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Blenkinsop, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Blyton, W. R.

Cronin, J. D.

Gibson, C. W.

Boardman, H.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Greenwood, Anthony

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Bowles, F. G.

Deer, G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Boyd, T. C.

Diamond, John

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Dodds, N. N.

Grimond, J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Donnelly, D. L.

Hale, Leslie

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Hamilton, W. W.

MacDermot, Niall

Royle, C.

Hannan, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

McGovern, J.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Hastings, S.

Molnnes, J.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Hayman, F. H.

McLeavy, Frank

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Healey, Denis

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Mahon, Simon

Skeffington, A. M.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Holman, P.

Mason, Roy

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Holt, A. F.

Mitchison, G. R.

Snow, J. W.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Monslow, W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Sparks, J. A.

Hoy, J. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Hubbard, T. F.

Mort, D. L.

Steele, T.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Moss, R.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Moyle, A.

Stonehouse, John

Hunter, A. E.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Oliver, G. H.

Swingler, S. T.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.

Orbach, M.

Sylvester, G. O.

Janner, B.

Oswald, T.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Owen, W. J.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paget, R. T.

Tomney, F.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Viant, S. P.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wade, D. W.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Calmer, A. M. F.

Watkins, T. E.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Parker, J.

West, D. G.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Paton, John

Wheeldon, W. E.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pearson, A.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Peart, T. F.

Wigg, George

Kenyon, C.

Pentland, N.

Wilkins, W. A.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Popplewell, E.

Willey, Frederick

King, Dr. H. M.

Probert, A. R.

Williams, David (Neath)

Lawson, G. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Randall, H. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Rankin, John

Winterbottom, Richard

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Redhead, E. C.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Lewis, Arthur

Reid, William

Woof, R. E.

Lindgren, G. S.

Reynolds, G. W.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Lipton, Marcus

Rhodes, H.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Logan, D. G.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McCann, J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. J. T. Price.

MacColl, J. E.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Carr, Robert

Fisher, Nigel

Aitken, W. T.

Cary, Sir Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Alport, C. J. M.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Fort, R.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Arbuthnot, John

Cole, Norman

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Armstrong, C. W.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Gammans, Lady

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Cooke, Robert

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Atkins, H. E.

Cooper, A. E.

Glover, D.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Godber, J. B.

Balniel, Lord

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Goodhart, Philip

Barber, Anthony

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Gough, C. F. H.

Barlow, Sir John

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Gower, H. R.

Barter, John

Cunningham, Knox

Graham, Sir Fergus

Batsford, Brian

Currie, G. B. H.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Dance, J. C. G.

Green, A.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Davidson, Viscountess

Gresham Cooke, R.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Deedes, W. F.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Gurden, Harold

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Bishop, F. P.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Black, C. W.

Drayson, G. B.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Body, R. F.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Duncan, Sir James

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Duthie, W. S.

Hay, John

Braine, B. R.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle upon Tyne, N.)

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Bryan, P.

Erroll, F. J.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Burden, F. F. A.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hesketh, R. F.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Fell, A.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Campbell, Sir David

Finlay, Graeme

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

272

273

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Robertson, Sir David

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Mckibbin, Alan

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Roper, Sir Harold

Hope, Lord John

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Hornby, R. P.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Russell, R. S.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Maddan, Martin

Sharples, R. C.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Shepherd, William

Howard, John (Test)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Smithers, Peter (Winohester)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Speir, R. M.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Marshall, Douglas

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hurd, A. R.

Mathew, R.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Stoddart-Soott, col. Sir Malcolm

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Mawby, R. L.

Storey, S.

Hyde, Montgomery

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Summers, Sir Spencer

Iremonger, T. L.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Teeling, W.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Temple, John M.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Neave, Airey

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Nicholls, Harmar

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Nicolson, N. (G'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Kaberry, D.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Oakshott, H. D.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Kershaw, J. A.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Vane, W. M. F.

Kirk, P. M.

Page, R. G.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lambton, Viscount

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Peel, W. J.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Leather, E. H. C.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Leavey, J. A.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Webbe, Sir H.

Leburn, W. G.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Webster, David

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Pitman, I. J.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Pott, H. P.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Powell, J. Enoch

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Redmayne, M.

Woollam, John Victor

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Renton, D. L. M.

McAdden, S. J.

Ridsdale, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Rippon, A. G. F.

Mr. E. Wakefield and

Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Clause 1.—(REPEAL OF POWERS OF SUPERVISION, DIRECTION AND DIS POSSESSION UNDER PART II OF AGRICULTURE ACT, 1947, AND PART II OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1948.)
Mr. Thomas Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end to insert:
(3) This section shall come into operation on the appointed day.
I make no apology for moving this Amendment, since it happens to be the only opportunity that we on these benches have of causing at least a postponement in the operation of Clause 1 and of re-emphasising our complete disagreement with the Government on this important issue. A case has not been made out for the operation of Clause 1 or for the drastic change to be made so quickly.
274
If this Amendment were carried, and the appointed day had to be provided, that would involve the production of an order which would do two things: first, it would enable the right hon. Gentleman to give more thought to the serious consequences that could accrue as a result of the passing of the Clause; and, secondly, give him an opportunity of doing what, apparently, has not been done even to today—discussing this question seriously with the National Farmers' Union.
Whatever virtues or weaknesses other Clauses of the Bill may have, we regard Clause 1 as being mischievous. We believe that it is not in the national interest and that it has caused fear and apprehension among farmers. It cannot do any good and we are convinced it can do definite harm. It therefore should be deferred to an appointed day to give the Minister a chance to recommence

275
discussions and get the real truth of what the great mass of farmers throughout the country feel about the Clause.
As I said on Second Reading, Clause 1 has been opposed by every section of the agricultural industry. They have very good reasons for opposition. For the greater part of this century agriculture was the Cinderella of industries. As far as I can recall—and perhaps I have been here as long as any other hon. Member now in the House—there was never any recognisable policy for agriculture.
For the most part, the industry was grossly under-capitalised. It was hopelessly inefficient and, worse still, it was contributing very little to our national economy. Farmers' cash incomes were miserably small. Wages of workers were little less than a scandal. Yet, although our balance of payments started to deteriorate before the First World War, we made little use of our only raw material, the land. Thanks to a completely new approach after the last war, an approach approved by every section of the agricultural industry, all that has been changed.
Nearly £1,000 million has been invested in this industry, efficiency has increased beyond all praise, output has increased by 60 per cent. and the industry is undoubtedly making a major contribution to our balance of payments problem. Yet, at the first suitable opportunity the Government seek to destroy with unseemly haste an important part of the scheme which has produced those results, all in the sacred words of "setting the people free", doctrinaire ideology gone mad. I repeat what I said on Second Reading: it is sheer legislative stupidity.
The Minister has from time to time repeated that we do not need sanctions to ensure efficiency and that this is 1958, not 1947. He believes—I really think that he does believe—that exhortation, leadership and education are more effective that disciplinary powers. He knows, however, that that is first-class nonsense. He knows that without financial guarantees, combined with disciplinary powers exercised from within the industry, we could never have reached the present level of output or the present state of efficiency. More likely, instead of having had four Chancellors of the Exchequer in six years, we would have had a dozen, one for each
276
spring Budget and one for each autumn Budget, because of the upset to our balance of payments problem.
Yet, while the nation is willing to sustain the industry and expects only in return reasonable standards of efficiency, the Government say, in effect, through Clause 1, which they want to operate speedily, "Away with disciplinary powers and the sooner the better. We must safeguard the position of our Lady Garbett farmers, whatever the cost to the nation. We cannot let our social friends down, even though the heavens fall." I must confess that I believe the Minister when he says, "We think that hon. Members opposite are sincere in their statements, but we are also sincere in ours." What I cannot understand is that in the light of our experience during the last ten or eleven years when compared with what happened during the previous twenty years the Government can believe that exhortation alone will maintain the momentum of all-round efficiency which is so important both to the industry as such and to the Treasury.
One is forced to the conclusion that despite their synthetic—I repeat "synthetic"—protest against any possible limitation in output when they voted against Clause 1 of the 1947 Bill, they are now more concerned to avoid increased output through efficiency or anything else. That is the reason they are trying to hurry the Bill through. It seems incredible to me that the Government should so lightly disregard the feelings and opinions of the National Farmers' Union on this important matter. Reassurances about Part I of the 1957 Act have proved singularly ineffective. Confidence, which is all-important, has not been restored.
This Amendment provides the right hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to re-examine the whole matter. It gives him a chance, which I hope he will accept, for if, as seems likely, the Government thought that the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act would be welcomed with unbounded enthusiasm by the farming community, they certainly underestimated the intelligence of the present-day farmer.
I know that there are, of course, exceptions. Some sit on the benches opposite, but few of them depend on farming for their livelihood. Of course,

277
there are many others who have always opposed Part II or controls of any kind, except the sort of control they themselves would propose, but there is a new generation of farmers. They have not been properly consulted on the questions either of Clause 1 of the Bill or of Part II of the 1947 Act and all their implications.
Many of the new generation of farmers have had experience both with and without controls. They no longer repeat the Tory parrot cry of, Hands off industry" They prefer to judge by results and, on that basis, the majority are in favour of preserving, both Parts I and II of the 1947 Act. I am sure that if they were in the Chamber they would support the Amendment to defer the operation of Clause 1 until the appointed date, because the so-called guarantees of the 1957 Act have failed to impress them. After two years' experience the original enthusiasm for that Act has completely evaporated. They feel that they have been sold a very dangerous pup.
Nor does the reminder of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, repeated by the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn) in a letter to the Farmer and Stock-Breeder, that the largest under-recoupment for increased costs occurred in 1951, impress the new generation of farmers, for they know that in 1951–52 the net income of farmers increased from £271 million to £326 million. That increase in net income was the largest for any year since the Price Review started. When the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset, North writes another letter I hope that he will tell the whole story.
Colonel R. H. Glyn: It is a small point, but the figures that I quoted in my letter were not repeated from anything said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. They were quoted from figures published by the National Farmers' Union.
Mr. Williams: Yes, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, doing his duty when winding up the Second Reading debate, quoted the same year and the same figures. I am sure that hon. Members will not object to my telling them that we were so wise in our day and generation that we knew what was happening in the farming industry and that, despite that apparent large under-recoupment,
278
the net income of the industry increased by more than £50 million that same year. I am only suggesting that it is wise for all of us to tell all the facts and not only half of them, and thereby mislead the public.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We can tell all the facts, but not on this Amendment.
Mr. Williams: I quite agree that that is a side issue when we are asking for the postponement of the operation of Clause 1 of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, nevertheless, that both he and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North will have to find something more substantial to justify the passing of Clause 1 or the repeal of Part IT of the 1947 Act, or to boost the virtues of the 1957 Act, if any.
Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me several times. I ask him to look at these figures in the exact context of the very acute shortage of food which there was elsewhere in the world and in this country in 1951–52. If he does not take that into acount, then he, too, is not disclosing the whole of the facts.
Mr. Williams: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also he good enough to go back to some figures in that year, remembering the increased costs of production of about £70 million due to the Korean War, to which he has made no reference? It was only because of that colossal increase, over which no Government, Tory or Labour, could have any control, that the increased costs reached such a high figure. Nevertheless, at the end of the year, the net incomes had increased by over £50 million, which was not unreasonable.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is drawing the right hon. Gentleman into a little more trouble.
Mr. Godber: I will have a word with the right hon. Gentleman afterwards.
Mr. Williams: Clause 1 is definitely unwanted by the industry. We are only seeking to postpone its operation by the passing of this Amendment. We know that it has created a large element of fear and doubt in the minds of farmers in

279
almost every county. They are afraid, not unnaturally, of the traditional antipathy of the Tory Party towards agriculture, and I think that they are right. That is why I ask that this part of the Bill should be postponed to the appointed day.
I have no desire to repeat all the arguments which I used on Second Reading, but I want to re-emphasise one or two things. An old parliamentary colleague, who sat on the benches opposite and "knew his onions," said that repetition was the law of propaganda. I think that he was right. Therefore, to repeat one or two things is fairly useful. Since 1947, we have definitely seen a minor revolution in agriculture. We know, because of the confidence created, that it has been a combined operation in which scientists, research workers, advisory officers, machinery manufacturers and many others have played a part.
The value of the output has increased from £290 million in 1938 to £1,400 million today. Farmers' net incomes have gone up from £59 million to £320 million or more, and the volume of output has increased by no less than 60 per cent. The contribution which this new situation has made to our balance of payments problem exceeds £400 million a year, and efficiency, I do not think anyone would deny, is greater than ever before.
If, therefore, we want this industry to serve the best interests of the nation, is it not both stupid and dangerous to destroy the theory and practice which has produced those results? I think that it is. That is why I move this Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps for the first time during the course of our debates on this Bill, will give serious consideration to making a worthwhile effort to consult the National Farmers' Union, which has consulted its 200,000 members, and thus ascertain feeling in the countryside. If he will do that, he will please those of us who sit on these benches, do himself justice, and make a contribution both to the industry and the nation.
Mr. G. Darling: The purpose of the Amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has said, is to make sure that
280
Clause 1, as it now stands, will not automatically come into operation with the passing of the Bill and that the terms and provisions of the Clause will have to be operated, so to speak, by order, which will give the Minister an opportunity for reconsidering and, perhaps, adjusting the provisions of the Clause to the real circumstances of the industry. It will also, perhaps, enable the Minister to take into consideration the views of people engaged in the industry, other than the landlords for whom the Bill, of course, has been designed.
A moment ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that the need for food production now is less urgent than it was some time ago.
Mr. Godber: No.
Mr. Darling: That was the implication of the hon. Gentleman's interjection. Whether he meant to say that or not, at least that has been the argument repeated ad nauseam throughout the Committee stage of the Bill—that although, obviously, there was a tremendous need for increased food production during the war and in the immediate post-war years, the need for a further increase in food production in the country is now less urgent. I do not think that is a mistaken summary of the views expressed by the Government.
If Clause I comes into operation as at present drafted, without any chance being given to the Minister to revise his ideas, I am afraid that the chances are that food production in the country will go down. In any case, I do not agree that we on this side of the House believe that the need for maintaining a high level of food production is less urgent than it was. It is quite wrong to think of food production in relation to imports and the demand for food in the country in isolation. It is all part of our overseas trade problem and part of the problem of raising living standards in this country.
Every attempt that we make to improve industrial production and to raise our living standards means that we have to import more and more raw materials. We have to import timber, cotton, wool, iron ore and all the other metals that we use. We have also to import oil. All these improvements in industry and in our standards of living—if we can get an

281
improvement again under this Government, which is very doubtful—will increase our total volume of imports, and if we add to that further increasing imports of foodstuffs our balance of payments problem will get increasingly difficult. If we are going to attempt, as I hope will be the case, to improve industrial production and standards of living, we have to raise the output of food production in this country.
Under Clause 1, as it now stands, by throwing over the disciplinary powers which have stimulated and kept up a high level of food production, we run into serious economic danger. That is the situation which, we believe, the Government must keep under control. The agricultural industry must be kept under control by making sure that it makes its proper contribution to the whole of our economic effort. To put into operation Clause 1 as it now stands without any further consideration on the part of the Government would, in our view, be disastrous. Therefore, we are asking that the Minister shall be given the opportunity on the Amendment which we are proposing to have second thoughts and, possibly, in those second thoughts to adapt the provisions of Clause 1 to the actual circumstances of the industry.
There is another very important point that we must not leave out of consideration. This industry is protected and receives, quite properly, heavy subsidies from the State. We need not go into the question of why there should be subsidies, and in any case I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would call me to order if I tried to do so. But the subsidies are there and are going to be paid for a long period of time. There must be one essential guarantee which the industry must give in return for those subsidies, which is that every acre of land in the country that can be efficiently and effectively farmed will be so farmed. That guarantee cannot be fully implemented unless the industry is under the control of the community to make sure that farming is carried on fully and efficiently.
In the course of the previous discussions on the Bill, the Minister said that other industries are protected which are not subject to control. Of course other industries are protected, and they are subject to Government control. For instance, the iron and steel industry has been under Government control since
282
1932; the road transport industry and the passenger transport industry are under Government control, and must be. The idea that industries that are protected should be under control is not new. What is new is the idea that protection should carry no control, which is the idea that the Minister has put forward in the Bill.
In these circumstances, we on this side of the House say that it is in the interests of the community that, in return for the subsidies that the community pays to that industry, Clause 1 should be looked at again, and that an opportunity should be given to the Minister to adapt the Clause to the circumstances of the industry. I am absolutely certain that the people of this country are not going to agree to pay subsidies to an industry which is turning its farms into playgrounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, we know very well how farms, particularly in the Home Counties, are being bought by people for the purpose of turning them into amenity areas instead of carrying out the full job of farming the land efficiently and getting the fullest value out of it. I am sure that when the people of this country realise what is happening they will not agree to pay out public money to an industry which is not going to be controlled in the interests of the community.
Therefore, we ask the Minister to accept the Amendment which will help him and which will give him an opportunity to look again at Clause 1 and adapt it to the circumstances.
Sir Thomas Moore: What amount of subsidy, if any, is paid on a playing field? That has just occurred to me.
Mr. Darling: We are not talking about playing fields but about farms that are used for horse riding and that kind of thing. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned from the Highland Games to give us the benefit of his agricultural experience.
Mr. Paget: A subsidy is paid on a playing field. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, certainly it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "A farming subsidy?"] If a farmer chooses to use the land as a playing field and cuts the grass for that purpose, it will put up the expense of production on his farm and a subsidy will be based on the expense. That is happening all the time.
Mr. Darling: Perhaps on another occasion we could go into the whole question of subsidies.
In any case, subsidies have to be very carefully looked at especially if all control, as now proposed, is going to be taken off agriculture and if all these disciplinary measures which the farmers want in the interest of the community are to disappear. In any case, we want to give the Minister an opportunity, as I have said, to adapt the Clause to the circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. John Hare: Once again, I am afraid that I cannot accept the helpful advice which has been offered to me by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was honest when he began his speech. He said that this was the only opportunity he had of really restating his whole case against the removal of the disciplinary powers. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your customary kindness, allowed the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, to go even further than he expected that he would be able to go. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said that Mr. Deputy-Speaker's customary kindness had allowed the right hon. Gentleman to go a bit further than perhaps he thought he would be able to go.
The right hon. Gentleman restated the case which he made on Second Reading and restated the case he made throughout the Committee stage, a case about which I know he feels extremely strongly. I know that the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made was made in order once again to put on record his general dislike of the fact that the present Government are choosing to do away with the powers of supervision and dispossession. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that we have taken the wrong action whereas we are equally convinced that what we are doing is absolutely right. We have repeatedly had this argument.
We admit that during the war and in the years of shortage immediately after the war there was a case for compulsion and dictation, but now that we have moved into the age of plenty we feel that the rights of liberty, and so on,
284
should be given far greater reign than they were in those earlier days.
Mr. T. Williams: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, and I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving way. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot appreciate, because he did not happen to be in the House during the period, were the situation and conditions which obtained in the 'twenties and 'thirties. I was in the House during both periods. I know what the situation was then, and that is why I compared the twenty pre-war years and the last ten or eleven years and why I think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are wrong.
Mr. Hare: We all know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we are wrong, but we think that we are right, and we are never going to get any further just by repeating to one another exactly the same things which have been said on innumerable occasions before.
Mr. Willey: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to go on thinking that he is right, but surely he recognises that every other responsible body in the industry thinks that he is wrong. For that reason, he ought to have the opportunity to think again.
Mr. Hare: I do not propose to be drawn by the hon. Gentleman's intervention, tempting as it is.
I have only one complaint to make about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He had every right to express his views and his dislike about the removal of the powers of supervision and dispossession, but what I do not think he had the right to do was to do so for purely party political purposes. During his speech, the right hon. Gentleman tried to give the impression that Government policy wishes to avoid—he used the words—"increased output or efficiency or anything else." He knows perfectly well that that is not the policy of the Government, and yet he tries to give the impression by everything he says that we are trying to pull out of agriculture. We are not, and we have made our views on that perfectly clear.
The majority of farmers have confidence in the future of farming. Therefore, I think it wrong, on this very limited Amendment, for the right hon.

285
Gentleman to have made his very comprehensive speech which I know was for outside rather than for internal consumption. I will not repeat all the arguments, but I will say something on the matter on Third Reading which will probably be a more suitable occasion than now. I repeat, however, that I do not believe that now that prosperity has returned the State has the right to throw people out of their homes and land. I do not believe that in a normal state, such as that in which we are living today, compulsion is better than the principles of persuasion and help. Rather than harry and bully the bottom 1 per cent. of farmers, we want to release the energies of the top 99 per cent.
Because of that, I feel that I have been right to express what I strongly feel, in rather fewer words than the right hon. Gentleman used. I have no intention of accepting his advice, but in my Third Reading speech I will deploy more fully my arguments to show why I believe that the action which we have taken in Clause 1 is right and proper.
Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether he feels the same sentiment towards agricultural workers who are evicted from tied cottages as he does towards those farmers to whom he has just referred?
Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman is excelling himself and is sprawling red herrings about the House. I feel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that having been so very kind, you might now cease to be as kind. This is not the proper occasion on which to have a detailed discussion of the principles governing our decision to insert Clause 1. I propose to deal with that matter at greater length on Third Reading.
Mr. Paget: I had not proposed to speak on this Amendment and would not have done so until the attitude of hon. Members opposite made it plain that they were in need of further instruction. It is very odd how little they seem to know about the Bill. In ringing terms, which were a preliminary canter to his Third Reading speech, the Minister said how infamous it was to threaten the security of 1 per cent. of farmers. My right hon. Friend asked him whether those principles applied to tied cottages. I ask
286
him whether they apply to that much larger percentage of farmers whose security he is weakening.
He proceeded to say, "Now that prosperity has returned to agriculture." Has it returned"? During the period of his tenure of office, agriculture has lost nearly one-third of its share of the national income. When the Labour Party assumed office, agriculture's share of the national income was about 2·8 per cent., and it remained at that figure, almost without change, throughout the period of the Labour Government. It is now less than 2 per cent., so that agriculture has lost more than one-quarter and nearly one-third of its share of the national income during the last seven years of Tory Government. Would the Minister have said in any market place in England that prosperity had returned to the industry?
Those were observations which arose from the Minister's speech. What stirred me much more was the ironic laughter—as The Times would call it—which came at intervals during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). My hon. Friend was making statements of simple fact. He said that the Government would not continue the payment of prices over whose cost factor they had abandoned all control. That statement was received with laughter and jokes and with cries of "What an absurd statement."
I remind the Government that that is precisely the argument which their predecessors advanced on the occasion of the repeal of the Corn Production Acts. First, they removed the controls and the farmers were very pleased, but then they said that the consequences were that they could not be responsible for prices. That is why farmers and all agricultural opinion are against the Bill—let us have no doubt about that. That is why farmers are so bitterly opposed to the Bill. [Laughter.]
Hon. Members laugh, but I will tell them why that is. The public guarantees prices, and those prices are based on costings at the national review. So long as the Government have some control over those costings, it is reasonable for them to guarantee the prices which emerge from those costings. With the Bill they are now abandoning all control over the costings. The most important

287
item, and one which will be very expensive, is rent. With a time lag, the Bill is none the less a fairly quick rolling over to take the lid off agricultural rents. Agricultural rents—and this is the purpose of the Bill—will steeply rise and every one of those rents will go into the costings which we pay.
How long will any Government of any party continue to provide the money for the payment of ever-rising rents over which they can exercise no control?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question of the appointed day will not have any control over them.
Mr. Paget: The argument which I was advancing was that the operation of this Clause, dealing with the Government's power to control one element of the costings which we will eventually have to pay, should be postponed. I was indicating in passing that this was only one of the elements of the costings over which the Government were abandoning control. They are abandoning control over rent itself and over the manner in which the farm is farmed, which means that a farm can be turned from an economic farm into an amenity farm, however inefficient, but with a high rent paid for the amenity value with that rent affecting prices at the February Price Review.
5.30 p.m.
That is the effect of the Clause, because when we remove control over how the farm is farmed and over whether or not it is farmed for efficient production, it means that any farm from now on can be let to anybody, however ignorant a farmer, who thinks a farm would be a nice place to live in. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), it could be somewhere where the farmer could provide a playing field for somebody. It could be a polo ground or perhaps a jumping ground or a place to keep horses. The farm itself would be a mere sideline in the economics of which the occupier would be uninterested.
Yet, very largely, his losses would be paid by the Exchequer and he would have other income against which he could set them off. Yet the costs would be costs which would never have been intended to be economic and the rent would be one which was never intended to be a
288
farm rent. The Government have abandoned or are abandoning their control, but nevertheless those costs go into the Price Review. They would be part of the costings of farming and would be paid by the Exchequer.
Sir Archer Baldwin: The hon. and learned Member says that we have lost control over the costings, but in each of the last two or three Price Reviews the increased costs of production on the farm has not been absorbed and paid for by the Government. Farmers have had to pay them themselves.
Mr. Paget: That is the fault of the hon. Member's Government. I agree with his grievance there, but what about his grievance now when far higher cuts are made, as they will be made? The hon. Member cannot complain when the Government have abandoned their control of the costings. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member. In a phrase, he has put the case for the farmers' grievance throughout the country. He has indicated in a phrase why the Bill, and in particular this Clause, mean the end of the guaranteed price system. The farmers know that, and that is why they are opposing the Bill fundamentally. We on this side of the House know it. It is what will happen and it is what happened before with corn production.
These are facts which are known to the N.F.U. and which the N.F.U. has made very plain throughout the country, but apparently they have not sunk in to hon. Members opposite, who oddly enough consider that they represent farming interests. Indeed, I feel that one of the most remarkable aspects of the Bill has been how it has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the N.F.U. on a Parliamentary issue and the utter inadequacy of farmer representation within the Government party in the House. These are evils which we, by the Amendment, seek to postpone. If hon. Members opposite have not wakened up to that yet, it is all the more reason why this proposal should be postponed to give them time to have another look at it and to enable them to get a little more in touch with their farming constituents.
Mr. Willey: This is one of the major Amendments that we on this side of the House have put on the Notice Paper, and I want to speak at some length to it.

289
The Minister is so charming and speaks with such an endearing manner, but he does not realise how unhandsome his offer is. He says that he will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on Third Reading, but we suspect that on Third Reading these words will not be part of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to reply.
This is an important Amendment, in the first place, because of the treatment which everyone has received from the hands of the Government, ourselves included. It is typical of the Government's attitude throughout discussions on the Bill. Everyone will concede that there have been representations of the strongest character from the most representative bodies in agriculture, but nothing at all have been done by the Government. I do not want to anticipate further discussions, but we all know that there has been speculation from responsible quarters about this and the following Clause. It was felt that the Government were going to make proposals. That has been widely accepted throughout the industry, but—and I make no apologies for it—we have had a prolonged Committee stage which was completed only last week and here we are now on Report. This is really outrageous.
It is worse than that, because the Government gave some undertakings and we had a handful of Government Amendments on the Notice Paper on Thursday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what consideration he has given to the Committee discussions. A contemptuous list of Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper. No one can deny that, and here we have Opposition Amendments. I recognise at once that the Government have had necessarily short notice of these Amendments, but they have brought that upon themselves. We had a very flippant reply from the right hon. Gentleman to a very moderate and reasonable new Clause which we proposed, and we are having an equally flippant reply to this Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman has endearing charm, but it really will not do to escape from the implication of the Amendment by saying, "I shall make a few remarks in passing on Third Reading tomorrow", when the Amendment will not be part of the Bill under discussion.
290
We are pleading for a proper recognition of the responsible bodies in industry, and I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this matter again. As the House knows, I could make many quotations, but I will make just one by way of illustration. I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the allegations made by the Farmer and Stock-Breeder. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, pays particular regard to that journal because, as we are delighted to know, its editor has been honoured recently.
The following paragraph, headed "Cess-pool of Politics", appeared in that journal:
"I cannot claim to have read all the reports of the discussion on the Agriculture True they are sent to me a day or two afterwards, but they are not always read. From those I have seen it is obvious to me that the Opposition is smarting; and I must say that I should feel much the same. There must be compromise in dealings with employees; there is, or should be, a measure of give and take between the Government and the Opposition. But after reading the Debate it seems to me that it is the Government and not Labour which is again dragging farming into the cesspool of politics. What a pity it all is. Maybe Mr. John Hare even at this stage can be less partisan thin the author of the Bill—Mr. Heathcoat Amory."
Those are not the partisan remarks of any politician. They are the comments of one of the responsible journals, widely read throughout the agricultural industry.
Sir James Duncan: They must have been reading only the speeches of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Willey: I do not know. I am flattered, but I think that those responsible for the Farmer and Stock-Breeder probably read much wider than that.
That is really outrageous. All we are doing here is to make a very modest suggestion. We recognise that we are now on the Report stage, and we say to the Government, "Give yourselves time to think again and to go through the decencies of consulting the representative bodies of the industry". Hon. Members who have not read the proceedings in Committee as diligently as have those who are responsible for the Farmer and Stock-Breeder might not know that the National Farmers' Union has never been consulted about this matter. Is it not time they were consulted, even at this late stage. I remind hon. Members of

291
what the National Farmers' Union have said about this. It is:
"The Government's decision to repeal the disciplinary provisions contained in Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, has been taken against the advice of all responsible sections of the agricultural industry. As a Union we have at no time been invited to consider modifications in Part II, only the total repeal of all disciplinary provisions including those Sections (14 and 15) which are designed to interpose the independent inspection and judgment of Agricultural Executives Committees to protect the tenant against an unsatisfactory landlord, and vice versa."
Mr. Hare: What is the date of that statement?
Mr. Willey: It is dated 17th March this year. This has always been the attitude of the National Farmers' Union. It is true, and I will refer to it again, that in Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman referred to some consultations which had taken place. When I pressed him, he said that those consultations were confidential and he could reveal no more. I revealed the fact that those consultations had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. It was clear from the confidential minute upon which both the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary relied that these were discussions about the Arton Wilson Report, because the minutes themselves used the very words of the Report.
I challenged the right hon. Gentleman, and I challenge him now, with having deceived the Committee. He cannot deny it. The matter was referred to on two occasions in c. 51 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, where the minute is set out. The date of the minute was 10th July, 1956, just about two years ago. How ridiculous to call that in aid, when those discussions were about the Arton Wilson Report. I told the Parliamentary Secretary that he should take more care about reading out documents that were pushed in front of him. I would not like to reflect upon either the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary when I said "misleading the Committee" I would say that they unintentionally misled the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Hare: I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that I was deliberately misleading the Committee. I did apologise for quoting from the document, which was in part confidential. The
292
hon. Gentleman very graciously did not press me on it. I was not misleading the Committee in saying that my predecessors were having negotiations about the Arton Wilson Report when they were having negotiations about the principles of Part II of the Act.
Mr. Willey: I do not wish to pursue this matter further. [Interruption.] If Government supporters want me to, I will pursue the matter further. They cannot have it both ways. This is a matter which we can pursue if they wish me to by calling for the document. I recognise that the minute was quoted in error. I recognise that we could go further with this document, but I have no wish to press for my Parliamentary rights. I recognise that the Minister was revealing to the Committee as much as he could, and I recognise his position. I do not wish to press him further, but I also do not wish to have jeers from Government supporters or I will call for the document.
The National Farmers' Union has said from beginning to end that this step has been taken against all the advice of the union and that there has never been any proper consultation about it. That was the first point on which I rested this Amendment. If there has not been consultation and if there ought to have been consultation, it is not too late, notwithstanding the fact that the Government have taken a decision in this matter, as they are entitled to do if they wish. Every hon. Member would concede that there can be consultation with the industry as to when it will be appropriate to end the operation of Part II, if the Government are determined to do so.
I would not rest my case only on the fact that the National Farmers' Union has to be consulted. There are other bodies, representing other sections of agriculture, which have not been consulted. The National Union of Agricultural Workers, the trade union, has not been consulted. It has stigmatised the Bill as "unwanted". If the Government are endeavouring, as I hope they are, to get all the co-operation they can from the trade unions, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to rectify the statement that he made. The Government ought to have consulted the union. Let them at any rate consult it now on the narrow point of when it will be proper and opportune to implement the Bill.

293
The Landowners' Association has not been consulted. I understand that it is not as opposed to the Clause as it was, but still I claim that it has an equal right to be consulted.
I would emphasise that the Amendment is of considerable importance and that all we are asking the Government to do is to rectify what we consider was improper, not in the sense that it was unconstitutional, but in the light of the relations between the Government and the representational bodies in the industry. So far as I know, this has not happened before, and I hope it will not happen again. Hitherto there has been the closest consultation in the industry between the two sides and the Government. I still say that even now, after we have dealt with the principle of the Clause, the Government should consult those bodies, recognise them properly and decide whether or when it is necessary, in the light of those consultations, to implement Clause 1. Surely that is a very modest proposal.
We think we can anticipate what the right hon. Gentleman will say. However moderate or modest our request, it will be turned down. Who can deny, whether he is with the Government or not, that that is a provocative thing to do? Who could deny that this is unnecessarily provocative.
The right hon. Gentleman twitted us during the Committee stage proceedings because we had not put down Amendments regarding Part II. Well, we were modest. We were content to allow the argument to go on principle. We did not wish to embarrass the Government or to delay consideration of the Bill. But having allowed that to go—we are not now returning to it—and having been voted down on the principle of whether Part II should be repealed or not, surely the Government could have gone a little way towards meeting us and have said—having defeated us on this matter which has upset the industry more than anything else for a long Ome—"While we are not willing to alter the decision we arrived at, nevertheless we are willing to discuss with the National Farmers' Union and the other bodies representing agricultural interest when this Clause should be implemented."
Surely, as all hon. Members would recognise, the Government are seeking
294
very drastic powers. Merely to say within the provisions of a single Clause that Part II of the English Measure, and of the Scottish Measure, shall cease to have effect forthwith is very drastic. Part II has been a way of life for agriculture. It may have been—the Parliamentary Secretary looks surprised, but I will repeat what I said.
This has been a way of life for the agricultural industry. Members of the industry have relied on Part II and have acted in accordance with it. They have relied on action being taken under the provisions of Part II. Their interest and support for Part II has been shown by the reaction of the county committees to the views of the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union. So whether it be right or not, this is a radical and a drastic change for the industry. It is not being phased. It has not been taken in stages. Surely that re-emphasises the modest demand we are making that the Government should, at any rate, delay their action and provide within the terms of that delay for consultation with the representative bodies in the industry.
This is not asking for something which would result in a loss of face for the Government. We should like the Government to go back on what they have done, but for the purpose of this Amendment we are not asking that. We are merely saying two things to the Government—"Rectify the wrong you have caused by not having proper consultations with the industry, and secondly, recognise that this is a very drastic change which you are imposing on the industry and that it has disheartened most people in the industry."
I wish to deal with some of the arguments which may be deployed by the Government in favour of their adamant opposition to anything proposed by hon. Members on this side of the House. It is said that the Government were placed in a dilemma by the Franks Committee Report; that that Report put the Government in a position that they had to do something; that they had no alternative but to repeal Part II. That is not the case at all. The Franks Committee did not call for the repeal of Part II. Its Report was issued on the assumption that Part II would continue. The Franks Committee recommended another way of implementing Part II.

295
In fact, the Government have no case to raise on the Franks Committee Report. This is why I should re-emphasise what I have said about consultation. If the Government made proposals outside the Franks Committee Report, then there is the more obligation upon them to discuss with those affected the result of the proposals they made with regard to the Amendment or repeal of Part II. They cannot plead in aid that it was the Franks Committee Report which placed them in any difficulty, which prevented them from properly consulting, and I should have thought that they should amend their view in the light of the opinions expressed within the industry.
The other point I wish to emphasise is that sufficient tribute was not paid to the National Farmers' Union. In fact, the Union, surprisingly enough, was very reasonable in the views it expressed about the Franks Committee Report. It said
"… we are not prepared to oppose the suggestion that there should be an appeal against a supervision order".
The union also said:
"In general the National Farmers' Union warmly welcomes the great majority of the recommendations made in the Report of the Oliver Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries."
What greater gesture could the National Farmers' Union have made? We know the views of the union, because they were presented to the Franks Committee. Here, after the Report of the Committee, we have the union being as amenable and reasonable as possible. In the face of that, the Government refuse to consult with the union, and today the right hon. Gentleman is not willing even to take steps to delay the immediate implementation of the repeal of Part II.
This is a matter of major importance in the light of what I have said: in the first place, because this affects the good relations between the industry and the Government. Surely the Government recognise that such good relations are absolutely essential. They are disturbed, and it is not surprising when, without arguing the merits of this case, we have no consultation and we have the National Farmers' Union, in particular, being as amenable and as approachable as possible. But this is a matter of major importance because, as has been said, we are here concerned with the feeling—I
296
will not put the matter any higher—that if public accountability goes then public support goes too.
I do not wish to go wide on that matter, I merely mention it. I do not wish, on the pretext of this Amendment, to argue the broad point of principle about which there is a great deal of controversy. All I say, and emphasise again, is that a large section of the industry shares this feeling, rightly or wrongly. That feeling will be aggravated by the fact that the Government have been so unreasonable in their consideration of this Bill.
I make no apology for speaking at some length on this Amendment. It is a matter of great importance. I can appreciate the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman about the liberty of the subject. I would concede at once that there would be no harm in having a review of the operations of the powers of Part II, but repeal is a different matter and when he talks of the liberty of the subject, I would say that in the society in which we live one of the safeguards of the liberty of the subject is self-discipline.
That is why I make no apology for speaking of a way of life. Over the past few years we have evolved a reasonable compromise way of self-discipline within the industry. The right hon. Gentleman is peremptorily destroying that and, worse still, is showing himself quite unreasonable in the face of very modest and moderate requests made to him. I hope that he will be able to give us an undertaking that he will at any rate look at this matter again and will rectify the mistakes which have been made in the past.
6.0 p.m.
Sir A. Baldwin: I have been endeavouring to curb my impatience at listening to such an unreal debate. Perhaps I could give my experience in two minutes of what happened recently to myself and my colleagues who joined me in the little town of Tenbury as recently as last Friday night. We had an open meeting with representatives from all three trade unions, including the chairman of the county executive committee and a representative of N.F.U. headquarters in London. We spent three hours, and not one single objection was made or one single notice taken of this Clause. That is the real position, and

297
the opposition today is completely unreal. A few weeks before that, together with another colleague, I met the county executive committee, and in the whole time that we were with them they did not raise the question of this Clause.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will not try to make the House believe that the bulk of the farmers have a feeling of great grievance over the abolition of Part II. They have not. The ordinary rank and file of farmers are perfectly happy about it, and it is unreal to try to make the House think otherwise.
Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member will agree that he and his colleagues may have consulted a few farmers, most of whom, apparently, were silent on this question. Others of us have seen thousands at different meetings, usually farmers' events, where we have seen a totally different picture. The hon. Member's picture may be right for a very small part of Hereford, but my picture is right over a large part of the country.
Mr. Anthony Hurd: Do not believe it.
Mr. Godber: We have had a full debate on this fairly narrow Amendment and perhaps it would be convenient if I tried to reply to one or two of the points made. The Amendment seeks to bring within the Government's powers the right to determine the date on which the Clause should come into effect. I take it that the intention of hon. Members opposite was that we should delay the operation, although they did not make that particularly clear. They have, however, given us the benefit of their advice on a fairly wide variety of points arising from this particularly important Clause.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) who said that this was an unreal debate. It is unreal. I support him absolutely in that. I admit that there was opposition to the Clause in the country, but it has completely died down, except in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I say that with emphasis and in the light of what the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has just said in his intervention.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred again to the
298
N.F.U. memorandum of 17th March. That came out the day before the Second Reading of the Bill. During Second Reading my right hon. Friend made a very powerful speech in which he put forward the reasons for which we were seeking to make the alterations. In winding up the debate. I, in my humble way, added a few more points. I am sure that there is significance in the fact that our remarks were made after the issue of the memorandum and that, subsequently, the agitation has completely died down. The Second Reading debate was very helpful. It helped farmers to crystallise their views and to realise how bogus were the fears which the right hon. and hon. Members opposite were trying to stir in their breasts.
I am fortified by that and by the fact that the opposition to the Clause has completely died down. Hon. Members opposite speak about farmers being bitterly opposed to the Clause, but it is quite ridiculous to use that sort of phrase in relation to the Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) used it. I am sorry that he is not now in his place. There is no doubt whatever that the farming community as a whole realise and accept what we are doing as being realistic and as being in the light of present-day experience of the operation of these powers.
I must recall to the House the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) on Second Reading. He made a very powerful speech on this point, stating that he had tried more than anybody else, more than the right hon. Member for Don Valley, to operate these powers and had found that, in practice, they were no longer as applicable as they had been in the past, when the right hon. Member for Don Valley was Minister. On Second Reading I gave the House, as reported in column 1396 of HANSARD, the figures of the numbers of new cases coming under supervision. May I repeat them? They are revealing. In 1951 there were 771, in 1952 there were 998—when my right hon. Friend was trying to increase the effectiveness of the use of these powers—in 1953 there were 543 and in 1954 there were 236. The number died away, although my right hon. Friend was genuinely trying to utilise the rowers to the full.

299
It is true that under the changed postwar conditions in agriculture, and the greater freedom which existed, it had become more and more difficult to operate these powers and, as my right hon. Friend has made abundantly clear, we have turned more and more to the use of encouragement and of the advisory services to try to encourage rather than to drive. That is the simple issue between us. Hon. Members opposite believe that we should retain compulsion. We believe that that is not necessary in present-day conditions.
Hon. Members opposite have again done their best to stir up these fears in the minds of farmers. I am sorry to disappoint them; I do not think they will be very effective.
Mr. Paget: Take the Whips off.
Mr. Godber: I do not think we need fear that. These fears which hon. Members have tried to arouse relate again and again to the guaranteed prices. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is back in the Chamber, because I was dealing with points which he had mentioned. Hon. Members opposite say that only in conditions of State control would people in this country tolerate guaranteed prices. I do not accept that for a moment, nor do the Government. We have put them on the Statute Book in the 1957 Act. The guaranteed prices are there, quite divorced from the disciplinary powers. This is not unreasonable. We are not the only country in the world doing it. Many other countries are supporting their agriculture most substantially and without these disciplinary powers. Is the British farmer the only farmer in the world who has to be dragooned? It is complete nonsense to suggest that he is, and the farming community accepts that it is nonsense.
I appreciate the sincerity of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members opposite on this issue, but, if I may use rather crude words, they are flogging a dead horse. The farming community is not nearly as vitally concerned as they seek to make out. While these powers were right under certain conditions—they were certainly right in the war and when there was an acute shortage—they are no longer right today.
Mr. Paget: When the hon. Gentleman refers to other countries, has he realised that it is only in this country that the farming community is a small minority, with trifling political influence, and, therefore, immensely vulnerable to every economy drive, and has always, historically, been the victim of every economy drive?
Mr. Godber: As to their political significance, I agree that, as regards hon. Members opposite, it is absolutely true. I certainly do not wish to follow up on political significance, but I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not true of other countries where the farming community is, at any rate, relatively small, though not, I agree, as small as it is here. In the United States of America they are by no means in a preponderance, but there they have very substantial guarantees, as he knows very well.
Mr. Paget: And very effective political power.
Mr. Godber: They have a useful lobby, I agree, but that does not affect my argument.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred to consultation. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had at some length in the Standing Committee. However, I see that in Standing Committee on 22nd April I said, quoting the N.F.U. statement of 18th December, 1957:
"Ever since the Government first consulted the Union on this matter"—
and here, I interjected:
"that is, the repeal of Part II"
"eighteen months ago, the Union has made perfectly clear what its attitude towards Part II has been."
So it is not true to say that there was not some consultation, and I do not think that there is any need—
Mr. Willey: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "at some length," because he is referring to 1956, long before the Franks Committee Report?
Mr. Godber: I said that we went at some length in Committee, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not deny, so I hope that he is not making a point of that.

301
At the beginning of the following sitting of the Standing Committee it will be seen that I apologised for quoting directly from that document. It was quite right to say what had taken place, but I was wrong in quoting directly from it. However, the words are there on record, and I cannot withdraw them. In my opening remarks at that sitting, I referred to meetings with the N.U.A.W. and the T. and G.W.U. and also to other meetings in 1957. It is not therefore true to say that consultation did not take place, But I have never denied that the N.F.U. repeatedly said at that time that it was opposed to the repeal of Part II. Subsequently to the Second Reading debate, when cogent arguments were put by this side, we have heard very little, except from hon. Members opposite who, frankly, seem to me to be a little out of touch with farming thought in this matter.
I apologise for speaking for so long on the Amendment, but in view of the questions asked and the points raised I felt it right to put the matter in reasonable perspective.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: I have not yet learned why the Government will not accept this Amendment, which I would have thought they would have been most anxious to have. The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated the Minister in saying that opposition to this Clause has died down in the country, but he has had to admit that, as far as he knows, the opposition of the farmers through their organisation, the National Farmers' Union, still exists. Large parts of the 1947 Act, dealing with England and Wales, and of the 1948 Scottish Act are here being repealed, but both those Acts were enacted after very lengthy and careful discussion with the interests concerned.
The Government have now decided to give effect to their prejudices by repealing those provisions, and since the Government are convinced that the countryside will accept their point of view, I would have thought that they would have been most willing to accept this Amendment to delay the operation of those repeal provisions until they got the official organisations of the farmers to agree to their proposals. If the Ministers were themselves convinced of the arguments they have used this afternoon they would
302
accept the Amendment, and propose later an appointed day for this Clause to come into operation, and could then say that they were doing so with the consent of the N.F.U.—
Mr. Godber: I did, in fact, deal at some length with this point on Second Reading, when I pointed out that the opposition of the N.F.U. was clearly due to the fact that its members were scared of what the party opposite would do if it got back to power. Since then, the farming community has become more and more confident that there is very little danger of that, which is partly why the farmers have not opposed it.
Mr. Fraser: If they are more confident, would it not be better to accept the Amendment so that, in due course, Ministers could come forward with an Order naming the appointed date, and be able to say that they had by then convinced the National Farmers' Union that it was good and proper to discontinue the provisions of Part II of the 1947 Act, and Part II of the 1948 Scottish Act? If the Parliamentary Secretary had any confidence at all in the arguments he has just adduced, he would accept the Amendment, confident that he would be able to say to us in due course that in making this substantial change in the law he was taking the farmers with him.
The hon. Gentleman has repeated what was said by the Minister a little while ago, and was said on Second Reading and in Standing Committee; that the powers are no longer so applicable as they were in the days of acute shortage. This is a most unfair attack on the patriotism of the farmers. The Minister has said that by repealing those provisions forthwith he will release the energies of the farmers and so get increased production, but he says that those same farmers had to be disciplined by the committees to give this increased production when it was even more needed than it is today.
I submit that the provisions written into the 1947 and 1948 Acts, which are here being repealed, were never put in at all on the ground that it was necessary to have these disciplinary powers to require the farmers to give of their best in days of exceeding scarcity. The case was never argued on the basis of food shortage at all. What was argued was that if we were to have prosperity in the countryside, it

303
would be necessary for the Government to use the taxpayers' money to give certain guarantees to agriculture, and that, in return, agriculture would have to give some guarantees that it would use the taxpayers' money to the best advantage in improving the efficiency of the industry.
Of course, when one thinks of the hundreds of thousands of units of activity in agriculture, one sees at once the advantage of having the powers that were so carefully worked out about ten years ago. This kind of control—what the National Farmers' Union of Scotland called the kindly control of the committees—is surely the best possible kind of control.
The good farmers of whom the Minister spoke a little while ago—the energetic, good farmers—are able to help their weaker brethren, but he will now deny those weaker brethren the assistance of those good farmers. If the Ministers are unwilling to accept that those provisions have been helpful, perhaps I may again quote the Report of the Department of Agriculture, published in April of this year. Chapter 6, on page 31, reads:
"Committees continued to take steps to secure that agricultural land was farmed and managed in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and good estate management. Since the inception of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, they had, by the end of the year, been responsible for improving farming and management standards to a reasonably satisfactory level in 1,558 husbandry and 744 estate management cases."
What does that mean? Does that not mean what it says—that the committees were responsible for good husbandry and estate management in well over 2,000 cases in Scotland? I agree there were not so many last year, because the committees were told that they had not got to do it last year. The Government issued instructions to the committees that they were to discontinue this activity.
I have quoted directly from the Report of the Department of Agriculture. The Minister will not deny that the case which he has made up to now is at variance with what is said in that Report, and I suggest that if we had a Report from the Ministry of Agriculture similar to the Report from the Department of Agriculture the Ministry would be saying exactly the same thing.
All we are saying in the Amendment is that we should not throw all of this overboard
304
until there has been a measure of agreement within the industry, and that the Minister should accept the Amendment and should only bring this into operation at a later date after there has been adequate discussion and agreement within the industry that the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) is right. He was wrong ten years ago. He may well be wrong today. In any case, if he speaks for the farmers of this country, the National Farmers' Union does not. I am a sufficiently good democrat to accept that at present it is the National Farmers' Union, and not the hon. Member for Leominster, that speaks for the farmers.
We did not have a similar Amendment in Committee, but I spoke to an Amendment which sought to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1, the purpose of which is to scrap some eight sections of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. The only reply that I got from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was the brief one to which we have become accustomed—I quote the whole of it from HANSARD—
"LORD JOHN HOPE rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th May, 1958; c. 280.]
I hope that I shall have a better reply than that today.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but I think hon. Members will bear with me when I say that I was at the Scottish Office when this legislation went through. For some years I spent a lot of time discussing these matters, working out these legislative provisions and having consultations with the National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I explained all these provisions painstakingly to the Scottish Members in the House and in Committee. It is monstrous that all that work should be undone in this way in half a Clause in a United Kingdom Bill.
I think that Scottish Members might have had an opportunity to discuss this matter fully and that we might have had a fuller reply from the Under-Secretary than his merely claiming, "That the Question be now put." Will he now tell us what discussion he has had with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Scottish Farm Servants' Union? Would he tell us what these two organisations say about this? He might also

305
tell us what the Scottish Landowners' Federation says about it.
In my discussions I have learned that the Scottish Landowners' Federation is unconcerned. It is not asking for the repeal of Part II, but it is not opposed to it being repealed as is proposed in Clause 1 (2). I understand from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and from the Scottish Farm Servants' Union that they are opposed to the repeal of Part II of the 1948 Scottish Act. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what consultations he has had with those two organisations?
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is all the hurry in getting Part II repealed? Does he accept the advice which is given to all of us in the Report of the Department of Agriculture of the beneficial effects of these provisions which he is now discontinuing, and will he give us any reason at all why he should not accept this Amendment and postpone the repeal of Part II of the 1948 Act until the appointed day, until a date when he can come and say that he repeals those provisions with the consent of the interests concerned? I hope that I may have a more adequate reply from the Under-Secretary on this occasion.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Question is—
Mr. Willey: I rise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, only because I thought I saw the Under-Secretary, not exactly springing to his feet, but getting to his feet.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): The only reason that I rise to my feet—at, I thought, a reasonable pace—is that whenever I have done so more quickly the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has complained at the alacrity with which I wished to address him and controvert his arguments.
I have little to add—
Mr. E. G. Willis: There is very little to add it to.
Lord John Hope: —because in Committee I explained exactly what the position was as regards consultation.
I would be repeating myself if I went into it now, but to sum it up, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I told the Committee that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland was opposed to this Bill, but on this part of it it is true to say they did not evince any particularly strong feelings. But having said that, I do not want in the least to suggest that they were not against it, because they were.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes. 205, Noes 255.

Division No. 170.]

AYES

[6.27 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Greenwood, Anthony

Albu, A. H.

Cove, W. G.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Grey, C. F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Awbery, S. S.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Bacon, Mist Alice

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Baird, J.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hale, Leslie

Balfour, A.

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hannan, W.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Benson, Sir George

Delargy, H. J.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Beswick, Frank

Diamond, John

Hastings, S.

Blackburn, F.

Dodds, N. N.

Hayman, F. H.

Blenkinsop, A.

Donnelly, D. L.

Healey, Denis

Blyton, W. R.

Dugdal, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Boardman, H.

Dye, S.

Herblson, Miss M.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hewitson, capt. M.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. New (Caerphilly)

Holman, P.

Boyd, T. C.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Houghton, Douglas

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Brockway, A. F.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Fernyhough, E.

Hoy, J. H.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Finch, H. J.

Hubbard, T. F.

Burke, W. A.

Fitoh, E. A.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fletcher, Eric

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Forman, J. C.

Hunter, A. E.

Carmichael, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Hynd, H. (Accroington)

Chetwynd, G. R.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Clunie, J.

Gibson, C. W.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Coldrick, W.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Moyle, A.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Snow, J. W.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Oliver, G. H.

Sparks, J. A.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Oswald, T.

Spriggs, Leslie

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Owen, W. J.

Steele, T.

Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Paget, R. T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Storehouse, John

Kay, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Stones, W. (Consett)

King, Dr. H. M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Lawson, G. M.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Parker, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Paton, John

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Pearson, A.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Lewis, Arthur

Pentland, N.

Tomney, F.

Lindgren, G. S.

Popplewell, E.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lipton, Marcus

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Viant, S. P.

Logan, D. G.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Watkins, T. E.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Probert, A. R.

Weitzman, D.

McCann, J.

Proctor, W. T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

MacColl, J. E.

Randall, H. E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

MacDermot, Niall

Rankin, John

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

McGhee, H. G.

Redhead, E. C.

Wigg, George

McGovern, J.

Reid, William

Wllkins, W. A.

McInnes, J.

Reynolds, G. W.

Willey, Frederick

McLeavy, Frank

Rhodes, H.

Williams, David (Neith)

MacMillan, M. K. (western Isles)

Roberts, Albert (Nortmanton)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Mahon, Simon

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Wills, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Royle, C.

Winterbottom, Richard

Mason, Roy

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. C.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mikardo, Ian

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Woof, R. E.

Mitchison, G. R.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Monslow, W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Zilliacus, K.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Mort, D. L.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Moss, R.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. Deer.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Cole, Norman

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Aitken, W. T.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Green, A.

Alport, C. J. M.

Cooke, Robert

Gresham Cooke, R.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Grimond, J.

Anstrutlfer-Cray, Major Sir William

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Arbuthnot, John

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Armstrong, C. W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Gurden, Harold

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Atkins, H. E.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Cunningham, Knox

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Baldwin, A. E.

Currie, C. B. H.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Balniel, Lord

Davidson, Viscountess

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Barber, Anthony

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hay, John

Barlow, Sir John

Deedes, W. F.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Barter, John

Digby, Simon Wlngfield

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Batsfom, Brian

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Drayson, G. B.

Hesketh, R. F.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythanshawe)

Bevins J. R. (Toxteth)

Dunoan, Sir James

Hobson, john (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Duthie, W. S.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Holt, A. F.

Bishop, F. P.

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Hope, Lord John

Black, C. W.

Body, R. F.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hornby, R. P.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Erroll, F. J.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Finlay, Graeme

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Fisher, Nigel

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Braine, B. R.

Fort, R.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Hurd, A. R.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lomdale)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Gammans, Lady

Hyde, Montgomery

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Iremonger, T. L.

Burden, F. F. A.

Glover, D.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Campbell, Sir David

Godber, J. B.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Carr, Robert

Goodhart, Philip

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Cary, Sir Robert

Gough, C. F. H.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gower, H. R.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

308

309

Kaberry, D.

Neave, Airey

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Keegan, D.

Nioholls, Harmar

Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Storey, S.

Kershaw, J. A.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Kirk, P. M.

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Lambton, Viscount

Nugent, G. R. H.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Oakshott, H. D.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Leather, E. H. C.

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Leavey, J. A.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Leburn, W. G.

Osborne, C.

Teeling, W.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Page, R. G.

Temple, John M.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Partridge, E.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Peel, W. J.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Pitman, I. J.

Turner, H. F. L.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Pott, H. P.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Powell, J. Enoch

Tweedsmuir, Lady

McKibbin, Alan

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Vane, W. M. F.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Vickers, Miss Joan

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Rawlinson, Peter

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Redmayne, M.

Wade, D. W.

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Renton, D. L. M.

Wall, Patrick

Maddan, Martin

Ridsdale, J. E.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Homoastle)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Robertson, Sir David

Webbe, Sir H.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Webster, David

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Marshall, Douglas

Roper, Sir Harold

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Mathew, R.

Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Mawby, R. L.

Sharples, R. C.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Shepherd, William

Wood, Hon. R.

Medlicolt, Sir Frank

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Woollam, John Victor

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Speir, R. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Steward, Harold (Stookport, S.)

Clause 3.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO NOTICES TO QUIT AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.)
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hare.
Mr. T. Williams: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether none of the eight Amendments to Clause 2 is to be called?
Mr. Speaker: That is so. It is a tribute to the great thoroughness with which the Committee did its work upstairs.
Mr. Williams: Although we shall readily accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will understand that we are disappointed, in that Clause 2 deals with rent. We had put down what we regarded as substantial Amendments—small but none the less important—and I would not want it to be felt outside the House that those on these benches had no interest in the question of increasing rents. However, we are bound to accept your decision.
Mr. Speaker: Anyone reading the Committee proceedings, as I have, would readily understand the interest of the
310
right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in the subject.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 2, line 46, to leave out from "the" to the second "or" in line 48 and to insert:
"estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes".
This is a drafting and clarifying Amendment, to give effect to the intention behind the Clause. The House will remember that during the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend explained that the Clause was designed to give effect to an agreement between the N.F.U. and C.L.A. in England. I stress "in England" because, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has already said, we have not yet reached the same stage of agreement in Scotland. There is a certain amount of doubt, from a legal point of view, whether the Clause as it stands gives effect to that agreement.
The sort of case in which difficulty might arise is that where, for instance,

311
a landlord proposes to amalgamate two holdings on his estate. Let us assume that it is a case where the amalgamation would be in the interest of both holdings, taken together, and of the estate as a whole. The intention of the agreement was that in such a case the notice to quit should operate, subject, of course, to the proviso at the end of the Clause. However, where the land to which the notice related was being well farmed, it might well be that the amalgamation would not improve that land, although it improved the two units taken together.
As the Clause stands, it could be said that in that case the provisions of the Clause would not operate. The intention of the agreement, however—and the N.F.U. and C.L.A. have agreed to this—is that one ought to consider the two units as a whole and not merely the single unit to which the notice relates. The Amendment is designed to give effect to that agreement and to the intention which underlay the Clause as originally drafted. It is to ensure that one considers the estate as a whole and not merely the particular unit to which the notice relates.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has an Amendment immediately following this one which would fall if this Amendment is carried. However, if he catches my eye, he can make the points on this Amendment that he would have made on his Amendment.
Mr. Willey: On a point of order. Do I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the second Amendment would fall and that it would be impossible to save it if my hon. Friend felt that there should be a Division?
Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be impossible to save it. It would be difficult.
Mr. Willey: I wish to raise only a few points on the Government Amendment. I do not wish to say anything about the following Amendment until I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart).
If I have understood aright the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland, this is little more than a drafting Amendment to meet the intention of the parties.
The first point that I should like to emphasise again is that it is not correct to say that the National Farmers' Unions have agreed to this Clause. The N.F.U.s'
312
view was that the purpose of this Amendment could have been obtained by administrative direction. Their case is that they discussed the Clause, as it were, under duress. The Government said that they were proceeding to amending legislation, and I gather that the Solicitor-General is saying nothing to disturb that, but merely that the N.F.U. have taken part in the further discussions and believe that this Amendment would improve the wording.
Like myself, I assume that other hon. Members have received the informative document from the Country Landowners' Association, which, quite properly, has kept us informed of its point of view during the discussion of the Bill. The Association says:
"During the Committee stage a number of points were raised which the Government undertook to re-examine. These points have been the subject of joint discussions between the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. Agreement was reached between the two bodies on all the paints discussed, and it is understood that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement on the agreement reached. One point requires re-drafting because there is doubt whether it gives effect to the intentions of the agreement originally reached between the C.L.A. and N.F.U."
I put this matter to the Solicitor-General because I understand that he is speaking for the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure that this is a matter to which the Country Landowners' Association referred.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Paget: This Amendment forms part of a Clause which both National Farmers' Unions would much rather be without. If they have to have it, they approve the clarity of the wording, but they would rather be without it. On the other hand, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is one which equally plainly both National Farmers' Unions would rather have.
The effect of the Amendment is simply that a man shall not be ejected from his farm and home for reasons which are quite extraneous to that farmer. The consideration that his farm happens to belong to somebody who has some other land in the vicinity and that it would be for the convenience of the other person to get rid of the farmer is one which neither we nor the unions find attractive. We should like this proposal confined to considerations as to the farm itself.

313
My main disappointment regarding the Government's attitude to the Clause—I certainly have the impression that in Committee our arguments had moved them somewhat—is the manner in which estate management has been divorced from farming. Section 25 (1, a) of the 1948 Act states:
"… the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming, whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise."
The dominating words are,
"in the interests of efficient farming".
First, the Minister had to decide that it was in the interests of efficient farming, and it was only then that one turned to the consideration of good estate management. Considerations of good farming are eliminated by the present Clause, and this is taken even further by the Amendment. A farmer can be got rid of because it suits the estate, regardless of how it affects the farmer.
I quoted an example in Committee that was not challenged. It was this. Supposing I have a farm which is well farmed, but which has an old house that has become somewhat derelict and out of date, and that a tenant comes to me and says, "I will spend a large sum of money on the house. I will put in garages and a couple of tennis courts. So far as farming is concerned, I shall merely use the land for grazing and that will enable me to put up some stabling in the buildings. The result of my activities will be to increase the value of the estate". It cannot seriously be disputed that good estate management would involve accepting that offer.
I happen to be concerned with estate management as a trustee. If that offer came before me and my fellow trustees, our duty would be to the trust. It would be our duty so to manage as to increase the value of the income of the trust fund. We could not fail to accept that offer. Nor could it possibly come within the proviso, because nobody could say that in those circumstances we were not being either fair or reasonable as a landlord. We would, in fact, be doing our duty as trustees. We would be acting in the interests of good estate management.
Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. and learned Friend is wrong in constantly referring
314
to good estate management in this context. "Good estate management" is defined in the Agriculture Acts. The reference in the Clause is not to good, but to sound, estate management. It is important to make the distinction.
Mr. Paget: I am sorry for the use of the words, but I do not think there is any distinction affecting my argument. I have put the point concerning a trustee which often arises. Nobody on the Government Bench, or, I am sure, my hon. Friend, would doubt that it is sound estate management so to manage the estate as to increase its value and its income.
Mr. Fraser: I entirely agree, but that is not good estate management as defined in the Agriculture Acts.
Mr. Paget: Oh, no. That is the point I am making. Under the Agriculture Acts, the only form of estate management that was relevant was estate management as an aspect of efficient farming. That provision has gone and now we have—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me concerning the words—sound estate management. As in the example I have given, which certainly is not farfetched and which often happens now as people more and more want farms for amenity purposes, sound estate management is, not exceptionally but quite frequently, in direct conflict with efficient farming and with high production. Now, however, that form of estate management is provided as a reason for getting rid of an efficient farmer.
If by using the land not primarily for an agricultural purpose I can improve the value and the income of the estate, for that reason I can get rid of the efficient farmer. That is something new and it is introduced by the Clause. I pointed that out in Committee. I certainly thought at that time that we would get an Amendment from the Government in very different terms from this one. The Amendment is profoundly disappointing. It will be for my hon. Friends to say whether we should divide against it, although I feel that the Amendment itself is fairly harmless, but as a protest at the manner in which the Government have failed to produce the sort of Amendment which they ought to have produced.
Mr. Peart: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

315
Northampton (Mr. Paget). The Government have been rather disappointing in this matter. We would have liked their Amendment to go much further. Our Amendment stresses the important point that a tenant should not be given notice to quit before the tribunal on matters which, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, are extraneous to his farming. To bring in other matters affecting the estate outside his farm or his holding is unfair. That is the main point and it has been stressed by my hon. and learned Friend, with his great experience, not only of law, but as a landlord, too. Therefore, we feel that the Government have been disappointing. Because of the principle involved, we should press the Amendment to a Division.
Here again, the Government are weighting legislation against the tenant farmer. We have stressed this over and over again. Our modest Amendment would have sought to protect the farmer in certain circumstances. The words in Clause 3,
"treated either as a separate estate or as part of a larger estate",
are, in our view, unfair in the sense that they weight the tribunal against the farmer. We would like them to be deleted.
I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter, because in the Clause the Government are weighting legislation against the tenant farmer who is anxious to do well, to have good husbandry and to farm his unit efficiently in the interests of himself and of the community.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: So far as I recollect them, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was right on both points. Concerning the National Farmers' Union Agreement, I should have said that the Union agreed that if a Clause was required this was the way to do it and that this wording improved the Clause as it previously stood. Equally, on the second point, I confirm that the drafting point in the quotation which the hon. Member made is now dealt with in the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), like the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), wishes to look at the land to which the notice relates in isolation and at that
316
alone. That is a point which divides the two sides of the House rather like a gulf. Our feeling, on the other hand, is that although the individual must, and should, be protected, in the interests of efficient farming one must look not only at the individual unit, but at the estate as a whole.
Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be careful. The whole point is that the Government have cut out "in the interests of efficient farming."
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Had the hon. and learned Member allowed me to proceed, I was about to deal with that. Various phrases have been used about sound management, good management, and so on. The phrase used in the Bill is "sound management of the land"—that is, particularly agricultural land, to which the Bill refers. Clearly, there can be cases when two units can be more efficiently farmed than one. Under the proviso, there is protection for the tenant.
The question may well arise whether a fair and a reasonable landlord would evict the good tenant and turn the whole lot over to the bad tenant. Clearly, he would not, and in the normal case what would happen would be that the good tenant would get the chance of taking over the bad tenant's land.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Peart: What about the case where there might be an amalgamation of two units, and two people, one a reasonable farmer and the other one probably much better? Surely there would be a dilemma there.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On this side of the House, we believe that the man who does the job better deserves a rather better deal, and the man who is the better farmer would get preference over the not so good farmer.
Mr. Paget: Where does the Bill say that?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Under the proviso as to the withholding of consent, when it appears to the tribunal, or to the Land Court in Scotland, that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. In that case, the landlord would have to go against the worst one and in favour of

317
the good one, and that is the protection for the tenant, and that balances the interest of the good tenant as against the general national interest of efficient farming.
Mr. Peart: I must press this point, because there may be two cases in which those concerned may both be good farmers and farming efficiently. Surely, he will not apply that criterion in a case like that.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The nearer one gets to equality in efficiency, the less likely is it that cases like this will arise. These cases will most likely arise where one holding is going down and the other one is going up.
Mr. J. Johnson: I have a constituent with a 40-acre farm. There was an amalgamation. What happens to the tenant who is dispossessed and who loses his holding? What appeal has he got over and above the landlord who dispossesses him?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It rests upon the decision by the tribunal in England, or by the Land Court in Scotland. They are the people who have to decide it, and not the landlord. The landlord serves the notice to quit, but the consent to the notice must be given by the proper court in the two countries. For these reasons, I suggest—
Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
Mr. Speaker: Could we have more speeches and less argument? I think that it would be more appropriate to the Report stage.
Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had given way, and when he is explaining a Clause a certain amount of question and answer is surely necessary Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. and learned Member rather misunderstands the situation. The right hon. and learned Member who is addressing the House has given way a great number of times, but we cannot have a Report stage conducted in that way. There have to be speeches. The hon. and learned Member must give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a chance to develop his argument without being continually interrupted.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have been too generous in giving way. I was concluding my speech by commending the Amendment to the House, and was about to say, finally, that I would remind the House that the Amendment, at least in England, has the support of the interests concerned.
Mr. T. Fraser: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has put us in great difficulty. He admitted, to begin with, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was right in asserting that the N.F.U. in England had been in consultation with the Country Landowners' Association on this Clause, as it were, under duress. It was not that it wanted this Clause, but if there had to be a Clause it was willing to sit down and discuss its terms with the Association. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, the Scottish N.F.U. would not even sit down and discuss with the landowners the drafting of such a Clause as this.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, said that it is true that the Clause now refers to "sound management," and then he said that it is sound management of the land to which the notice relates and which is agricultural land, but his Amendment takes these words out. The Clause would then read:
"sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes."
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that there is a significance in the use of the words "sound management", instead of "good estate management". As my hon. and learned Friend has said, good estate management is defined and is related to efficiency in agriculture, so that here we are discussing in this Amendment
"sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part"
to quote from the Government's Amendment.
I would have thought that this is bound to influence the decisions by the tribunals and the Land Court contrary to the interests of efficient farming. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rested on the proviso, and said that it will be the tribunal or the Land Court that will

319
take the decision, but the tribunal or the Land Court will only decide on the basis of the instructions which the Act gives them. It will be for them to interpret the Act, and if we can fairly accurately interpret the Bill now it is reasonable to assume that they, too, will find little difficulty in interpreting the Act.
There is little doubt that by this Amendment—it may be so both with the words proposed to be taken out as well as those proposed to be inserted—many farmers will lose what security they have hitherto enjoyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) mentioned a constituent who has a farm of 40 acres. Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agree with this? If we take a large farm of, say, 250 to 300 acres, which may be well farmed or not so well farmed, and alongside which there is a farm on the same estate of 40 or 50 acres which is being very well farmed, but on which the tenant is in need of some additional fixed equipment, the owner of the estate might say that he would much rather provide the fixed equipment for these two farms as one, irrespective of the standard of farming on the bigger farm.
If this Amendment is made and this Clause goes through with that Amendment, the tribunal or the Land Court will not be able to judge this application objectively in the interests of agriculture if they are satisfied that it would be in the interests of the sound management of the estate.
Sir James Duncan: No, of the land.
Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, but it now reads:
"sound management of the estate of which the land to which notice relates forms part."
If the owner says in his application to the tribunal or the Land Court that it is in the interests of the sound management of the estate of which this farm is a part that consent should be given to the notice to quit, and the tribunal or the Land Court is satisfied that this is a decision which could properly be taken by a reasonable landlord, as it might well be taken by a reasonable landlord—and I
320
assume that there are some reasonable landlords giving notices to quit to tenants under the Rent Acts, and that the Bill that was passed through this House the other day will have its effect in cases where there are reasonable landlords who have given notices to quit to tenants—if the Land Court or tribunal is satisfied that notice to quit would be given by a reasonable landlord in the circumstances which I have earlier described it is obliged to give its consent. It is not obliged to make an objective analysis of the position in the interests of agriculture.
As I see it, my hon. Friends and I are in some difficulty. We are inclined to believe that the words proposed in the Government's Amendment are a slight improvement on the words as they are in the Clause at present.
Mr. Champion: Slight.
Mr. Fraser: A slight improvement.
We have all been informed that the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association take the view, too, that the words now proposed are a slight improvement on the words in the Bill, not because the policy has been changed in any way, but because the policy has been clarified. From a legal point of view, the new words would seem to be less ambiguous than the words in the Bill, but I believe that the policy remains the same. We for our part would much rather have the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), and we have every reason to believe that my hon. Friend's Amendment would be even more acceptable to the National Farmers' Union than the Government's Amendment. There is no doubt at all about that.
If we were to vote on the Government Amendment there is a slight possibility that the Government would win the vote and my hon. Friend's Amendment would fall. Even if we do not vote on the Government Amendment we cannot vote on my hon. Friend's because it will fall, the Government Amendment having been carried. Of course, in Committee we rejected the policy which is contained in the Government's Amendment and we are now discussing only an alternative form of words. We accept this form of words as being better than the original

321
wording in the Bill, so it would seem unreasonable if we were to vote against it, since we cannot vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment. Therefore, we do not want to vote at all.
I am sure that if we were to vote against the Government's Amendment that would be misunderstood outside. We should like to vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment, but we cannot. Annoyed though I feel with the Government because of all this business, and though I think my construction of the Clause is right and that we are giving an improper instruction to the Land Court or the tribunal, I would advise my hon. Friends not to vote against the Government Amendment.
Mr. Peart: I reluctantly accept my hon. Friend's advice. I am sure that it is sound in the circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 1 to 5.
I move the Amendment to seek an answer from the Government to the request I made to them in Committee. I suggested that the Minister might have a word with the Agricultural Research Association. He welcomed that as a helpful suggestion. I ask him whether he has had such consultation.
Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Godber: I gladly respond to the hon. Member's invitation to clear up points which were raised in Committee in relation to this subsection (2). I am quite sure it is not the hon. Member's wish to delete the subsection and that he moved the Amendment merely to obtain an explanation.
7.15 p.m.
It is quite true that questions about the adjective "agricultural" in the context of this subsection were raised, and I think it was my right hon. Friend who undertook to look into it. I am advised that it is quite clear that the word "agricultural" in this subsection qualifies not only "research" but also the words coming after it. The provision does not make sense unless one takes "demonstration", for example, to mean "agricultural demonstration." We must describe the kind of demonstration we mean, and
322
the Clause does that here by using the word "agricultural."
I am advised that it is a general principle of construction that if there are two possible interpretations one of which is sense and the other nonsense we should prefer the one which is sense. It is clear, therefore, that "agricultural" must qualify "demonstration". It follows that "agricultural" must also apply to the intervening words as well. Even if it were not so most cases which involve non-agricultural education, experiment or demonstration would require planning permission. Of course, if this were obtained notice would be given under Section 24 (2, b) of the 1948 Act and would not go before the tribunal at all. If it were not obtained, a non-agricultural project could not proceed and the landlord could not support his case before the tribunal. So there is no need, I am assured, to make any alteration in the wording of the subsection.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the point that under the new procedure notices under this subsection might need to be limited to
"research, education, experiment or demonstration"
advised or approved by the Minister. This has been considered, but we do not think it would be helpful to restrict the landlord's right to have his case considered under Clause 3 (2, c) by requiring that his intention must have been approved by the Minister. Hon. Members will see that this subsection specifies that the tribunal must consider whether the proposed purpose
"is desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration"
and the tribunal must rightly consider not only whether the land is needed for a specified purpose but also whether the purpose itself is desirable.
If we limited the Clause by the Amendment it would mean that unless the Minister had approved the purpose the tribunal would be powerless even to consider the case. This would tie its hands more than the present law does by making it impossible to admit evidence against the Ministerial view. Such restriction would not be reasonable or desirable. Therefore, we have decided that it is right to leave the subsection as it is.

323
I would remind the House that these, of course, are the words which were used in the previous Act and which have given rise to no trouble. In the light of what I have said and after we have considered the point very carefully and the arguments which were put forward, I hope the House will agree that this subsection should remain in the form in which it is at present.
Mr. Paget: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us two expressions on construction. The first one I do not disagree with. I think that "agricultural" probably must be interpreted as applicable to each of the words which follow, although if the purpose were, for instance, an equestrian demonstration, jumping, that sort of thing, I very much doubt whether the word "agricultural" would exclude that. I do not know. If the Minister wants to exclude equestrian demonstrations, I think that the words ought to have been chosen more carefully, because equestrianism is, in a sense, connected with agriculture.
Where we have a general adjective such as this applicable to the first of several words, it is rather an instance of what we lawyers call the ejusdem generis rule. Where one gets a category of things there is a presumption that they are all of the same sort, of the same genus; that rather than a general application of the adjective, the word "agricultural" in this instance. But I find his second proposition in interpretation very much more difficult to enter upon.
The hon. Gentleman says that the words "desirable for the purpose" mean not only that they are desirable for the purpose but that they are desirable in an abstract sense, that is to say, the word "desirable" is not the equivalent of "suitable for" but conveys an abstract quality of desirability in general which the tribunal would have to apply to the proceedings in general. In other words, the tribunal would have to decide not merely whether the provision of the land was desirable from the point of view of the research product which the owner had in mind, but whether the research product was itself desirable. I certainly do not think that is so.
When the hon. Gentleman says that this provision retains the words of the Statute,
324
I say that that is not so, because hitherto this was not the Land Tribunal's decision; it was the Minister's decision. Therefore, it was clearly within the province of the Minister to withhold his decision unless the undertaking itself had his approval. But in this case the Land Tribunal can say whether it is an undertaking of the sort prescribed, that is, agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration. Having decided that, the tribunal can decide whether, accepting the end—the desirability of which it cannot consider—it is necessary or desirable that the land should be provided to achieve that end.
We suggested in Committee that if we are to grant possession for this purpose the Ministry of Agriculture, which really is primarily responsible for agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration, should be the people to decide whether this particular venture was or was not a desirable one. If the Ministry wants to wash its hands of agriculture to the extent that it now says it does, I should have thought it desirable that somebody should decide this point and that the Land Tribunal should at least assume the authority to decide whether the venture in research, education, experiment or demonstration was one which, from the general considerations of agriculture, was a desirable one. That decision is not left to the tribunal.
Once the tribunal finds as a fact that the project falls within these categories it can only look at it and then ask whether, assuming that this is the project, it is desirable from the point of view of the project that the land should be made available. That is all that the tribunal can decide. These words do not, as a matter of interpretation, give the tribunal any jurisdiction to decide on the desirability of the project itself.
Mr. Godber: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised first the question of agriculture, in relation to which he gave as an example equestrian ventures. I thought it a little beyond the terms of what would normally come within agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration, but I admit quite freely that some of us, when we become equestrian, look more agriculture than others. In this case, I do not think "equestrian ventures" to be a term which I would normally use in this context.
Mr. Paget: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has very rarely gone to an agricultural show which has not had an equestrian demonstration. Is not that part of an agricultural demonstration?
Mr. Godlier: Equestrian ventures one normally envisages as involving people on top of the horse and not leading it. Displays are given at agricultural shows, but I should not have thought that they became agricultural demonstrations by reason of that. I am willing to be converted when I see the hon. and learned Member on a horse. But I content myself by saying that that kind of thing is not intended here and that these are matters relating purely to agricultural demonstrations, designed to demonstrate to the farming community in particular improvements in our agricultural knowledge. I think that the hon. and learned Member is fully seized of that point.
On the question of desirability, the hon. and learned Member seeks to maintain that the tribunal is debarred from saying whether it is desirable that the land should be used for this purpose. He claims that "desirable" refers only to the actual project, and not to whether the tribunal shall generally be able to decide whether it is desirable that land should be used generally for the purpose. As I understand it, the tribunal will have full powers to decide whether this is a desirable project, and it is perfectly free to decide whether it be research, education, experiment or demonstration in relation to this matter.
Simply because the matter has been taken from the hands of the Minister and placed in the hands of the tribunal, I do not think that there is any need to change this form of words which, as I reminded the House, has stood the test of time in previous Acts and, as far as I can ascertain, never gave rise to any difficulty whatsoever when it was under the Ministry's supervision. I see no reason to suppose that it would give rise to difficulties if and when the matter comes under the supervision of the Land Tribunal. I do not think that a point of principle is involved here. I understand the hon. and learned Member's wish that the matter should be quite certain, but I have made inquiries and have reported to the House the result of those inquiries.
326
I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to allow the words to remain as they are.
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, but it seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was on a good point in criticising the word "desirable" as it appears at present. I hope that when the Bill is considered in another place this point will be looked at.
As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the other fact to be considered is that the tribunal is now to decide this matter and not the Minister. It is quite easy to allow it to be decided as desirable or otherwise by a Minister. It is a very different matter to expect a tribunal solely to decide, apart from looking at the word "desirable". I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of redefinition to provide some way by which the tribunal could be informed, by some other words, that the Minister considered the project one to be supported. With these reservations assured, I hope that the Government will consider these two points when the Bill goes to another place, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 9 to 13.
I do this by way of proxy on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The Minister will remember that in Committee the point of caravan sites was raised. The matter was left not entirely clear and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into this further. It is for the purpose of clarification, therefore, that we have put down the Amendment.
Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Hare: There were two purposes for this Amendment, I think, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned one. My hon. Friend said that at the same time he would consider the rewording of the last part of subsection (2, 1, c) so that the reader would not have to refer back to Section 24 (2, b) of the 1948 Act. I take it, therefore, that this Amendment deals with those two points.

327
It is true that it was the hon. and learned Member for Northampton who raised the first point I have mentioned, namely, whether we could simplify the present wording and avoid referring back to the 1948 Act. I had considerable sympathy with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and so I considered his suggestion carefully. Again I took expert advice, and the answer I was given was that if we tried to do as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested we would make the paragraph even more cumbrous and certainly not clearer than the present wording.
It might be of some comfort to those who will read this Measure that we intend to publish explanatory material for farmers and landowners, clearly explaining the effect of the Bill. Specialists and members of the legal profession will be concerned chiefly in consulting the detailed wording of the Bill. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept as genuine my undertaking to see if I could simplify this paragraph, but the experts have told me that I would make it even more complicated if I adopted his suggestion.
On the question of the caravan sites, which is the second point, the law relating to them is fairly tricky, but in the present context I think it is not too difficult to explain. Firstly, permanent caravan sites are those which are used for more than three months in the year. These permanent sites require planning permission, and under Section 24 (2, b) of the 1948 Act, which is not affected by the Bill, a landlord who has planning permission to put his land to a nonagricultural use, which includes the use of caravans, can serve a notice to quit on the ground that he requires the land for that use and, therefore, need not obtain consent to the notice.
In cases where a planning authority has already decided that there is no objection to the land going out of agriculture, it would be unreasonable to alter the existing law and to require the landlord to obtain consent from some other body which, in effect, would have to reconsider the decision of the planning authority. The main point, however, is that the present Bill does not alter the existing law as regards permanent caravan sites,
328
and I do not think a strong case could be made out that it should do so.
As regards the temporary use of land for caravans, that is for less than three months in the year, no planning permission is required but I think that the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 3 will operate in these cases. If a landlord wanted to obtain a site for caravan purposes on a temporary basis he would have to come to the tribunal under paragraph (e) of Clause 3, and this is the same as paragraph (e) of Section 25 (1) of the 1948 Act. I think the House will agree with me that in such a case no tribunal could possibly agree that a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on obtaining possession in order to put caravans on the land for not more than three months in the year. We have never heard of a tribunal using its discretion in that way, and I do not believe that we ever shall.
The same argument applies where a landlord wants to set up a permanent caravan site but has not as yet had planning permission. No fair and reasonable landlord would insist on turning out a tenant until he knew that he had got planning permission for the caravan site. I hope I have made what is a fairly complicated subject reasonably clear and that, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
Mr. Paget: With regard to clarity—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has seconded the Amendment and has therefore forfeited his right to speak. He will have to ask the leave of the House if he wishes to do so.
Mr. Paget: I did so formally, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the leave of the House to speak now? I certainly did not find the speech of the Minister lacking in clarity, but I found it highly surprising when the Minister said he did not think anybody in the House could conceive of a tribunal granting possession when it was desired to use the land for a temporary caravan site. I find it impossible to believe that a tribunal would not do so, or, indeed, if it did not do so, that it would not be required by the court to do so under the prerogative procedure.
Let us suppose that I have land—I am visualising land on the Dunmow Head, Isle of Wight—whose rentable value

329
would be under £1 an acre as it is grazing land. For the three months of July, August and September that land could be let at £100 an acre at least. Is a court going to say—because this is a purely subjective test—that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession when he was offered rent for the non-agricultural use which was a hundred times more than he would get for the agricultural use? Could any tribunal conceivably say that in those circumstances a landlord was not a fair and reasonable person if he asked for the fields at that time for a non-agricultural purpose? Of course it could not.
I have given an extreme instance. There are circumstances in which the return obtained from land used for a temporary caravan site and the return obtained from its use for agricultural purposes would be so similar that it would be unreasonable for a landlord to disturb a farmer. But in most cases the return obtained from the use of the land as a caravan site in the summer months would be much larger than any return which could be obtained from its use for agricultural purposes and I should imagine it would be impossible for a tribunal to turn down its use for that purpose, and that the proviso here was irrelevant. A landlord would not wish to take action unless it showed him a substantial advantage, and, if it did, it is to me an entirely new doctrine that a gentleman is to be considered unfair and unreasonable unless he refuses to make use of his land for a purpose which would give him a substantial advantage.
Mr. Willey: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has unearthed something of more importance than the Minister would appear to appreciate. Perhaps the general threat of caravan sites should be seriously examined. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will consider what he has said before this matter is considered in another place. I hope he will consider whether more effective means could be sought to deal with this threat to agricultural land.
Mr. Hare: I said that I hoped I had made the case clear to the House, but I am afraid that I did mislead hon. Members on the period which constitutes a temporary caravan site. It is four weeks and not three months. What constitutes
330
a permanent site is a period of four weeks and over. I am sorry that in making my explanation I gave the wrong period for a temporary site. It should be four weeks, and to a certain extent that undermines what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He talked about a landlord on the Isle of Wight who found that it would pay him to sell land for a caravan site on a temporary basis for three months. But that period would make the site a permanent one, and not temporary, and for that planning permission would have to be obtained.
Mr. Paget: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to four weeks, does that period apply to one caravan or to a series of caravans on the site? That is an important point. Where does the three months come in?
Mr. Hare: The four-week period applies to the use of the site, for a caravan on that site.
I think that a fair and reasonable landlord would consider the interests of his tenant as well as his own. If he could use the land only for a temporary site, even if he succeeded in turning out the tenant, surely he would not insist on possession. I do not wish to detain the House. I will certainly look at this again, but I will do without any commitment because I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point of substance.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clear up a point which arises from this Clause. A case might arise where some good agricultural land has been in the possession of one landlord and his ancestors for a long time but, by reason of death, is put up for sale and bought by property developers. The new owners might then wish to turn this agricultural land into a caravan site. In such a case it is hoped that the provisions of the Bill will not provide them with a much easier method of obtaining planning permission than at present.
Mr. Hare: If my hon. Friend has any case in mind, I will look at it, but it is a little difficult to answer his point without full particulars. I will certainly undertake to examine any details, if he will furnish me with them.
Mr. Willey: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Willey: I gather, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would wish the following two Amendments to be discussed together, namely, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 18, and to insert:
"it would not be fair and reasonable for the landlord to insist on possession".
and, in the same line, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 18, and to insert:
"it would not be fair and reasonable to consent to the notice to quit".
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be convenient.
Mr. Willey: Then perhaps it would meet the convenience of the House if I moved the second Amendment. These are alternative Amendments and the second is probably the better of the two.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 18 and to insert:
"it would not be fair and reasonable to consent to the notice to quit".
We are here dealing with a matter to which we attach considerable importance. Everyone who took part in the Committee stage discussions recognises that the proviso to this subsection is of very great importance. At present, it provides that even if a tribunal be satisfied in accordance with the provisions set out in the subsection, nevertheless, to use the words of the proviso:
"… notwithstanding that they are satisfied … the Tribunal shall withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession."
We all recognise that this is a very important proviso and that it affects the whole consideration of these matters by the tribunal.
The Government spokesman described this not only as an umbrella proviso, but as a golf umbrella proviso. We are trying to make it a still better umbrella. I do not wish to pursue the argument at
332
length, but it is clear from the present proviso that the test is a subjective one. The tribunal has to consider the case presented to it by the landlord, and if it decides in favour of the landlord it must ask the further question, whether a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on possession. That is a valuable safeguard to the tenant.
During the discussions in Committee we suggested that the test, rather than being subjective, ought to be objective. We wish to extend the scope of this proviso by bringing into consideration also the position of the tenant. At present, it is clear that although this is a valuable safeguard, the only regard to which the tribunal can give further consideration is the action that will be taken by a fair and reasonable landlord.
I do not wish to elaborate on this, because I think the point is clear enough, but we can envisage many cases in which a fair and reasonable landlord, particularly in the light of the new provision in subsection (2, b), might, nevertheless, act to the prejudice of the tenant. We think, therefore, that the proviso ought to bring into consideration further factors than merely the subjective test of a fair and reasonable landlord.
Another reason why we strongly press this Amendment upon the Government is that I am sure that all the Members of the Committee are disturbed by what the Parliamentary Secretary said about this Clause. He talked about "over-security of tenure" and used that term in a wide sense. As some of us said in Committee, whatever the case may be about over-security of tenure—the reference which I was making to the Parliamentary Secretary appears in c. 633—we have to recognise that this is a very broad matter which has many aspects and which will demand very careful consideration.
I do not think that we should accept the Clause if the Government were anticipating its use in the light of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. This is an added reason for feeling that the proviso ought to be made one which would be weighted rather more in favour of the tenant than the words as they at present appear. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this as being an Amendment designed to improve the Bill, not quarrelling with the principle of this Clause or with the proviso, but

333
recognising that in the proviso as made we are asking the Government further to recognise that even with the consideration which is imposed by the tribunal of paying regard to what a fair and reasonable landlord would have done, nevertheless this can act to the unfair prejudice of the tenant. Therefore, it would be far better to accept the objective test which we suggest, that rather than the test of the fair and reasonable landlord we should have the test of what would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Mr. J. Johnson: I beg to second the Amendment.
In our debates upstairs and on the Floor of the House, it is not so much what the Government spokesmen say but how they say it that matters. Agriculture is entirely unlike industry inasmuch as it is a living thing and people gain their livelihood from it. It is their life. Those who are in agriculture are not like paid employees in a factory who may be dismissed at a moment's notice and then get another job.
We should look at this in no metaphysical or subtle sense but objectively, looking at it in the context of people working and living on the land. In Committee, the Government spokesman talked about a golf umbrella. That is giving the game away. I happen to play golf myself. On the golf course, whether at Westward Hoo or anywhere else, we use golf umbrellas, whatever their colour, in bad weather; we use them only in stormy times. We do not need a golf umbrella in fine weather, because then we set the umbrella and go down the course, whether like Joe Carr hitting the ball 300 yards or whether, like some of us, topping our drive off the tee.
What is going to happen even in mostly fine weather in the life of a tenant farmer? We say that it is not good enough to defend the landlord alone and say that the landlord shall be the judge. That is a purely subjective test. We say that although the landlord may be, in good weather and bad weather, a man who stands high in the opinion of the countryside—he may be a thoroughly fine man and, indeed, a very fine golfer and not need an umbrella—it is most unfair to allow him to be the judge in this case.
If we take an objective view on all this, we should forget the landlord who
334
is objecting and who wishes to have his own way and take into consideration other factors, the heart of the land itself and the year by year financial position of the farmer himself.
When we look at this Bill and the behaviour of the Government we think they are an "economic Government". I read a book once in which the author talked about the "Economic man". Indeed, we have an economic Government. It seems that they merely have a balance sheet here of plus and minus and do not take into account the tenant farmer himself, his wife and family and his hope of being able to live on the land on which his people may have lived for half a century or a century. The landlord does not want a feather bed in order to look after himself and his famliy.
Let us look at the position of the tenant farmer himself. I think that the object of this kind of Clause is that the Government wish to drive out the mediocre farmer. It is very difficult to say what is a mediocre farmer or a farmer who is not yet up to the terms of the economic standards which the Government or the landlord desire to work a particular estate.
The Government have overlooked the fact that in parts of an estate wemay have tenant farmers doing a difficult job. They look at a large amount of land, the whole of the estate, and say that the parts do not matter, the fractions do not matter, whether they are farmed by good farmers or mediocre farmers.
The Government or the landlord look at a map and say, "Here is a large extent of land. How can we get a few extra pounds out of it? Can we do so by amalgamation of units or by joining together the smaller pieces?" It seems to me that the Government always take the landlord's interest into account. If he is a large man his overheads will be less and he may be more efficient from the purely mechanical and economic point of view, but from the Government statements all the time it seems that in their wisdom, or lack of it, they wish to eliminate the small units or the conservative—or even sometimes Conservative—small tenant farmers whom they consider uneconomic. It seems to me that the whole of the push behind the Bill is to eliminate the small man. We think that this is most unfair. We should like the

335
wording of the Clause changed so that it would not merely pay attention to the landlord who wants a larger unit but would take a longer yardstick, a wider viewpoint, and look after the small man.
These words are not merely subtle and a little Machiavellian. The Government need terms like "umbrella" to pull themselves out of the mess when they start defining terms. They should look at the position more closely. They should say, "Here is a man who runs a small farm. He is of yeoman stock. We will look at it from his point of view, objectively, and we will not always get behind the big battalions of the landlords to see what they want or to commend what they have in view."
I fear that if the Government continue in this fashion they will not be more economic in their organisation, although they desire to be more economic, and, what is even worse, they will tend to knock the heart out of many small farmers in the countryside. At the moment, it is difficult enough for the small farmer to farm efficiently and in good heart. I think that it is very important to keep in the countryside what I like to regard as the good social fibre of the good yeoman stock farming the land. This wording and this type of Clause sooner or later will eliminate this old yeoman stock from the countryside. I ask the Minister to look again at the wording of the Amendment and consider whether it is not a fair examination of the difficulties of the small farmers.
We think that the scales are weighted on the side of the landlord. I do not want to repeat over and over again that the Government are behind the C.L.A. or that they favour the big man or the man with the more money, but we say to the Minister that he should think a little more often about the smaller farmers. We think that all the time in the Bill they are slowly but surely being squeezed out.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Hare: We have listened carefully to the two speeches on the Amendment. I entirely agree with some of the words used by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), but he must not take unto himself the credit of being the sole protector of the yeoman farmer of this country. That sentiment is shared just as
336
much on this side of the House as by hon. Members opposite.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the proviso is a matter of the greatest importance. He says that he wishes to strengthen the proviso and to make it clearer, but I am afraid that the Amendments which he asks us to accept would not achieve what he has in mind. I must ask the House to reject them because of their vagueness. Different people will have different ideas about what is "fair and reasonable." What satisfies this criterion in the eyes of the townsman, for example, may not satisfy it in the eyes of a man who understands farming and the problems of the countryside.
This difference will be particularly important when the assessment of fairness and reasonableness depends on weighing claims of hardship either by the landlord or by the tenant in considering the possible effect of the notice to quit on the farming of the land. The townsman, for example, would probably be much more influenced by considerations of hardship and a countryman by whether the operation of a notice would improve or lower the standards of the farming of the land or would rob the tenant of the fruits of his labour. There are many other examples of factors to which different kinds of people will give different weight when deciding whether the operation of a notice is fair or reasonable.
On the other hand, the landlord is a person with both rights and responsibilities. It seems to me that a tribunal which will include a farmer and a landowner amongst its members can reasonably be asked to judge what a "fair and reasonable" landlord would do in the given circumstances which the tribunal are considering. I am sure that the hon. Member will not quarrel with me when I say that it is essential to give the agricultural land tribunals clear principles to follow so that the farmers and landowners know where they are. My submission is that the Amendments would not clarify but would cloud and make vague the proviso.
The hon. Member for Rugby slightly astounded me by using as one of his arguments in support of the Amendment the fact that this was an effort on the

337
part of the Opposition to prevent the Government from looking through the eyes of the landlord and that the Amendment will help the farmer and will make his position vis-à-vis the landlord easier. Before the hon. Member for Sunderland, North or the hon. Member for Rugby decide whether they wish to press the Amendment to a Division, I should tell them that the National Farmers' Union, which represents the very people whom the hon. Member for Rugby purports to represent in expressing his views, prefers the wording of the proviso in the Bill to the wording as it would read if amended. I am sure that the Amendments are put forward to be helpful, but in view of that information perhaps hon. Members
opposite would consider withdrawing them.
Mr. Willey: I am sorry that I cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. He made great play of the words, "fair and reasonable", but they are in the Bill; we have accepted his words. We have tried to make this objective test. There was a thorough discussion of this in Standing Committee, and I can do no more than ask my hon. Friends to support my views in the Lobby.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 189.

Clause 4.—(RIGHTS OF TENANTS AS TO PROVISION OF FIXED EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.)
8.15 p.m.
Mr. John Hare: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end to insert:
Provided that where it appears to the Tribunal that an agricultural activity specified in the tenant's application has not been carried on on the holding for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the making of the application the Tribunal shall not direct the landlord to carry out work in connection with that activity unless they are satisfied that the starting of the activity did not or, where the activity has not yet been started, will not constitute or form part of a substantial alteration of the type of farming carried on on the holding.
The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the tribunal from serving a direction facilitating a new or recent activity which forms a part of a substantial alteration in the type of farming, and seeks to fulfil the purpose of an Amendment sponsored in the Standing Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), which we accepted in principle, subject to looking again at the wording. We have, in fact, made very little alteration—the wording of this Amendment is very similar—and the changes are really more drafting ones than anything else.
Fears were expressed in the Standing Committee that the Amendment then moved would discourage new techniques in farming, but we do not think that that objection can be sustained against the wording of this Amendment. It does not affect the technique; it seeks only to prevent a landlord from being faced with the cost of equipping a holding for a substantially different type of farming as, for example, a change from arable to dairy farming.
The Amendment would not prevent the tribunal from giving a direction to enable a tenant to extend the existing line of enterprise in which he is interested, or to modify the methods which he is using. To give an example, he may want to keep cows, or to store produce in a building that is not, at the moment, used for that purpose. If the
342
tribunal was satisfied that this was reasonable but that the activity would contravene the statutory safety, health and welfare requirements, the Amendment would not prevent the tribunal from directing the landlord to carry out any necessary work. Nor would it rule out a direction to enable a tenant to extend his present type of farming, or to make small alterations in the type of farming
It will, however, exclude a direction to provide equipment for a really substantially new type of enterprise. To give a very simple example, a direction could still be given to promote a change in the type of enterprise, but a direction could not be given that would alter the whole nature of the enterprise and, by so doing, turn property to an entirely different use.
If the tenant wants to change to a completely different type of farming, he should apply under Section 50 of the 1948 Act for any new equipment that he needs. That, he would have to pay for himself, and get compensation at the end of the tenancy for any increased value resulting from his work. That, I think, is as far as it is reasonable to go.
Mr. Champion: The Minister has said that he is carrying out his promise, made to his own back benchers during the Committee stage of the Bill. We have nothing against a Minister carrying out his promises—we think that he should—but in this case what his back benchers were seeking to do, and what the Minister has now agreed to do, was to limit the tribunal's discretion in favour of the landlord as against the tenant.
That is precisely what this Amendment does. The intention of the previous, similar Amendment was made quite clear in Committee by its supporters. But what we say is that, having already deprived the tenant of all the safeguards against the landlord that are contained in Part II of the 1947 Act, and having defeated this afternoon our new Clause to safeguard the tenant, the Minister is now going very much too far.
The right hon. Gentleman has already given a new direction to the arbitrators in favour of the landlord as against the tenant for the only purpose, as I understand, of enabling the landlord to charge

343
a higher rent. Already, he has been operating entirely in favour of the landlord as against the tenant. It is quite clear from this Amendment that the Government intend further to limit the tribunal's powers in the only sop given to the tenant in this Bill. The Clause which we are discussing is something of a sop to the tenants to cause them to look with a little favour on the Bill which, for the rest of its main provisions, is in favour of landlords.
I am not the only person who feels that the Bill is weighted in favour of the landlord as against the tenant. I would ask the Minister to read today's Daily Express, which says that the Government have one more chance to protect the tenant farmer against unjust increases. The Daily Express merits attention in this connection, because it was the only newspaper which was fighting for the farmer, with the Labour Party, in the inter-war years in which the Minister referred a little earlier. Consideration should be given to what is said by a newspaper which in the main supports the party opposite.
As I understand Clause 4, it says, in effect, that if the tenant is being placed in jeopardy because of statutory requirements and is unable to comply with them because of the inadequacy of his fixed equipment, he shall have the right to ask the agricultural land tribunal to issue a direction to the landlord to carry out the work necessary to enable the tenant to comply with the law.
There is a very important saving provision for the landlord, for the tribunal shall not direct the landlord to carry out such work unless the tribunal is satisfied
"that it is reasonable so to do having regard to the landlord's responsibilities to manage the land comprised in the holding in accordance with the rules of good estate management and also to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding and to any other material consideration …"
It seems to me that already in this Clause there are adequate safeguards for the landlord, and to which the tribunal has to pay attention. To all that the Minister goes on to add the words in the proposed Amendment.
Our objections to the Amendment can be briefly stated. It is true that we put these points in Committee but, as the Minister has moved an Amendment, it is
344
right that we should mention them again. I certainly think that the Minister has not met the arguments that were put by the Opposition in Committee in this connection. For example, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in Committee that the provision would tend to make farming a static industry. That is the last thing that any Minister of Agriculture would wish to do. Indeed, in Committee, in answer to a question of mine relating to a tenant who might wish to change from the production of beef to milk, he said:
"I hope that it will be the other way and that the tenant will be requiring the switch from milk to beef. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1958; c. 764.]
The Minister was anxious that these changes should take place, and quite rightly so. I am with the Minister on all this. But every Minister of Agriculture, of whatever party, must from time to time wish to see a change from this type of production to that, from beef to milk or from milk to beef. These are the sorts of things which every Minister must be prepared to assist as public demand varies or production exceeds demand or the balance of payments position requires. Farming must be a changing industry within the limits imposed upon us by our climate, type of soil, and so forth. Nothing that we do on Report should tend to make the agricultural industry static.
The Amendment says to the farmer, "If you have been farming a certain way, so far as the fixed equipment of the farm is concerned you must continue in that way to the end of your days or to the end of the tenancy." Farms are not so easily obtained that a farmer can get another farm, as the Minister himself said earlier today. It is also true that the farmer is not an entirely free agent in this matter of what he shall produce. The Annual Review of Farm Prices, as I understand it, is intended in some cases to cause him to change from one method of farming to another. It is done by the price method.
The end price of the product is definitely intended to encourage farmers to change from what is not needed so much within our economy to something which is needed within our economy. By price differences on the end product the Minister of Agriculture is always, and

345
rightly so, seeking to bring about a switch from this type of production to another.
I have said before—and it has been said more than once in Committee—that, in the main, this is a landlords' Bill. It is a rent Bill. It is a Bill against the tenant, in favour of the landlord. It is a bad Bill for agriculture. Now, the only provision which the Government have put in for the protection of the tenant is to be whittled away by the Amendment. We most strongly oppose it for the reasons that I have given. The Government should have left unchanged this little sop which they put into a bad Bill, and because they have not we certainly oppose the Amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Robert Mathew: I should like to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing forward an Amendment which is substantially the same as that which I moved in Committee. I thank my right hon. Friend very sincerely for accepting the principle embodied in it.
I am rather astonished that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) should describe it as a whittling away of the tenant's rights under the Clause. The Amendment has one object only, and that is to provide a safeguard against a possible danger. There is no question of taking away the rights of the tenant and helping the landlord. It really is a bit of party pleading about what is a very sensible and necessary safeguard to a useful Clause which seeks to prevent abuse.
The hon. Member quoted the rather lengthy speech made in Committee by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). We listened to that speech with close attention. The hon. and learned Member put forward the view that the Amendment would tend to make agriculture static. I am sorry that he is not here. I have never heard such nonsense before. If a change in husbandry in a number of holdings is desirable, and that change is reflected in the terms of the Annual Price Review, every sensible landlord will agree to the change. It is only in a case where an application is made, and where the landlord has refused to give his consent to pay for fixed equipment and there is a dispute, that difficulty arises.
346
It is absolutely right to insert this necessary safeguard. For those reasons I say that the arguments which have been put up by hon. Members opposite, both here and in Committee, have no validity. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) even said that if such an Amendment had been passed agriculture would have become so static over the last few years that the tractor would never have been introduced. All I can say to that comment is that the tractor that he must have been thinking of at that time could have had no wheels on it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was talking in terms of the general idea of the development of agriculture.
Mr. Mathew: All I can say is that the hon. Member was talking in terms very much broader in scope than are covered by this necessary but quite narrow Amendment. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). I agree that he knows a little about agriculture, because, in the 1946 Election, he was my opponent in South Ayrshire, and a very large section of the farmers in that constituency weighed up our relative knowledge of agriculture and decided in my favour. I understand that his reputation in his own constituency is very high because he still imports Ayrshire cattle to his farm.
As far as I can understand it, his argument is that the landlord must receive the maximum rent with the minimum amount of risk. Let us suppose that the farmer changes from one kind of agriculture to another, and makes a good thing of it. Does the landlord reduce his rent? Not at all. The whole argument of the Minister and the hon. Member for Honiton is that the landlord should get the maximum amount of rent with the minimum amount of risk. That argument is in tone with all the other arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite in connection with the Bill. They are doing everything possible to give the maximum opportunity to the landlord to squeeze the farmer.
Mr. Clifford Kenyon: On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister emphasised his faith in the

347
reasonableness of tribunals, and said that when the Government approached a question they did so with reason and, I think someone said, common sense. By the Amendment it seems that the Minister is not prepared to trust the tribunal to exercise reasonableness and common sense in a question of this nature which may come before it. If it is in the interests of agriculture that a drastic change should not be made in the way in which a farm is worked, surely a reasonable tribunal would not allow it. It has the power not to allow it. But here the Minister is laying down a hard and fast rule that unless "an agricultural activity" has been operated for three years the tribunal shall not allow it unless it thinks otherwise.
I think that the Amendment is unnecessary from that point of view. The tribunal itself surely has common sense and reason to argue this out.
The purpose of the Amendment is entirely different. It is to prevent the extension of dairying any further. We have at present an excess of milk production. The Price Review emphasises that year after year. We know that the Milk Marketing Board is in difficulties over the excess of milk which it is receiving. It is not in the interests of agriculture generally, and of the dairying industry, in particular, that that extension of production should be allowed.
If the Minister had advanced an argument like that I could have understood it, and, what is more, I could have accepted it, because it is true. We do not want an extension of milk production at present, but an extension of other types of agriculture. We do not want arable farming to be turned over to dairying at present. Such a change would be a drastic change coming within the scope of this Amendment. I could have understood an argument like that, but the argument which the Minister and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) puts forward is not an argument at all. I venture to say that they are not putting forward the true reason for the Amendment, which is to prevent an extension of dairying to safeguard the dairy industry rather than to allow it to extend, as it is doing,
348
in spite of everything that is being done to prevent it.
Mr. J. Johnson: I have given my word not to make a speech, but may I ask a question of the Minister? Will he kindly consider the words that he proposes to insert in Clause 4? Why has he made it three years? The Government do not seem to know their own mind, because they switch year after year to a new tactic in farming, changing from beef to milk, potatoes to eggs, and vice versa. Why is he specifying three years? It seems a little harsh to tenant farmers to give that length of time when they are asked almost annually to change their method of farming.
Mr. Hare: On advice, three years seemed to be a reasonable time. Therefore, that period was chosen. I think that on consideration the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) will realise that it is about the right time. I do not have a great deal to add to what I said in moving the Amendment. I assure the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) that it is not a disguised plot on my part to reduce milk production.
The reasons I have given were the reasons which justified my moving the Amendment. Under the Clause, which is a new concession to the tenant, it would be unfair to encourage people suddenly to switch into milk production because they had this particular power against the landlord which they do not have in carrying out other forms of farming. I assure the hon. Member that there is nothing sinister.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) could not resist saying that the Bill was a Bill entirely to do the tenant down. It was rather hard that he should have made that assertion on Clause 4, although he made a slight proviso which excuses him, perhaps, of any too sinister intentions. I cannot feel that any of the arguments which have been put forward is sufficient to change my view that the Amendment is justified.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 183.

Division No. 171.]

AYES

[8.6 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Aitken, W. T.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)

Finlay, Graeme

Kershaw, J. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Fisher, Nigel

Kirk, P. M.

Arbuthnot, John

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lagden, G. W.

Armstrong, C. W.

Fort, R.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Atkins, H. E.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Leather, E. H. C.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Gammans, Lady

Leavey, J. A.

Baldwin, A. E.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Leburn, W. G.

Barber, Anthony

Gibson-Watt, D.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Barlow, Sir John

Glover, D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Barter, John

Godber, J. B.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Batsford, Brian

Gower, H. R.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Graham, Sir Fergus

Llewellyn, D. T.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Green, A.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Gurden, Harold

McKibbin, Alan

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Bishop, F. P.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N. W.)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Black, C. W.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Macmillan, Maurine (Halifax)

Body, R. F.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maddan, Martin

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Hay, John

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Brains, B. R.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Bryan, P.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hesketh, R. F.

Marshall, Douglas

Burden, F. F. A.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Mathew, R.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mawby, R. L.

Campbell, Sir David

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hope, Lord John

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hornby, R. P.

Mott-Radclyffe. Sir Charles

Cole, Norman

Hornsby-Smoth, Miss M. P.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Horobin, Sir Ian

Nairn, D. L. S.

Cooke, Robert

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Neave, Airey

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hurd, A. R.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Cunningham, Knox

Hyde, Montgomery

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Currie, G. B. H.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Osborne, C.

Davidson, Viscountess

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Page, R. G.

D'Avidgor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Deedes, W. F.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Partridge, E.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Peel, W. J.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

du Cann, E. D. L.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Duncan, Sir James

Kaberry, D.

Pitman, I. J.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Keegan, D.

Pott, H. P.

Powell, J. Enoch

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Speir, R. M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Ramsden, J. E.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Vickers, Miss Joan

Rawlinson, Peter

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Redmayne, M.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Wall, Patrick

Renton, D. L. M.

Storey, S.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Webbe, Sir H.

Robertson, Sir David

Summers, Sir Spencer

Webster, David

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Roper, Sir Harold

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Teeling, W.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Russell, R. S.

Temple, John M.

Wood, Hon. R.

Sharples, R. C.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Shepherd, William

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Mr. Oakahott and

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Mr. Brooman-White.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hale, Leslie

Oswald, T.

Albu, A. H.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Owen, W. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hamilton, W. W.

Paget, R. T.

Awbery, S. S.

Hannan, W.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deanne Valley)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Baird, J.

Hastings, S.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Balfour, A.

Hayman, F. H.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Parker, J.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, John

Bann, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pearson, A.

Benson, Sir George

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Peart, T. F.

Blackburn, F.

Pentland, N.

Blenkinsop, A.

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Blyton, W. R.

Holt, A. F.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Boardman, H.

Houghton, Douglas

Probert, A. R.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Proctor, W. T.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Hoy, J. H.

Randell, H. E.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hubbard, T. F.

Rankin, John

Bowles, F. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Redhead, E. C.

Brockway, A. F.

Hunter, A. E.

Reid, William

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rhodes, H.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Burke, W. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Janner, B.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Carmichael, J.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Champion, A. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Royle, C.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Clunie, J.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Coldrick, W.

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Skeffington, A. M.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lawson, G. M.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Ledger, R. J.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lewis, Arthur

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Logan, D. G.

Sparks, J. A.

Deer, G.

MacColl, J. E.

Spriggs, Leslie

Delargy, H. J.

MacDermot, Niall

Steele, T.

Dodds, N. N.

McGhee, H. G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

McGovern, J.

Stonehouse, John

Dye, S.

McInnes, J.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McLeavy, Frank

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mahon, Simon

Sylvester, G. O.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Finch, H. J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Fitch, E. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Tourney, F.

Fletcher, Eric

Mason, Roy

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Forman, J. C.

Messer, Sir F.

Usborne, H. C.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mikardo, Ian

Viant, S. P.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wade, D. W.

Gibson, C. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Watkins, T. E.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mort, D. L.

Weitzman, D.

Greenwood, Anthony

Moss, R.

Welis, Percy (Faversham)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Moyle, A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Grey, C. F.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wilkins, W. A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Willey, Frederick

Grimond, J.

Orbach, M.

Williams, David (Neath)

340

341

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Zilliacus, K.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Woof, R. E.

Winterbottom, Richard

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. J. T. Price.

Division No. 172.]

AYES

[8.42 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Aitken, W. T.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Oakshott, H. D.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Armstrong, C. W.

Hay, John

Osborne, C.

Atkins, H. E.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Page, R. G.

Baldock, Lt,-Cmdr. J. M.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Baldwin, A. E.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Partridge, E.

Barlow, Sir John

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Peel, W. J.

Barter, John

Hesketh, R. F.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Batsford, Brian

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Pitman, I. J.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pott, H. P.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Holt, A. F.

Powell, J. Enoch

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Hope, Lord John

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hornby, R. P.

Ramsden, J. E.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Rawlinson, Peter

Bishop, F. P.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Redmayne, M.

Black, C. W.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Body, R. F.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Renton, D. L. M.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hurd, A. R.

Robertson, Sir David

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Braine, B. R.

Irvine, Bryant Godrnan (Rye)

Roper, Sir Harold

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Russell, R. S.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Sharples, R. C.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Shepherd, William

Burden, F. F. A.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saflron Walden)

Keegan, D.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Cary, Sir Robert

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Kershaw, J. A.

Speir, R. M.

Cole, Norman

Kirk, P. M.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Lagden, G. W.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Cooke, Robert

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Leather, E. H. C.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Leavey, J. A.

Storey, S.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Leburn, W. G.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Cunningham, Knox

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Currie, G. B. H.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Davidson, Viscountess

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Llewellyn, D. T.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Deedes, W. F.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Teeling, W.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Temple, John M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Drayson, G. B.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

du Cann, E. D. L.

McKibbin, Alan

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Duncan, Sir James

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vane, W. M. F.

Finlay, Graeme

Maddan, Martin

Vickers, Miss Joan

Fisher, Nigel

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Wade, D. W.

Fort, R.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Wall, Patrick

Gammans, Lady

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Marshall, Douglas

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Glover, D.

Mathew, R.

Webbe, Sir H.

Godber, J. B.

Mawby, R. L.

Webster, David

Gower, H. R.

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Green, A.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wood, Hon. R.

Grimond J.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Neave, Airey

Gurden, Harold

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

350

351

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hastings, S.

Paton, John

Albu, A. H.

Hayman, F. H.

Peart, T. F.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Pentland, N.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Herbison, Miss M.

Popplewell, E.

Awbery, S. S.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Baird, J.

Holman, P.

Probert, A. R.

Balfour, A.

Houghton, Douglas

Proctor, W. T.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Randall, H. E.

Blackburn, F.

Hoy, J. H.

Rankin, John

Blenkinsop, A.

Hubbard, T. F.

Redhead, E. C.

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rhodes, H.

Boardman, H.

Hunter, A. E.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bowles, F. G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N)

Brockway, A. F.

Janner, B.

Royle, C.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, David (The Hartlepool)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Skeffington, A. M.

Carmichael, J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Champion, A. J.

Kenyon, C.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Clunie, J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Snow, J. W.

Coldrick, W.

Lawson, G. M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Ledger, R. J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Sparks, J. A.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Spriggs, Leslie

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lewis, Arthur

Steele, T.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Logan, D. G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

MacColl, J. E.

Stonehouse, John

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

MacDerrnot, Niall

Stones, W. (Consett)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McGhee, H. G.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Deer, G.

McInnes, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Delargy, H. J.

McLeavy, Frank

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dodds, N. N.

Mahon, Simon

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dye, S.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Tomney, F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mason, Roy

Usborne, H. C.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Messer, Sir F.

Viant, S. P.

Finch, H. J.

Mikardo, Ian

Watkins, T. E.

Fitch, E. A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Weitzman, D.

Fletcher, Eric

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Forman, J. C.

Mort, D. L.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moss, R.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Moyle, A.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gibson, C. W.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Willey, Frederick

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams, David (Neath)

Greenwood, Anthony

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Orbach, M.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Oswald, T.

Winterbottom, Richard

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Owen, W. J.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Paget, R. T.

Woof, R. E.

Hale, Leslie

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Zilliacus, K.

Hamilton, W. W.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Hannan, W.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Parker, J.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, to leave out from "management" to "and" in line 19.
This is an Amendment which explains itself. What we are doing by this Amendment is to seek to reject the second thoughts of the Government. The Government reworded this part of the Clause, which in general we welcome, and we believe that in so amending the Clause they have made it less effective from the point of view of the tenant. It is for that reason that we move the Amendment.
352
What this subsection does is to make it mandatory—I stress this because the word "shall" is used—on the tribunals not to direct the landlord to carry out the work unless
"they are satisfied that it is reasonable so to do having regard to the lardlord's responsibilities to manage the land comprised in the holding in accordance with the rules of good estate management"—
and here we come to the words we propose should be left out—
"and also to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding and to any other material consideration".

353
We believe that this provision would be much more effective and much fairer if it stopped at the word "management". We do not think that the additional words will help. We believe that they will serve only to make the decision of the tribunal more difficult. As we said in Committee, we do not think this will be a consideration which will arise in the majority of cases, but here is a matter which is placed upon the tribunal for its consideration. We think that if the words remain they could operate to the detriment of the tenant. If the landlord chooses to say—and we have been considering the provision in Clause 3 (2, b)—that he intends to seek to end the period of this holding as a separate holding, then the tribunal may find it very difficult to make a direction under this Clause.
This matter was considered in Committee. Unless the Government have third thoughts, reject their second thoughts and recognise that this is another act to the detriment of the tenant, I shall have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to support this Amendment by a Division.
Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting his point so briefly and clearly. He talks about the Government having third thoughts. I can assure him that the Government are always full of thought on this and on all other matters. He need have no fears on that score whatever.
He says that these words are less effective from the point of view of the tenant. I took very careful note of what the hon. Member said in Committee on this. I have looked again at what he said, and I am satisfied that these words are necessary to clarify the position and to show exactly what we are seeking to achieve here. I think it is right that we should make it abundantly clear that if there is a case in which it is anticipated that within a relatively short period of time the holding is to be amalgamated with another it would be wrong not only from the point of view of the landlord but from the national point of view as a waste of capital expenditure if insistence were laid on putting up buildings wanted for only a short period of time.
354
After all, in Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1957, dealing with farm improvement schemes, we made it clear that we would not grant-aid schemes where it would be likely that there would be an amalgamation which would upset the holding. We provided that a considerable period of time ahead must be clearly seen before the money was to be spent. If that is right from the national point of view, and from the point of view of grant, it is right that we should not put an imposition on the landlord to provide buildings which would be white elephants in a short space of time.
We could well have a case where a landlord has in mind that he has a small uneconomic holding which he wishes to amalgamate with another larger holding to provide a better economic unit. He has on that holding an elderly tenant and he has decided that it would be unfair and unreasonable to dispossess that tenant, as he could seek to do under one of the provisos in Clause 3. He has decided that it would be better to leave the matter until that tenant has retired, when the holding would become available and he could then amalgamate it. Then this hypothetical tenant gets into some trouble about his buildings for milk production purposes and seeks to invoke this Clause. What would happen then, probably, would be that the landlord, unwilling to carry out the work, would seek to carry out the amalgamation. Thus, instead of helping the tenant, the Amendment would precipitate some action on the part of the landlord to secure amalgamation.
I put that as a case that could happen, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North would not wish it to happen for one moment. It is not for any dogmatic reason that we feel unwilling to accede to his point of view, but for sound practical reasons. I would remind the hon. Member also that when this matter was considered in Committee no difference of opinion was expressed by a Division. Therefore, I feel somewhat surprised that the hon. Member feels it necessary to divide the House against this proposal on this occasion. These words can be of help to the tenant in the sort of case that I have cited. They are certainly necessary to express clearly the Bill's intention, and I strongly advise the House that the words should be allowed to remain in the Bill.
Mr. Dye: Whereas the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has tried to make out a case for the first few words of the lines which it is proposed to leave out—
"… also to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding …"
—he has done nothing about the other words—
"and to any other material consideration …"
The hon. Gentleman has not given the House an inkling of what is meant by those latter words. He is so obsessed with this idea that we must amalgamate existing holdings that he wants to obliterate all the small holdings which he would describe as uneconomic holdings. This is the one great obsession that the Government have in the Bill and in the administration of their subsidies for farm improvements.
9.0 p.m.
I am sure that they are wrong. There are many very large holdings which would be more economic to this country if they were divided amongst those skilled farm workers who could make full use of them. Nowhere in this Bill does the Minister intend to tackle the problem of the one man or the large company who is getting ownership and control over large sections of the land of this country. The obsession that we must make provision whereby any landlord can get a scheme to amalgamate holdings and reduce the number of tenant farmers in this country will lead to the ruination of British agriculture, make no mistake about it. For our agriculture depends not only upon our land but also upon the quality and the knowledge of the people in charge of it.
You know the old saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these companies have neither a bottom to be kicked nor a soul to be damned, but each man who has given of his knowledge and of his skill and of his life to improve the quality of his land and the output of his products is a man who, once destroyed, can never be replaced. Yet these people want to destroy the very lifeblood of British agriculture, whether it is in the Highlands of Scotland or in the fields of Norfolk. Therefore, I want to oppose most strongly this incessant desire on the part of the Government to make provision whereby each landlord could get rid of the old man or refuse to carry out an improvement
356
because, when they get rid of the old man, they can reduce the number of holdings.
That is one aspect of the problem. Nowhere has the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Agriculture tried to say in what way "any other material consideration" is a limiting factor. Where does it apply? Of course, the tribunal can direct the landlord in such a way, in taking any other material consideration into account, as to enable him to do anything. It is giving all power to the landlord. We could rightly have expected the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if not to divest himself of the obsession of himself and his Minister to amalgamate holdings as far as they can, to explain the meaning of that phrase and to tell us what are the limitations that can be put upon it.
Mr. Godber: I shall be happy to deal with the two points the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has raised. The first one he referred to was the phrase "any other material consideration". The best thing I can do is to refer him to column 767 of the Report of Standing Committee A. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), whom I am happy to quote, said:
"We all know, the Lord Advocate better than anyone, that the words 'any other material consideration' are included to make it clear that the Tribunal is not to direct its mind exclusively to this matter, but must turn its attention to the rules of good estate management."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1958; c. 767.]
The hon. Gentleman stated the position clearly and succinctly, and I am grateful to him. Perhaps he will have a word with his hon. Friend afterwards. For those reasons, I did not seek to detain the House at this stage. I was ready to rest myself on what the hon. Gentleman had said, and I hope his hon. Friend will accept it.
On the other point on which the hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent, in phrases that I do not propose to follow, he referred to the claim he makes that we are seeking all the time to amalgamate holdings. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are making it possible for that to take place where uneconomic holdings exist. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want uneconomic holdings to continue, because this merely means that there are people continuing to try to

357
obtain a living from land out of which they cannot obtain a living. Where they could obtain a reasonable living we should not seek to prevent them.
May I call in aid the word of his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). During a Committee stage debate on the 1957 Act, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"There happen to be already about 210,000 farms in this country of between one and 50 acres … That is a very large number of very small farms … I do not think that we should extend that number"—
this was said by a right hon. Friend of the hon. Gentleman—
"We should be on the return journey, unifying small and uneconomic units so that both the nation and the individual producers may get whatever benefit society as a whole is willing to give to agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd May, 1957; c. 214–5.]
Mr. Emrys Hughes: And not landlords.
Mr. Godber: I am dealing specifically with the point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West—
Mr. Dye: No.
Mr. Godber: Indeed, I am. The hon. Member's point was that it was wrong to assist amalgamations. That is as I understood him. I have quoted his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley as saying that he felt there was a case for reducing the number of units. I have dealt with those two points by quoting from his right hon. and hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman will not accept my words, I hope he will accept theirs.
Mr. Willey: Apart from the quotation which the Parliamentary Secretary kindly made from a contribution of mine during a Standing Committee discussion, his replies have been thoroughly disappointing. All he said in his first reply would be met by the Clause as we seek to amend it. If the obligation were placed on the tribunal—we do not object to this—to see that the direction should be in accordance with the rules of good estate management, all the considerations raised
by the Parliamentary Secretary would be met. We object to further provision being made, and for that reason, on practical grounds, we propose the insertion of these words.
During the proceedings in the Standing Committee to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, we were considering a number of matters at the same time, and for that reason we did not seek to divide the Committee on this question. But having had an opportunity further to consider it, we believe that on practical grounds it is wrong to place this burden on the tribunal. There is also placed on the tribunal the consideration of matters of Government policy. The Parliamentary Secretary has already indicated that. I delicately hinted at some things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has spoken with good forthright Norfolk vigour, but the Parliamentary Secretary has disturbed us even more than he did in Committee. Then he disturbed us by talking about over security. Now he has disturbed us by talking about amalgamation in this context.
We welcome this Clause as giving certain powers to the tenant which he did not possess before. But when the Parliamentary Secretary talks about amalgamation, even in this context, I say to him in all seriousness that the question of amalgamation is extremely difficult and complex. It brings in many social consequences which must be considered. If, as appears to be the case, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this is a matter which should be left to individual landlords, he will run against the full-blooded opposition of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I think, most members of the agriculture industry. We say, therefore, that we are more disturbed than when we began to consider this Amendment, and we have no alternative but to divide the House.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 186.

Division No. 173.]

AYES

[9.8 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Atkins, H. E.

Batsford, Brian

Aitken, W. T.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Baldwin, A. E.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Barlow, Sir John

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Armstrong, C. W.

Barter, John

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hope, Lord John

Partridge, E.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hornby, R. P.

Peel, W. J.

Bishop, F. P.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Black, C. W.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Body, R. F.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Pott, H. P.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Powell, J. Enooh

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Braine, B. R.

Kurd, A. R.

Ramsden, J. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Rawlinson, Peter

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Redmayne, M.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Renton, D. L. M.

Bryan, P.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ridsdaie, J. E.

Burden, F. F. A.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Roper, Sir Harold

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Keegan, D.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cole, Norman

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Russell, R. S.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Scott-Miller, comdr. R.

Cooke, Robert

Kershaw, J. A.

Sharples, R. C.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Kirk, P. M.

Shepherd, William

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lagden, G. W.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Leather, E. H. C.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cunningham, Knox

Leavey, J. A.

Speir, R. M.

Currie, G. B. H.

Leburn, W. G.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Davidson, Viscountess

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Deedes, W. F.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Storey, S.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Studholme, Sir Henry

du Cann, E. D. L.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Summers, Sir Spencer

Duncan, Sir James

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

McKibbin, Alan

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Elliot, R. W. (Ne'casle-upon Tyne, N.)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Teeling, W.

Finlay, Graeme

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Temple, John M.

Fisher, Nigel

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Fort, R.

Maddan, Martin

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Gammans, Lady

Maitland, Hon Patrick (Lanark)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Turner, H. F. L.

Godber, J. B.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Gower, H. R.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Marshall, Douglas

Vickers, Miss Joan

Grant, W (Woodside)

Mathew, R.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Green, A.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mawby, R. L.

Wall, Patrick

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Gurden, Harold

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Webbe, Sir H.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Webster, David

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hay, John

Neave, Airey

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Heaid, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Wood, Hon. R.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Oakshott, H. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hesketh, R. F.

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Osborne, C.

Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Page, R. G.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Coldrick, W.

Albu, A. H.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Bowles, F. G.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Brockway, A. F.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Baird, J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Balfour, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Burke, W. A.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Deer, G.

Blackburn, F.

Carmichael, J.

Delargy, H. J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Champion, A. J.

Dodds, N. N.

Blyton, W. R.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Boardman, H.

Clunie, J.

Dye, S.

360

361

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

King, Dr. H. M.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lawson, G. M.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Ledger, R. J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Royle, C.

Finch, H. J.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Fitch, E. A.

Logan, D. C.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Fletcher, Eric

MacColl, J. E.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Forman, J. C.

MacDermot, Niall

Skeffington, A. M.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McGhee, H. C.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

McInnes, J.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Gibson, C. W.

McLeavy, Frank

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Snow, J. W.

Greenwood, Anthony

Mahon, Simon

Sorensen, R. W.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Grey, C. F.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Sparks, J. A.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Spriggs, Leslie

Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mason, Roy

Steele, T.

Grimond, J.

Messer, Sir F.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mitchison, G. R.

Storehouse, John

Hamilton, W. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Hannan, W.

Mort, D. L.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Moss, R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Hastings, S.

Moyle, A.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Hayman, F. H.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Herbison, Miss M.

Noel-Baker, Francis (8windon)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Orbach, M.

Tomney, F.

Holman, P.

Oswald, T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Holt, A. F.

Owen, W. J.

Usborne, H. C.

Houghton, Douglas

Paget, R. T.

Wade, D. W.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Watkins, T. E.

Hoy, J. H.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Weitzman, D.

Hubbard, T. F.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayrshire)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Hunter, A. E.

Parker, J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Paton, John

Wilkins, W. A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Peart, T. F.

Willey, Frederick

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Pentland, N.

Williams, David (Neath)

Isaacs, Rt, Hon. G. A.

Poppiewell, E.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Janner, B.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Winterbottom, Richard

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefleid)

Probert, A. R.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Prootor, W. T.

Woof, R. E.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Randall, H. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Kenyon, C.

Rankin, John

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Redhead, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move in line 35, to leave out "specified therein" and to insert "allowed by the Tribunal".
I think it would be convenient if we could discuss at the same time the Government Amendment in line 39.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be in order, if it meets the convenience of the House.
Mr. Godber: I should first apologise to the House in that when a similar Amendment arose in Standing Committee I said that it was purely drafting. That was an error. I should not have said it, and when questions were raised I withdrew what I had said. The truth is that I had not the papers before me at the time and I thought that the Amendment was purely drafting. In fact we had it in mind that we should have to insert a proviso to meet this point. I had no intention to mislead the Committee.
362
This is a paving Amendment to the longer Amendment which takes the words of an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). When that Amendment was moved I said that I would consider it. I was satisfied that a case had been made out and I said that I would look at the wording suggested and would move an Amendment on Report. This is what we seek to do. The main Amendment makes it possible to give an extended period to the landlord where that is justified to enable him to carry out the work.
The wording is
"… will not allow sufficient time both for the completion of preliminary arrangements necessary or desirable in connection with the work required by the direction … and for the carrying out of the said work."
We merely want to ensure that if some special circumstance arises that would prevent the landlord from carrying out his duties under subsection (1) he shall

363
be given the opportunity of further time. For example, very severe weather could prevent him carrying out the work for a period, or difficulties could arise if some materials were required but their arrival was delayed. It would apply where there was a genuine case.
We do not seek in any way to let the landlord get out of his obligations at all, but we believe that a case has been made out, where a genuine need has been proved, for an extension of time, and we thought it right to provide for it. We felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) had made out his case in Committee, and it is for that reason that I now move the Amendment.
Mr. Champion: We thank the Parliamentary Secretary for moving his Amendment in such a fair way. We regard it as a reasonable one, and shall be happy to facilitate its passage.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I only want to thank my hon. Friend for carrying out his pledge in Committee in respect of the Amendment I then moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end to insert:
"and any loss or damage which the tenant may have suffered by reason of the failure of the landlord to carry out the work by the date specified in the order".
The Minister has just told us that the Government do not wish to do anything to assist a landlord to get out of his obligations, so I see no reason why they should not accept this Amendment. Surely, a tenant is entitled to justice and compensation if the neglect has been proved to be the fault of the landlord. One can easily imagine the case where a farmer has not been able to develop his herd of milk cows because of the failure of the landlord to provide the necessary buildings.
The attitude of hon. Members opposite to compensation is, surely, that in the case of, say, the National Coal Board or any of the other nationalised industries, they would insist on the maximum reasonable compensation being paid to any individual who suffered as a result of a nationalised industry's neglect. We wish this principle to be applied, and that is the whole purpose of this Amendment.
364
Why should the landlord escape from his liabilities when he has failed to carry out his legal obligations? I suggest that the Government should adopt exactly the same attitude here, and say that they propose to accept the Amendment because they do not wish to do anything to assist a landlord to get rid of his obligations.
Mr. Peart: I beg to second the Amendment.
In their previous Amendments we have had examples of the Government's desire to help the landlord, and my hon. Friends have been sympathetic. We hope that there will be some reciprocity, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be sympathetic to an Amendment which, after all, gives the tenant farmer some rights, and certain safeguards in certain circumstances.
If the landlord has failed to carry out his legal obligations we feel that the tenant should receive compensation. This Amendment should be supported by every hon. Member because we on these benches have been conciliatory to the landlord on previous Amendments and we merely ask hon. Members opposite to be sympathetic towards us. That is a reasonable demand. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be objective and will agree that the tenant should have security if any damage is caused to his holding or farm unit. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is a reasonable request.
Sir J. Duncan: I am at a loss to understand the reason for this Amendment. In Committee, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) moved an Amendment in exactly the same terms. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
"… I am advised that it is unnecessary to have an Amendment of this sort in order to obtain what the hon. Member wishes."
Later, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said:
"… in view of the otherwise sympathetic reply of the Minister, and in view of the fact that the case put shows that the legal phraseology is already contained in the Clause, I do not wish to press the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment"—[OFFICINT, REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1958; c. 779 and 785.]
Now the hon. Gentleman moves an Amendment in the same form on Report and it seems to me to be wasting the time of the House.
Mr. Peart: May I, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House ask a question? Surely it is the normal procedure when a matter is reported back from Committee that we look afresh at the arguments and that if, in the changed circumstances, hon. Members feel that something which should have been put into the Bill during the Committee stage has not been put into the Bill, it is right to look at the matter again. That is no reflection on my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It is merely in response to an intimation by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would be prepared to look afresh at the matter on Report.
Mr. Speaker: I understood that there was an undertaking to reconsider the matter.
Mr. Peart: Yes, that is so.
Mr. Godber: I undertook to look at this matter again merely to satisfy myself that the points that I had put forward were correct in the light of the comments that had been made. I am happy to give the assurance that I have looked into this matter and that I stand by what I said in Committee. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is quite right; there is no fresh point here.
What I said then was quite valid, that under the Clause the tenant already has security. As my hon. Friend has reminded the House, in column 779 of the OFFICIAL REPORT I am reported as having pointed out that under the Clause the tenant already has security.
While, as I pointed out in Committee, I am sympathetic with the desire of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in this respect, I am assured that there is no need to write in words of this kind because the tenant has his rights to claim damages against the landlord. I think that this meets the case which hon. Members have in mind.
9.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that because hon. Members on his side of the House had been sympathetic to provisions relating to the landlords we should be sympathetic to this Amendment, which relates to tenants. I would remind him that we inserted the Clause for the very reason that we are sympathetic to tenants. The Clause deals
366
with the help which is to be given to tenants, and nothing else. We have shown our sympathy to tenants quite conclusively.
I can only repeat what I said in Committee. I have looked at the matter again in the light of what was said then, and I still say that there is no need to include words of this nature, because a tenant already has his rights under the Clause. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Willey: I am not sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply is yet satisfactory. The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) surely realises that this was a matter which quite properly fell to be reconsidered by the Government after the Committee stage. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we also had a discussion about the word "same". We cannot discuss that now, because the Amendment relating to it has not been selected, but we had a discussion about the meaning of the Clause.
In Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also said:
"In any case it is covered and the tenant can sue for damages".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1458; c. 780.]
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is satisfied merely in the sense that the the tenant can recover damages I do not think that my hon. Friends will be content, because they are seeking to provide that the tribunal should be able to enforce this provision. If there is a difference of view between us we would stick to our point that it is unfair to oblige the tenant to rely upon his right to damages.
It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is saying that as he understands the Clause it would not interfere with the tenant's right to proceed for damages. My hon. Friends are seeking to go beyond that and say that the tribunal should be able to deal with the matter and that the tenant should, therefore, have a much simpler remedy.
Mr. Godber: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. It is important that we should be clear what we are saying. The hon. Member is quite right; I am saying that under the Clause any work covered by the tribunal's direction

367
would be regarded as incorporated in the tenancy agreement. That was what I thought I said; it is certainly what I intended to say. Therefore, the tenant will have the same right to claim damages from the landlord if he fails to carry out his obligation under a direction as he would if the landlord had failed to fulfil a term of the tenancy agreement itself. That is an adequate safeguard. If the landlord falls down on his duties the tenant has a clear statutory right. I would have thought that that was sufficient.
The hon. Member referred to the word "same". I must not go into that matter. I merely say that I have looked into it very carefully and I have been assured that there is no need to alter that point of drafting.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 4, line 39, at end insert:
(4) The Tribunal, on an application by the landlord, may extend or further extend the period specified in a direction under subsection (1) of this section if it is shown to their satisfaction that the period so specified, or that period as previously extended under this subsection, as the case may be, will not allow sufficient time both for the completion of preliminary arrangements necessary or desirable in connection with the work required by the direction (including, in appropriate cases, the determination of an application by the landlord for a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of that work) and for the carying out of the said work.—[Mr. Hare.]

Clause 5.—(TRANSFER TO LORD CHANCELLOR OF MINISTER'S FUNCTIONS AS RESPECTS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNALS.)
Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out from "The" to "functions" in line 3.
Would it be convenient if we discussed at the same time the next Amendment in line 4, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Hare: These Amendments go together and they are designed to try to meet the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The Bill at present singles out my power to make Orders under Section 73 (1) of the
368
1947 Act and thereafter refers to my other powers under that Section as "other functions". This may be a little misleading, since it might suggest that no Order-making power was included in the words "other functions", but, in fact, those functions include a power to make Orders under Section 73 (3) of the 1947 Act.
I think that the Amendments make clear that all my functions relating to tribunals under that Section will be transferred to the Lord Chancellor except in respect of the provision of officers and servants and the payment of salaries, fees and allowances. There is no change in substance and the Amendments are simply drafting Amendments.
Mr. Willey: On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself, I should like to thank the Minister for his assistance.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 4, leave out "that section" and insert:
"section seventy-three of the Act of 1947"—[Mr. Hare.]

Clause 6.—(PROVISIONS AS TO SUCCESSION TO HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND.)
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, after "by", to insert "or regarded as adopted by."
The Minister will remember that this point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in Committee. I do not think that it is a controversial point. The purpose of the Amendment is to ask the Minister whether he is able to take into account not only children legally adopted, but those children who for all practical purposes are considered as adopted.
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The word "adopted" has a meaning in law, but the words "regarded as adopted"—although they have been used in an English statute, I think wrongly—leave the matter entirely open whether and by whom the child is "regarded as adopted" and I suggest that there is grave doubt whether A or B regard the child as adopted or whether the court will

369
regard the child as adopted. I believe that the inclusion of "adopted child" in the family is a solution which ought to be kept in the Bill.
Mr. Willey: Without offence, may I say that it is not entirely satisfactory to be told by a Scotsman that there are words in English legislation which are not entirely satisfactory. However, as there is nothing between us in endeavouring to meet this point, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and consider whether it is possible to devise words to meet the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am sure that the Government will do that, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, at the beginning, to insert:
"Except where the landlord or the tenant is a limited company and".
The Amendment is designed to cover a point which has been raised with me by tenant farmers, who impressed upon me the extent to which company farming is now engaged in. We all know that land ownership is widely practised by companies and that there is a good deal of company farming. I think it fair to say that companies which go in for farming normally acquire the land and so are owner-occupiers of the land which they farm. That is not always the case, however, and I believe that there are now a fair number of companies which are tenants of agricultural land.
It would seem that the Clause has no application to companies. Subsection (3), which it is sought to amend, certainly cannot have any application to a company. The tenant farmer has hitherto bequeathed his tenancy in Scotland normally to a member of his family, but the security hitherto enjoyed by a member of the family is now being removed by subsection (3). A company can hardly bequeath the tenancy to a member of its family or to any other person, so that the company, it appears, would continue in the tenancy ad infinitum. There is no way of terminating the tenancy of the company, but only of terminating the tenancy of a family farmer.
If the subsection has no application to a company tenant, it has been suggested
370
to me that it might not be a bad thing deliberately, by an Amendment, to take the company landlord and the company tenant out of the scope of the Clause. That is what the Amendment proposes and I hope very much that the Government will accept it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
Lord John Hope: It is true that where a company was in the position of a tenant, it could not die. To that extent, it is in a totally different position from, so to speak, a human tenant. On the other hand, where a company is in the position of landlord there is no reason whatever in logic why the provisions of subsection (3) and of the Clause should not apply.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) does not need me to repeat the arguments, on policy reasons, for the subsection—we discussed them in Committee; he will, however, agree that on their merits they would have to apply when a tenant died if the landlord so wished: in other words, if the landlord wished the legatee or the heir-at-law not to succeed to anything more than the remainder of the lease. Obviously, there is not the slightest difference whether the landlord is a limited company or a private person. In other words, the position of the limited company qua tenant and qua landlord is not on all fours, as, I am sure, the hon. Member will recognise.
Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that the case made for subsection (3), and, indeed, for the whole Clause, was the case that was made for the landlord who had spent money on his farm and who might at a future date wish to get possession of the tenant-occupied farm for a member of his family or for some other person? Was it not the case that he, as an individual, might wish to recover or to bring into his possession this farm, which had been left on a contract of tenancy or a lease, to be continued in perpetuity? When we argued the Clause, was it not envisaged that the landlord was a private individual and not a limited company?
9.45 p.m.
Lord John Hope: On the whole, it would be so, but it does not make the slightest difference to the intention or the

371
working of the Clause. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reason for doing what we wish to do is not at all solely that the landlord may want to take the land in hand. There may be a desire for a change of tenant, and there is no reason why a limited company should not have that right, just as private landlords have the right, to change tenancies at the end of the contracts. It is exactly the same for both parties to the contract at the end of the contract, whether they be limited companies or private owners.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the position if the tenant who dies is a minority
shareholder in a limited liability company?
Lord John Hope: The tenant is a shareholder in the company?
Mr. Hughes: A minority shareholder.
Lord John Hope: I should need notice of that question.
Mr. Ede: But this is the last chance that we have got.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 214.

Division No. 174.]

AYES

[9.48 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Orbach, M.

Albu, A. H.

Hamilton, W. W.

Oswald, T.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hannan, W.

Owen, W. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Paget, R. T.

Awbery, S. S.

Hastings, S.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Baird, J

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Balfour, A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parker, J.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Peart, T. F.

Blackburn, F.

Holman, P.

Pentland, N.

Blenkinsop, A.

Houghton, Douglas

Poppiewell, E.

Blyton, W. R.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Boardman, H.

Hoy, J. H.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hubbard, T. F.

Probert, A. R.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Proctor, W. T.

Bewies, F. G.

Hunter, A. E.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Brockway, A. F.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Randall, H. E.

Rankin, John

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Redhead, E. C.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Rhodes, H.

Burks, W. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Janner, B.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Carmichael, J.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Champion, A. J.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Royle, C.

Clunie, J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Coldrick, W.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Skeffington, A. M.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, C.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

King, Dr. H. M.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lawson, G. M.

Snow, J. W.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Ledger, R. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Sparks, J. A.

Deer, G.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Spriggs, Leslie

Delargy, H. J.

Logan, D. G.

Steele, T.

Dodds, N. N.

MacColl, J. E.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

MacDermot, Niall

Stones, W. (Consett)

Dye, S.

McGhee, H. G.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McInnes, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

McLeavy, Frank

Taylor, Bernerd (Mansfield)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Finch, H. J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Fitch, E. A.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Fletcher, Eric

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Usborne, H. C.

Forman, J. C.

Mason, Roy

Watkins, T. E.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

Weitzman, D.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Gibson, C. W.

Mort, D. L.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Moss, R.

Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Greenwood, Anthony

Moyle, A.

Wilkins, W. A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Willey, Frederick

Grey, C. F.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams, David (Neath)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E)

Woof, R. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Winterbottom, Richard

Yates, V (Ladywood)

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Zilliacus, K.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Grimond, J.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Aitken, W. T.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Neave, Airey

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Gurden, Harold

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Armstrong, C. W.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Atkins, H. E.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Oakshott, H. D.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Hay, John

Osborne, C.

Balniel, Lord

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Page, R. G.

Barlow, Sir John

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Barter, John

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Partridge, E.

Batsford, Brian

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Peel, W. J.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hesketh, R. F.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pott, H. P.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Holt, A. F.

Powell, J. Enoch

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hope, Lord John

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bishop, F. P.

Hornby, R. P.

Ramsden, J. E.

Black, C. W.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Rawlinson, Peter

Body, R. F.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Redmayne, M.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Renton, D. L. M.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hurd, A. R.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Braine, B. R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hyde, Montgomery

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Russell, R. S.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Bryan, P.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Sharples, R. C.

Burden, F. F. A.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Shepherd, William

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Speir, R. M.

Cole, Norman

Keegan, D.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Cooke, Robert

Kershaw, J. A.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Kirk, P. M.

Storey, S.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Lagden, G. W.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Leather, E. H. C.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Crowder, Sir Jonn (Finchley)

Leavey, J. A.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Cunningham, Knox

Leburn, W. G.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Currie, G. B. H.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Davidson, Viscountess

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Teeling, W.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Temple, John M.

Deedes, W. F.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Donaldson, Cmd. C. E. McA.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Drayson, G. B.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

McKibbin, Alan

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vane, W. M. F.

Duncan, Sir James

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Wade, D. W.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Finlay, Graeme

Maddan, Martin

Wall, Patrick

Fisher, Nigel

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Fort, R.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Webbe, Sir H.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Webster, David

Gammans, Lady

Marshall, Douglas

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Mathew, R.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Godber, J. B.

Mawby, R. L.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Gower, H. R.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Wood, Hon. R.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Medllcott, Sir Frank

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Green, A.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gresham Cooke, R.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Mr. Brooman-White.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move. That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
Mr. Hare: We have made extremely good progress today and if the right hon. Gentleman could give me a reasonable assurance that we shall be able to complete the Report stage and Third Reading tomorrow I would be quite happy to accept his Motion. I think that that would be the general wish of the House. Naturally, I am interested in securing the business.
Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that the Government will not suspend the Standing Order tomorrow night, I can give him the assurance he seeks.
Mr. Hare: That is certainly good enough for me.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MARTIN REDMAYNE in the Chair]

MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES (USE OF TRADE LICENCES FOR COLLECTION AND DELIVERY OF VEHICLES)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to limit the cases in which trade licences under section ten of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, may be used for the collection or delivery of mechanically propelled vehicles.—[Mr. Simon.]
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
9.58 pm.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
This Order is subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and is made under the authority of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. It amends, for the first time, the Furniture Industry Development Council Order, 1948, which set up a Development Council for the furniture industry.
To enable the Council to meet its expenses, Article 6 of the 1948 Order gives the Council authority, with the approval of the Board of Trade, to impose levies on parsons manufacturing domestic furniture. Paragraph (3) of Article 6 provides that any charge shall be computed so as to yield as nearly as possible an equal sum in each period of 12 calendar months, but not so as to yield more than £75,000 in any period of three years.
Since the Council was set up nearly ten years ago its expenses have increased. The limit imposed by Parliament on the maximum amount of the levy, an average of £25,000 a year, is no longer sufficient to meet the cost of the work which the Council considers to be necessary and which the industry wishes to be done. The Council therefore asked the Board of Trade to seek parliamentary approval of an increase in the maximum amount of the levy which may be charged on the manufacturers.
The Board of Trade consulted organisations representative of the manufacturers and of the workpeople engaged in the industry. The trade unions recommended an increase in the maximum amount of the levy from £25,000 per annum to £33,000. The manufacturers have recommended an increase to £30,000 a year and that figure, as the highest common factor of the advice offered to the Board of Trade, has been included in the draft Order. The Amendment

377
only increases the maximum amount of the levy which may be approved by the Board of Trade. The Furniture Development Council will continue to have to obtain the approval of the Board of Trade for any levy which it wishes to impose within the maximum amount.
In this Order we further propose that the maximum amount which may be charged shall be fixed for one year instead of for three years, as was provided for in 1948. This change, which is approved by the trade organisations concerned, will bring the conditions governing the levy into line with those which regulate the levy imposed by the only other Development Council, namely, the Cotton Board. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Order.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I only want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. He is requesting the House to agree to an increase in the amount of the levy that the Furniture Development Council may raise. I take it from this that it is the view of the Government that the Council is doing valuable and useful work in the industry. That appeared to be implied in what the hon. Gentleman said, but he did not say so explicitly, and we should like to have it clear that this is the view of the Government. It is certainly our view, though it may be that some of my hon. Friends who are particularly familiar with this industry may have more specific views as to which of its activities might be extended rather than others.
I will only add that I hope this is not the only form of assistance and encouragement to the furniture industry that the Government have in mind. If we were to consult those in the industry, I think they would say that from their point of view far more would be done to relieve it in its present rather depressed condition by some alleviation of the present restrictions on hire purchase than by an increase in this levy. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the restrictions on hire purchase are particularly stringent and were specially hard on the industry. Therefore, it is timely, at a moment when the Government are in certain respects easing up on their economic policy—as, for instance, in the Chancellor's decision to raise the initial allowances—that the furniture industry should at least inquire
378
how long it is to be held in the particularly severe grip in which it has languished for over twelve months.
So I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, can we take it that the Government regard this Council as a valuable institution, and have they anything in mind, in addition to this very minor measure, to encourage and stimulate the industry?
10.4 p.m.
Mr. Austen Albu: Whilst I wish to support my right hon. Friend in the questions he has put to the Parliamentary Secretary about relief for the furniture industry from the present excessive restrictions imposed on it by the Government, I would probably be out of order if I pursued that too far.
My right hon. Friend asked the Minister whether the Government thought the work done by the Council was valuable. I assume the answer must be "Yes" or they would not be continuing it in existence. I am certain the work it has done in the ten years of its existence has been of great value to the industry. It introduced the industry for the first time to the ideas of research, and there is no doubt that it has improved the products of the furniture industry, certainly among those firms who have taken the trouble to take advantage of its research work. When the Utility scheme was abolished, it would have been almost impossible to provide the public with any standards if it had not been for the work of the research department of the Furniture Development Council.
I am glad that, in addition to the levy, research work is being supported by a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. One of the reasons for the increase in the income of the Council is that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research expects the industry to support its own research work, if the Government are going to support it as well. One of the reasons, apart from the increase in competition to which the industry is now subjected—and, incidentally, competition from abroad is increasing as well—is that this increased competition undoubtedly makes it necessary for the industry not only to increase its production efficiency but also to improve its standard of designs.
At present, there are increasing numbers of new materials, new types of timber and

379
forms of construction and new types of finish which are used in the industry. Undoubtedly research is needed for their application, and the industry, especially smaller firms, needs guidance in the standards by which these new materials should be applied. Apart from the research work and the information work following from it—which I wish were supported by more firms—I wish that more firms were members of the Research and Information Committee of the Council than is reported in its annual report.
Of course, there is work on training, particularly in the fields of management and supervision, method study and costing. I believe that about 70 firms have introduced the Development Council costing scheme, which has raised the whole level of manufacture in the industry. Like myself, the Parliamentary Secretary is more used to working in metal, and problems of working in timber in some cases are much more difficult. The problems in the upholstery section are even greater. It is interesting to see that the Research Department of the Council has undertaken research into the upholstery section, and the confidence displayed by firms in the Council is shown by the grant by Dunlop of £1,000 a year for three years for research into furniture upholstery.
I am glad that the Government are continuing the life of the Council and giving it power to raise an increased levy which I am sure will be of great benefit to the industry in the very difficult times through which at present it is passing.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Victor Collins: I, too, am a strong supporter of the principle of development councils for industry. In fact, I remember that in the debate on the Bill which brought these councils into form in 1948 I was one of those who advocated that they should have stronger and more widespread powers in order to become more effective. It may be that because they have not those wide powers—this Council, in particular, operates on a very small budget—they are not nearly as effective as I should like to see them.
I should declare an interest in this matter, as I am one of the contributors to the £30,000. May I hasten to add that I do not begrudge in any way the increase
380
asked for, which cannot rebut the increase in costs during the last ten years. A figure of £30,000 does not enable much research work to be done. I wish to add a few things to those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in the way of directing the Minister's mind to whether the remit of this Council is sufficiently comprehensive, or whether steps are being taken to direct the minds of its members effectively along those lines upon which it can most assist the industry.
I am aware that it is in consultation both with employers and representatives of trade unions in these matters, but, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), it has confined itself almost exclusively to research. Although that research has in many ways assisted and benefited sections of the industry, particularly those sections and firms which have shown themselves willing and able to benefit from the results of research, I feel that the industry as a whole would be far more interested, shall I say, in finding ways, through the Development Council, of helping firms to be more effective as an industry and more able to assist their living as an industry, than perhaps in the antics of the lesser boll weevil.
I find it very sad that in those ten years since the Furniture Industry Development Council has been in operation the development in the industry has been more or less all one way—and all the wrong way—in so far as volume is concerned. For example, a very few years before 1948 the number of firms in the industry was over 4,000 and now it is fewer than 2,000. In recent years, the decline in employment and in the number of skilled craftsmen employed—craftsmen who cannot very well be replaced—is catastrophic. I do not know of any other industry in the country where there has been a similar decline in the employment of skilled craftsmen. I am not merely talking about those who are unemployed, but those who have been driven out of the industry because there is no effective employment for them.
I should have thought that the Board of Trade might well have directed the attention of the Council to avenues in which it might more effectively help the industry as a whole. As the Minister is well aware, the Economist Intelligence

381
Unit recently conducted an invaluable survey of the industry, which, I am sure he will agree, gives an extremely full and comprehensive picture of the industry as it is today, the causes of its decline and suggestions for its improvement. That survey was not carried out by the Development Council. It was not financed by the Council, but by the Retail Furniture Federation, out of its our resources.
There is also the question of export markets. I am not suggesting that furniture is a commodity which lends itself readily to export. There is, of course, the difficulty of bulk and of packing, and the difficulty that most countries have indigenous industry suited to their particular civilisation or standards of living.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that the hon. Member is going very wide of the Order.
Mr. Collins: I was suggesting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these were matters to which the Furniture Industry Development Council, through the Board of Trade, might direct its inquiries in order to secure the objective of development in the industry.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Order deals with charges, the maximum permissible amount.
Mr. Collins: The Board of Trade, as I understand, is asking for powers through this Order to increase the amount of money available to the Furniture Industrial Development Council so that it may better carry on its work. I was suggesting to the Minister that these were some of the things on which it might spend money for the better development of the furniture industry. I hope that I shall be in order in suggesting that the Council might pursue research into the possibility of increasing the export market for furniture.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Order deals only with the amount of money to be raised.
Mr. Collins: Naturally, I will abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should have thought that it would have been in order, when we are suggesting that more money should be made available to this Council, which has as its objective the development of the furniture industry, to say how that money should be spent.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was originally decided, and now we are asking for more money.
Mr. Jay: On a point of order. Presumably it is in order to discuss the purpose for which the Council wants the money and the way in which it might be spent.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but I allowed a good deal of latitude before I stopped the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins).
Mr. Collins: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will leave the point about exports.
I also suggest to the Minister that one of the difficulties which the industry is now experiencing is in connection with the dumping of furniture from Iron Curtain countries. These and other matters are points to which I at least feel that the attention of the Council ought to be directed.
I feel that the Council should be a strong and good force for the industry. It should be an example of what can be achieved and an example to other industries where the principle might be extended and developed. A great deal of good could be done. I hope that this money will be spent in defined ways of developing the industry and helping the manufacturers to get a living, as well as helping the skilled workers to obtain and keep employment in the industry in which they have their skill rather than being obliged to go to other industries.
I hope that the money will be spent in this way, that the Council will flourish and that the suggestions which I have made to the Minister will be noted in the right quarter.
Mr. Erroll: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the points which have been made in this short but interesting debate. Replying to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), it is true that this Order increases the maximum total of the yield which may be raised, but it will not of itself necessarily increase the rate levied. That is a matter which is fixed from year to year.
It is fair to say that the Government approve of the Furniture Development Council. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, we should not

383
be putting the Order forward if we disapprove. On the other hand, it must be recognised that this is a Council which the industry as a whole supports, and if it wishes the Council to continue its activities we feel that the least we can do is to give the Council the necessary powers to raise the money which it requires for its activities.
Mr. Jay: Presumably the Government have a view of their own and consider that the work which the Council is doing is valuable.
Mr. Erroll: Most certainly. I do not want to appear to be too non-committal. The Government approve of the work which is being done. I took an opportunity not long ago to visit the Council's research laboratories in North London to satisfy myself about the work which they were doing. I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Edmonton, that it is sometimes more complicated to work in wood than in metal.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) referred to rather useless research into wood pests, but I can assure him that that is valuable work to do if it affects the product—good domestic furniture. The hon. Member for Edmonton spoke of the need to improve standards of design and new materials. An important part of the Council's work is to make sure that the exciting new materials which are increasingly becoming available are made known, particularly to the smaller firms, who might otherwise not have an opportunity to keep abreast with all that is going on in this progressive world.
May I say in reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury that I have read the Economist survey with great interest. I do not think it matters in the least that it was not produced by the Council. I am pleased that a section of the furniture industry took the initiative to publish its own survey on the prospects of its industry.
The hon. Gentleman also made a number of points about work that the Furniture Development Council might undertake. I am sure that the Council will study his speech with great interest, and adopt his suggestions, where they are practicable. I hope that the House will now approve the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

GRAIG HOSPITAL, PONTYPRIDD (MEDICAL STAFFING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir G. Wills.]
10.21 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Pearson: I sought this opportunity to raise the matter of the insufficiency of the medical staffing at the Graig Hospital, Pontypridd, because of a widely-held view that the time is overdue for this hospital to have a full-time medical staff. The hospital management committee, too, has held such a view for some time past, and repeated representations have been made to the Welsh Regional Hospital Board—all to no avail.
Like most hospitals of its vintage, the Graig Hospital is a barrack-like building. On the other hand, since the National Health Service Act, 1946, I am conscious that much good work accomplished has been directly due to the quality of the people serving the hospital. All honour to those who have done so much.
In the main, the hospital is for chronic sick, and caters for a thickly-populated industrial area. The hospital load itself is, no doubt, coloured by the consequent social and environmental factors. There are 283 or more beds, of which 180 are classified for the chronic sick, 64 for general medicine, and the rest for other illnesses. However, the position of the chronic sick is so desperate that the beds are most probably filled with that type of patient. One is pressingly aware of the urgency of this problem, because of an ageing population and because present-day social trends make it increasingly difficult for people who are seriously ill over a long period to be cared for in their own homes.
At present, in this hospital of at least 283 beds, two local, busy and, I may say, very respected general practitioners are giving eight sessions each week, Which amounts to about 28 hours. When I

385
raised the matter at Question Time on 20th May, the Parliamentary Secretary informed me that an additional consultant had been appointed. I must point out, however, that such a consultant is to give only one session of three hours per week. To me, that has just a flavour of paint and unreality. With this totally inadequate concession, the Welsh Hospital Board propose to defer consideration of any further appointment pending experience of the effect of this increase in staff, and the result of the general review of hospitals for the chronic sick now in progress—in that area, I take it, or in the whole of Wales.
I submit that the effect of this appointment is easily assessed, as it means only three hours a week of the consultant's time. Clearly, therefore, it will not fulfil the medical needs of the hospital.
On the question of the general review of the services for the chronic sick and, possibly, the acceptance of the urgent need for complete revision of these services, what hope does the Parliamentary Secretary hold out that money will be made available for a full-time medical staff and at least of a consultant geriatrician at an early date? The point at issue is that of an adequate medical staff to investigate the condition of each sick person, with ancillary staff to ensure whatever degree of rehabilitation is possible.
So many of the chronic sick at Graig Hospital are the silent people who have not spoken yet. They are grateful for the kindness and the skill shown but would appreciate further arrangements for a periodic medical check-up. My concern is to improve the facilities, and though one might be critical, this does not involve failing to give credit where it is properly due. Is not the present part-time medical staff too hard-pressed to give the detailed attention needed? Is the care of the chronic sick in this area the Cinderella of the National Health Service Act, 1946? Certainly the medical staffing has been niggardly, and its improvement is essential. For the patients and their near ones there is the need that they should feel that behind the sick is the fullest medical provision possible.
Much of the value of hospital treatment like that at the Graig Hospital, if it meets the needs and aspirations of
386
the family and friends, is of great value to the morale of a large industrial area like this. Proper geriatric treatment is sadly lacking, though I am glad to admit that nursing and food are first-class.
I want to put a question on the wide variation in the standards of medical staffing between this and similar types of hospitals. What variation in the nature and amount of work done is there between that in the Graig Hospital, with over 283 beds, with only a part-time medical staff, and, say, St. David's Hospital, Cardiff, where there are only 194 beds for the chronic sick, with three full time medical officers, that can warrant the denial much longer of a full-time medical staff in the Graig Hospital?
A more vigorous interest is developing in the hospital care of the chronic sick in the area concerned. Relatives and friends want the reassurance which is so helpful in giving a sense of satisfaction. I believe they are entitled to have it. I am very disappointed that the Welsh Regional Hospital Board has given such faint indications, judging by the staffing standards, of fulfilling the Ministry's aims in the geriatric services and the care of the chronic sick as set out in the memorandum of 7th October, 1957. Much firmer lines of advance should be forthcoming for this hospital.
I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary can give me real hope that something will soon be done in the matters that I have brought to the notice of the House. I feel from the depth of my heart that it is a sore and pitiless prospect if there cannot be provided for a hospital of this nature containing over 283 beds a full-time medical staff.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) has presented a very strong case to the Minister for his very serious consideration. It requires no eloquent plea in the wake of what my hon. Friend has said, as the facts speak for themselves. If only the House could appreciate the psychology that has been centred around this hospital for many years prior to the introduction of the Health Service. There has been a very strong prejudice against the hospital owing to its antecedents.

387
The local hospital management committee has been very much aware of this fact and has concentrated a great deal of its efforts in attempting to break down that prejudice which has been lodged in the minds of the people in the valleys who avoid the hospital. The committee has succeeded to a very large extent in overcoming the reluctance on the part of people to go to the hospital because of its past reputation.
The hospital management committee should give far more serious consideration and weight to the knowledge of the people on the spot and should attempt to meet what in my opinion, particularly in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, is a very modest request.
One of the weaknesses of the present administration of the hospital—and I speak with the greatest respect for the two medical practitioners who have been elected to work at the hospital—is that it cannot work very successfully. Here we have two general practitioners in a very largely industrialised area in South Wales who from general reports about which we read are so much involved in their general practice that they have little time for leisure.
If that is the case—and that is the conclusion one must come to having read so many reports about the arduous responsibilities of general practitioners—these two doctors can give the attention required from them at the hospital at the expense of their general practice. They are therefore faced with a dual loyalty, a loyalty to their general practice and a loyalty to the hospital. Quite frankly, their first priority must always be their general practice, because that depends on them giving their patients the best attention possible. Therefore, there is a weakness in preserving the present administration. With all the best intentions in the world, these two doctors cannot give a very satisfactory service to this hospital if they are deeply involved in their own practices. For that reason, like my hon. Friend I am of the opinion that the present situation should be altered.
I do not know what motives or influences bear upon the regional hospital board in this matter. I hope that it is not on grounds of economy that it is
388
refusing to grant this modest request. Unless the situation is altered the prejudice which still exists will harden. I have had letters from some of my constituents who are patients and complain that they do not receive the medical attention and treatment to which they are entitled. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the point. We want to encourage the people in our valleys to show a greater willingness to enter the hospital when the necessary facilities are available. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will do something to prevail upon the hospital board to alter its attitude.
10.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am obliged to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) for the agreeable manner in which he has raised this matter, which is of great importance not only in his constituency but also in the surrounding area.
The Graig Hospital at Pontypridd is, as he has said, a former public assistance institution, with 276 staffed hospital beds. Of these hospital beds, 160 are allocated for long-stay chronic sick—and the bur-then of the hon. Member's argument, and also of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) was that the elderly people were not being sufficiently provided for—64 for general medicine, 13 for skin diseases and nine for mental cases. There is also a separate block with 30 beds for children, which is now little used. The average occupancy during 1957 was as low as seven, and consideration is now being given to putting these beds to other uses. The building is an old one and is seriously in need of modernisation. Perhaps it would be a crumb of comfort to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends if I say that the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, in its forward planning, has earmarked £50,000 of capital development money for this purpose.
Most of the argument this evening turns on the staffing problem—whether the hospital, in relation to the calls made upon it and the comparable services elsewhere, is adequately staffed. The present medical staffing consists of two consultant physicians—one recently appointed to cover the field of geriatrics as well as

389
general medicine—and two general practitioner clinical assistants. The consultants between them devote two half-day sessions a week to the Graig Hospital, and the clinical assistants eight sessions. In addition, members of the specialist medical staff of the group visit the hospital as required.
It is true that as long ago as 1954 the hospital management committee put forward a proposal for the appointment of a whole-time medical officer of senior status, relating the proposal particularly to the needs of the chronic sick. Meanwhile, approval had been given to the appointment of an additional consultant physician for the group; and the regional hospital board's consultant adviser, following a survey of the needs of the group, recommended, as the hon. Member knows, that the committee's proposal should be deferred until experience had been gained of the results of this consultant appointment.
In making appointments of this character, the regional hospital board naturally has to consider the needs of Wales as a whole, and it was not until this year that it found itself financially able to fill the Pontypridd and Rhondda post.
Reference has been made to the organisation of geriatric services as a whole—
Mr. Pearson: Will the hon. Gentleman give some attention to the difference in the staffing between the hospital I named—St. David's Hospital, Cardiff—and the Graig Hospital, where there are three full-time appointments for a much smaller number of beds?
Mr. Thompson: Indeed I will, but if we compare those two particular hospitals we are not comparing like with like. The Graig Hospital, as I have shown and as the hon. Member well understands, is largely for the chronic sick, but St. David's, Cardiff, has 262 beds for the chronic sick and general medicine and 258 for other specialties, which means that only about half of its effort is devoted to the chronic sick. Therefore, a comparison between one and the other is not strictly valid.
However, as I was about to say, following a nation-wide survey of the services for the aged chronic sick, a circular was sent last year to hospital
390
authorities and to local health authorities—this was the circular to which the hon. Member referred—suggesting that they might act in concert in setting up comprehensive geriatric services covering domiciliary as well as hospital facilities for their respective areas.
In pursuance of that suggestion, the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, through a special sub-committee set up for the purpose, is preparing plans on which it intends to consult local health authorities and others with a view to the launching of services of this kind. I make a point of this, because I would not wish it to be thought that the needs of the elderly chronic sick in this area have in any sense gone by default.
The consultant physician recently appointed for Pontypridd and Rhondda has a record of special interest and successful work in this field elsewhere, and his advent opened up the prospect of an early start in this work in this area. With this prospect before it, the regional hospital board has, wisely I think, decided to await a report from him, when he is in a position to make one, before taking any steps to this end. Among the matters thus in abeyance is that of additional medical staff. By this is meant not only staff for the Graig Hospital, but for a geriatric service in general for the locality.
It is only fair to say that the newcomer took up his post only seven weeks ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect him or the regional hospital board, after so brief an interval, to make any pronouncement until a little more time has elapsed.
Mr. Pearson: How long is that "little more time"?
Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Member will give me more time, I hope to come to that.
The hon. Member made a point of comparison with other hospitals. If medical staffing is to be judged by comparison with other establishments, there is a difficulty in that no hospitals are to be found in South Wales, I am informed, closely comparable with the Graig.
Its function, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is preponderantly the care of the chronic sick, and 160 out of its 276 beds are devoted to this purpose.

391
It does not cater, as other hospitals do, for other specialties over a wide range, and it has no out-patients' department. For a fair comparison one has to look further afield, to West Wales and North Wales, where there are three hospitals, each catering for up to 150 chronic sick patients and nothing else. Their present medical staffing is roughly half that at the Graig.
Therefore, we should not make too much of the point that the Graig is worse off in its medical staffing as compared with hospitals doing the same kind of work. But I fully accept that the criterion of comparison is not necessarily the last word, especially in view of the developments to be desired in geriatric services, and the Welsh Regional Hospital Board has by no means closed its mind to the hospital management committee's proposal.
I cannot help thinking that the reasonable conclusion is that this question, which may be more far-reaching than the hospital management committee has supposed, should not be hastily decided but should be held open a little longer for the benefit of the specialist advice which the board may expect to receive when the consultant has had time to assess the needs of the hospital and the area.
The hon. Member made a point about the attitude of the hospital management committee to this and its earlier feelings in the matter. I am bound to say that the Committee's attitude lias not been wholly consistent. As recently as 3rd April last, it informed the regional hospital board that it would be content to await the outcome of the board's further consideration, adding that its
392
medical staff committee might have something else to say. Shortly afterwards the medical staff committee also decided to wait and see. With this decision before it, the hospital management committee early this month resolved unanimously, so I am informed, to press for the immediate appointment of a full-time doctor for the Graig.
One can well understand that every hospital management committee worth its salt wants the best possible deal it can secure for the hospitals under its control. That is absolutely human and understandable, but my whole point in this debate is that the committee concerned cannot and should not consider its problems in isolation from the needs of the other hospital services which are necessary in the area, I say to the committee, through the hon. Member who has raised this point with great fairness and moderation, "Give this experiment a chance to work out. Let us have the benefit of the recommendation which will be placed before the board."
The hon. Gentleman has asked me how long will that be. I cannot say precisely—perhaps six months or perhaps as much as a year. But let us get the benefit of what this appointment has set out to do. As I said earlier on, the mind of the Welsh Regional Board is by no means closed to the hospital management committee's proposal, but I think it will be able to arrive at a fair and more appropriate conclusion if it has the benefit of the results of this experimental appointment behind it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Hadrian's Wall
  Hadrian's Wall
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Scientific Attaché, Moscow
  Scientific Attaché, Moscow
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  European Free Trade Area
  European Free Trade Area
  Lanark and Carluke
  Lanark and Carluke
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hire Purchase (Bank Credits)
  Hire Purchase (Bank Credits)
  London Bus Dispute (Transport)
  London Bus Dispute (Transport)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Petrol Filling Stations
  Petrol Filling Stations
  Houses, Cwmbran (Sales)
  Houses, Cwmbran (Sales)
KENYA
  Lake Victoria (Fishery Regulations)
  Lake Victoria (Fishery Regulations)
UGANDA
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Coffee Industry (Insecticides)
  Coffee Industry (Insecticides)
ZANZIBAR
  Export Crops
  Export Crops
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  West Highlands and Islands
  West Highlands and Islands
POST OFFICE
  Office Facilities, Tettenhall
  Office Facilities, Tettenhall
EMPLOYMENT
  Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley
  Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley
  Hertfordshire Agricultural Advisory Panel
  Hertfordshire Agricultural Advisory Panel
SCOTLAND
  New Bridge, Kirkfieldbank
  New Bridge, Kirkfieldbank
  Shops, East Kilbride
  Shops, East Kilbride
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
React 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, there are a great number of Amendments left over from yesterday on our Business for to-day on the Local Government Bill, and after discussions through the usual channels it has been arranged to adjourn for dinner at about 7.15 and to meet again at about 8.30, in order to conclude the Committee stage.

TRADE WITH CHINA
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg 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 are in a position to make a statement regarding the conclusions arrived at anent the China embargo at, the recent meetings of "Cocom" in Paris.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the discussions in "Cocom" on strategic controls—if the noble Viscount will forgive me, I would remind him that there is no longer a separate China embargo—have not yet
70
been concluded. For this reason I regret that I am unable to make a statement to-day.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. May I ask him this further question? Having regard to the fact that the discussions in Cocom "have now been going on for at least seven months, and that well over one hundred meetings have taken place, will he bear in mind that every week's delay in announcing the result means a loss to British industry?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are fully aware, I think I can say of the losses, such as they are, to British industry in any delay that there may be in announcing the result of this present review of the controls. Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to this and are most desirous that these results should be announced at the earliest possible moment. However, as the noble Viscount knows, there are fourteen other countries involved, and although we are trying our best—in fact, asking that the result should be laid before your Lordships at the earliest possible moment, the earliest possible moment, unfortunately, has not yet arrived.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not proving to be the case that this long delay in dealing with these controls is having a very grave political effect internationally; that it is turning the great potential economic position of China more and more to the confined Communist world, and, therefore, instead of working to spread all the good feeling required, which comes with the interchange of trade, has made the position much more politically difficult?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Viscount, I think that he is exaggerating the situation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether it is correct, as reported in the Press this morning, that there is an order for £1 million worth of tractors pending from this country?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that, not having had prior notice of that question, I am unable to answer it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But are not these the matters that we discuss at "Cocom"—namely, British trade and British orders?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question: Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the report in to-day's Times giving the results of a certain inquiry by the Federation of British Industries into international trade, and to the statement in The Times itself that the inquiry shows that no less than 76 per cent. of the firms concerned reported that they were working below capacity and that new orders have been declining? That being so, does it not show the urgent necessity of allowing British industries early and extensive entry into the China markets?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the fact that there is no statutory or treaty obligation upon Her Majesty's Government not to act independently in this matter if they think that the delay becomes unduly protracted? Will they therefore consider whether the time has not arrived to act independently in this case?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as I have already said on previous occasions, it is hoped that the results of the review which is now going on will come out during the early part of the summer. I have no reason to alter that remark, and therefore I do not think that the noble Lord's remarks apply.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, would the noble Earl be good enough to answer my question—namely, is it or is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have a clear right to act independently if they think fit, without any treaty or other obligation being infringed?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I do not find myself in the position of having to answer that question. It is a hypothetical question—
LORD OGMORE: No, it is factual.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: —and it is not down on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is it not a fact that last May the Government did, in
72
effect, act independently when they reduced the China embargo to the level of the Russian embargo?
LORD REA: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that the result will be out in the early part of the summer, is he referring to next year, in view of the fact that midsummer has already arrived?

TELEVISING OF THE STATE OPENING
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 any representations have been made to them on the question of televising the proceedings at the State Opening of the next Session of Parliament; what is their attitude to the matter; and whether they would seek the opinion of the House and another place, and, if agreement is general, whether they would propose to this House an Address to Her Majesty seeking the necessary permission.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, suggestions have been made from time to time that the State Opening of Parliament should be televised. Her Majesty's Government have this question under consideration at the present time. I am therefore not in a position to give the noble Viscount an Answer to-day.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Could he indicate at all after what interval I might be allowed to put down another Question on the same subject?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it depends how long the consideration lasts.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But it will be before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I cannot pledge myself, but I am always anxious to meet the noble Viscount, so far as I can.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
2.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in the course of the debate on Monday of last week on the subject of the new Standing Order on Leave of Absence, I undertook that the text of the letter which it was my duty to write to certain Peers in pursuance of the Orders of the House would on that day be reported to the House. The letter was despatched yesterday, and its text will be available to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT and in the Minutes of Proceedings.
The text of the letter was as follows:
HOUSE OF LORDS,
S.W.I.
23rd June, 1958.
MY LORD,

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
1. Your Lordship will be aware that during the course of this Parliament a Select Committee of the House of Lords has sat under the chairmanship of Lord Swinton to consider the powers of the House in relation to the attendance of its Members. The Swinton Committee reported on the 24th January, 1956, and its Report was considered and its conclusions relating to the attendance of Members received the welcome of the House on the 10th December. 1957.
2. The Swinton Committee considered, among other things, the nature of the Writ of Summons which is addressed on the summoning of each new Parliament to every Lord entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords and the rights and duties that arise upon it; and their Report enumerated and described in detail the powers of the House in relation to the attendance of its Members. The Committee found that beyond doubt the words of the Writ of Summons impose a duty of attendance in Parliament on each Lord to whom it is addressed, but that the House itself has the power both of compelling and of excusing attendance. The Committee noticed that the House has concerned itself with the problem of attendance on a great many occasions in the last few centuries, and that neither of these powers has lapsed through desuetude.
3. The Swinton Committee reported that they felt bound to recognise that of the large number of Members of the House of Lords there are many who are unable to attend "either because they are fully occupied with other important duties, or because they feel themselves unfitted for parliamentary work, or by reason of age, health or expense ". The Committee expressly disclaimed any intention to criticise Members of the House who are unable to attend, and suggested that many Members are unaware of their existing right to apply for leave of absence, still less of the consideration that they might be said to be under a duty to do so. The Committee were therefore concerned to indicate arrangements
74
whereby Lords who are unable to attend the House can be relieved, without loss or diminution of their rights, of the obligation imposed on them by the Writ of Summons. They took the view that Members of the House would readily conform to arrangements of this kind.
4. When the Committee's conclusions were approved by the House on the 10th December last, a further Select Committee on Leave of Absence was appointed to draft a new Standing Order on the lines indicated in the Swinton Report. On the 16th June the House adopted a new Standing Order (Leave of Absence) of which I enclose a copy. On the same date the House passed a resolution instructing the Lord Chancellor to communicate forthwith with every Lord who has not attended the House or a Committee of the House during the current session (except for the purpose of taking the Oath) and to invite him to state whether or not he wishes to apply for leave of absence, either for the next ensuing session or for the remainder of this Parliament. Your Lordships will observe that the terms of the new Standing Order indicate that Lords who have been granted Leave of Absence are expected not to attend the sittings of the House until their leave has expired or has sooner ended, except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance. It is open to any Lord who has obtained leave of absence to terminate it on giving at least one month's notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments; the House itself may terminate it at shorter notice.
5. Accordingly it is my duty to request your Lordship to complete the enclosed paper headed "Leave of Absence" and return it forthwith to the Clerk of the Parliaments in the accompanying envelope.
6. Finally, I believe that it might be convenient to your Lordship if I quote the following passage from the Report of the Select Committee on Leave of Absence (paragraph 4):—
"The Committee have given much consideration to the question of whether there should be a closer definition of ' regular attendance '. The Committee considered that this was neither possible nor desirable. They recognise that this must be a matter for individual interpretation. But in framing the Standing Order the Committee have taken account of the position of Peers who are engaged whole time in the professions and in industry and of others who have extensive commitments in local government or in other voluntary work. They realise that these are unable to devote more than a partial service to the House. They recall that such Peers have in the past made valuable contributions, based on their own knowledge and experience, to the work of the House in debates, in the revision of Bills and in Private Bill and other Select Committees. They believe that the House would be reluctant to lose the services of such Peers and that Peers in this position need not feel themselves under any obligation, in consequence of their inability to attend regularly, to apply for leave of absence."
I am, My Lord,
Your Lordship's Obedient Servant,
KILMUIR. C
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I, by leave of the House, ask whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter to which the Lord Chancellor has re-referred? I had no idea that it was going to be mentioned to-day, and I am not quite certain, without going back to Hansard, how the matter was left; but we want to discuss it.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount is probably right to enter that caveat. I do not know what my noble friend would say. I think the Lord Chancellor indicated on an earlier occasion that he would report the letter and that it therefore would be open to any noble Lord to raise a question on it in the House at a later date.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Has the Select Committee met yet?
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not quite know to what Committee the noble Viscount is referring. Is he referring to the three Whips who are to keep track of the leave of absence arrangements?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was referring to the noble Earl's own Motion that a Select Committee be appointed, to which the House agreed.
THE EARL OF HOME: At the moment it is not much good calling together a Committee, until there is something to talk about.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I presume that the meetings will be reported among the meetings of other Select Committees and that notice of the meetings will be given in the Order Paper.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think that all the necessary formalities will be gone through, but none that is not necessary.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
OPTICIANS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 6:
Limitation of Rate-deficiency Grant to normal expenditure
6.—(1) Where, as respects a year for which Rate-deficiency Grants are payable (hereinafter referred to as "the grant year"), the expenditure of a local authority exceeds its normal expenditure as hereinafter ascertained, the amount of the excess shall be disregarded in determining the amount of any Rate-deficiency Grant payable to the authority for that year:
Provided that for any of the first four years for which Rate-deficiency Grants are payable the whole amount of the excess shall not be disregarded as aforesaid, but for the first of those years one-fifth only shall be disregarded, for the second two-fifths only and so on.
Debate resumed on the Amendment moved yesterday by Viscount Bridgeman—namely, in subsection (1), after "exceeds" to insert "by more than a prescribed percentage".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the point raised on this Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It will be generally agreed, as indeed it was by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself, that there is need for some check on expenditure where Exchequer grant is paid, as in the case of the rate-deficiency grant, as a percentage of the amount spent by a local authority. Certainly one way of dealing with the matter is to give the paying Minister, the right to withhold grant where he detects extravagance or excess. That was the approach, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, adopted in Section 6 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act, 1948, in respect of Exchequer equalisation grant.
But I should like to put the problem to the noble Lord: how is extravagance to be detected? Surely no one—and especially no one in your Lordships' House, after the tone of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—wants to see close and continuous

77
scrutiny by the Ministry of the expenditure of every eligible local authority. I think that applies all the more because under this Bill the rate-deficiency grant is to he paid to county district councils as well as to county and county borough councils, and that would mean examining the expenditure of a thousand authorities instead of a hundred, as at present. This is just the sort of detailed checking of local expenditure which the Government want to get away from, as did most of your Lordships who spoke on the Second Reading.
The other danger of the approach, which I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, is that because of these very difficulties the check on extravagance will go by default. That is why the Government have sought a different approach. As I said yesterday, they base themselves on the recommendation of the Edwards Committee, and I would remind the House that on that Committee local authorities were strongly represented. That recommendation—and I am sure this will interest both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Latham—was, in turn, based on a feature of the London equalisation scheme, which was proposed by the London authorities themselves as a means of controlling expenditure ranking for contribution under the scheme. The effect of the present clause can therefore be put in this way. It puts the onus on the local authority to show that its comparatively high rate of expenditure is justified in any case where it has expended more per head in a year than other authorities of the same type and has also increased its expenditure per head as compared with the preceding three years to a greater extent than these other authorities.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has noticed that this is different from the London scheme, which was based only on two years. The advantage of this method is that scrutiny will be necessary only in cases where extreme conditions apply, and will be confined to such expenditure as the authority may wish to represent should be excluded by reason of special circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, yesterday made a point which I have considered, for it struck me as deserving of consideration: that an authority will not knew when it expends money whether it will get a grant and therefore whether it
78
can afford to spend that money. I believe the answer is that if an authority is eligible for rate-deficiency grant it will know that the great bulk of its expenditure—probably all—will get Exchequer grant; and the limits under Clause 6 will apply only on the margin of expenditure.
We ask, therefore, is it unreasonable to say that an authority ought not to want more assurance than that before it undertakes the expenditure? Having this general assurance about Exchequer grants, it is surely right that authorities should be encouraged to address themselves to particular items of expenditure from the point of view of whether it is justifiable expenditure of public funds, irrespective of whether these come from rates or taxes. That is one effect of the clause. But even if expenditure should turn out to exceed the limits set by Clause 6, there is power for the Minister under Clause 6 (7) to disregard expenditure; and one of the points authorities may have to consider is whether there is a case for new or increased expenditure strong enough for the Minister, as an impartial arbitrator, to be likely to exercise discretion in their favour if it should result in the normal limits being exceeded.
I would remind your Lordships that subsection (7) enables the Minister, in making the calculations provided for in the clause, to leave out of account any expenditure where there are special circumstances justifying this course. What the clause does in effect, therefore, is to require an authority to show special circumstances, if it is not to have its grant limited, in any case where in one year its rate of expenditure per head of the population (as I have said) has increased at a greater rate than that of the generality of authorities of the same type. I would also point out to noble Lords who have spoken that that is subject to the qualification that if the authority's rate of expenditure per head has in the three preceding years been below the average for its group, the authority may bring its expenditure up to the average without any question of limitation arising, even though the rate of increase will exceed that of the group.
So far I have been dealing with the general justification of the clause. I have examined very carefully the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that there should be a margin above normal

79
expenditure to be prescribed by the Minister. To prescribe a general margin in that way would imply that it is reasonable that any authority, without being called on to show special circumstances, should get the grant without question on expenditure which resulted in both those matters which I have stressed: the greater rate and the greater acceleration. How is the Minister to arrive at the percentage which reflects the reasonable excess that does not require scrutiny? I suggest that it is surely preferable to leave the special circumstances to be considered by the Minister in particular cases rather than to introduce some arbitrary general margin whose extent it would be impossible to fix by a reference to any objective considerations.
I should not like your Lordships to think that Her Majesty's Government are approaching this matter in any way other than with an open mind, because I believe it is shown that they are not; and I would remind my noble friend Lord Bridgeman of the proviso to subsection (1) of the clause:
" Provided that for … the first four years for which Rate-deficiency Grants are payable the whole amount of the excess shall not be disregarded as aforesaid, but for the first of those years one-fifth only shall be disregarded, for the second two-fifths and so on. "
I believe that that helps to meet one of the matters which was worrying my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, namely, that there must be a certain element of trial and error in a new proposal of this kind. It is going to affect only one-fifth of the additional expenditure. But I do not think the matter stops there. My noble friend will note that the words are "any special circumstances", and that expression is wide enough to enable the Minister to take account of all circumstances in which expenditure was incurred and any circumstance which distinguishes the position of the authority concerned from that of other authorities of the same kind whose expenditure was an element in the calculation of the normal limits.
If the Committee will bear with me, I should like to repeat what my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke) said in regard to his approach to this jurisdiction. I am reading from OFFICIAL REPORT of the Commons Standing Com-
80
mittee on the morning of March 4 last, Columns 592–3:
" I assure the Committee that I really have no desire at all to be inflexible in the sense of getting the clause on the Statute Book and then refusing to operate subsection (7) in a reasonable and understanding manner. The Government would never have put the subsection in the Bill if they did not intend to operate it. Clearly, one cannot give a general advance undertaking about the administration of subsection (7), but I should be prepared to give as much guidance as I possibly could to any local authority which had a genuine anxiety about the position in which it might find itself as respects rate deficiency grant arising from special circumstances, believing it might be given the benefit of subsection (7), but desiring some indication from me whether the expenditure would qualify. "
In so far as it is necessary, I repeat and endorse what my right honourable friend has said.
The other point which I have considered again is whether the term "any special circumstances"—especially in relation to the word "any"—is wide enough. I feel that it is wide enough to cover the circumstances which are special to the one authority and also wide enough (and this again may be helpful to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman) to cover a group of authorities who had, for example, special expenditure with regard to coast protection. It might be that half a dozen authorities were in that position. I think they would be covered by that; it is certainly our intention. If my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has any doubt about the width of the word, I shall be glad if between now and the Report stage he will try to think of other words, and I shall do the same, because that is what is desired. I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House, but the arguments that were put against me were quite tightly packed and I was anxious that I should try adequately to reply to them. I hope, in view of what I have said and my readiness to consider any improvement in the words, that my noble friend Lord Bridgeman will consider these points and not press the matter at this stage of the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: As one of those associated with one of the three Amendments we are discussing to-day connected with this clause, I should like to make a few remarks. The noble and learned Viscount said that the purpose of this clause was that if the Minister detected extravagance he would be able to curb it. I submit that that is not the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am most sorry. If I put it in that way I did not intend to do so. I said that that was the procedure under the Local Government Act, where it works in that way. This is, of course, a substitute for that procedure, which works on the basis of what other authorities do. I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord; I did not intend to do so.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for that amplification of what he said. But that brings me to his statement as to the purpose of the London pool. The London pool was not devised to curb extravagance on the part of any of the constituents of that pool. The London pool arose from the difficulties that ensued from the first block grant under the Act of 1929, because it was found that, contrary to expectations, the poorer boroughs of London were, under the formula, the paying boroughs, and some of the more wealthy boroughs were receiving. It was a voluntary arrangement. I agree that the pool devices in connection with the 1948 Act had many of the features of that voluntary pool, but it was never devised for the purpose of curbing extravagance on the part of any one of the constituents. I do not deny that it might have had that result, but that was not its purpose, and I do not think it can be prayed in aid as an analogy to support the present proposals.
The noble and learned Viscount was good enough to quote from a statement of the Minister (very apposite to a consideration of this matter, I readily admit), appearing at columns 592 and 593; but there is also another statement made by the Minister appearing at column 590 of the Report of Proceedings of Standing Committee D of March 4. The Minister said:
"It is true that an authority which is spending less than the average will he allowed to increase its expenditure up to the average without any limitation applying. "
It can do that whether it does so extravagantly or not. The merits of the expenditure cannot be examined by the Minister at all. Indeed, that statement is almost an invitation to authorities whose average expenditure is below the normal to increase expenditure, whether it is necessary or whether it is not.
Another point which it seems to me should be made in connection with this
82
clause is this. Under Clause 1 the procedure, after the determination of what is in excess of the norm, is automatic, whatever the merits of the expenditure; and it is only when we reach the provisions of Clause 7 that the question of the merits of the expenditure can be examined, by reference to "special circumstances" and as to whether the expenditure is reasonable. The Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself suggests or proposes that the percentage should be prescribed by the Minister. The noble and learned Viscount said that the Minister would have some difficulty in doing that. He may have to do it, however; indeed, he is required to do it under subsection (7). It seems to us that it is only fair upon the local authorities that they should know within what limits they can operate as regards this rate-deficiency grant, and the Amendment suggests that it would be a proper thing that in determining that percentage the Ministry should have the fullest, and, I do riot doubt, useful, conversations and consultations with local authorities.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to continue the debate except to draw attention to the terms of subsection (7). It deals first with expenditure for police, which, it says, is to be left out of account. Then it goes on to say that
" the Minister may leave out of account any other expenditure of a local authority. "
It seems to me that those words could well be interpreted as meaning any block of expenditure similar to expenditure incurred for police purposes—for instance, expenditure for road purposes or something of that kind. I am sure that that is not the intention, but the noble and learned Viscount knows of the eiusdem generic rule and that it might well be interpreted in that way. If subsection (7) is going to be used at all it should be used where a local authority establishes not merely that a particular type of expenditure has been incurred specially but that, even in the case of ordinary expenditure, there are good grounds for expending more than other authorities. I had hoped the Government would be prepared to look again at the whole clause (I have given my reasons and I will not repeat them), but if they will not do that, I think that at least they should I look at subsection (7) more carefully and

83
ensure that the Minister really has power to do that which he is praying in aid as the justification for this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, speaks, may I say that I shall be very glad to do that? It is not the intention of the Government that that clause should be limited by the eiusdem generis rule at all. I will go into it again, in view of the point raised. It is exactly the sort of thing. I was anxious should not happen, and I shall be very glad to do that.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Will the noble and learned Viscount give an undertaking that the Government will seek to explain what is meant by the word "special" in this particular clause? I think it would be an admirable thing if that were done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did try to show that, in my view, it might mean special in the sense of arising through a particular set of circumstances, in the case of one authority, or a particular problem with which one authority was faced; or, equally, if the authority was one of a group (I instanced coast protection, because there might be half a dozen authorities with the same problem), it would still be a "special circumstance" relating to each of the authorities. All that the word "special" excludes, if I may put it in this way, is the circumstances that are common to all the authorities of one group. We are trying to give the Minister the widest powers to deal with circumstances of the type I have described. I do not want to make a narrow idiosyncracy of it. I want to get a term which will give the Minister the widest powers. I shall apply my mind to it and I should be very willing to consider what either or any of my noble friends suggests in this way.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble and learned friend for the trouble he has taken in explaining this matter in detail, and for making arrangements by which the debate on it was adjourned last night and resumed to-day. I think that the time has now come to begin to separate the Amendments we have been discussing together, and what I am going to say now refers only to my own Amendment and not necessarily to the Amendments of noble Lords opposite. One of the things
84
that has come out of this discussion is the need, when these clauses begin to operate, whatever their final form, for an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence between the local authorities and the Ministers; and I think that some of the explanations given by my noble and learned friend have gone a long way to achieve that result.
I still feel that, as this clause stands, we may find that local authorities are ground between the upper millstone of subsection (1) and the nether millstone of subsection (7). Much of what my noble and learned friend said is technical, and I think that we shall want to study it carefully when we read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow; and that applies also to others concerned, outside your Lordships' House. My own feeling at this stage, for what it is worth, is that subsection (7) could be looked at again, and I am glad that my noble and learned friend gave some indication that he and his advisers would do that. Equally, some of us may want to look at it in our own way. We may not want to return to the question, or we may return to it in another way on Report stage, but until we have studied the matter more carefully I should like to leave it at that. Once again I thank my noble and learned friend for his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM had given notice of his intention to move as an Amendment, in subsection (1), after "exceeds" to insert:
" by more than a percentage to be prescribed by the Minister after consultation with the respective groups of local authorities ".
The noble Lord said: Having regard to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I feel that my noble friend Lord Silkin and I will be prepared not to move this Amendment, on the understanding that there will be further consideration of the points that have been put forward material points of great concern to local authorities, and that, if it should be necessary, we will return to the matter at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of his intention to move to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: May I associate myself with what my noble friend said

85
on his Amendment and not move Amendment No. 9?
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Rating of industrial and freight-transport hereditaments
9.—(1) For the year 1959–60 and subsequent years the fraction of net annual value by reference to which the rateable value of an industrial hereditament or of a freight-transport hereditament is to be ascertained shall be doubled, and accordingly subsection (1) of section sixty-eight of the Local Government Act, 1929, shall have effect in relation to those years with the substitution for the words "one-quarter", wherever they occur, of the words "one-half".
3.15 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM had given Notice of four Amendments to subsection (1), the first being to omit "fraction of." The noble Lord said: I rise to move the first of the group of Amendments appearing in my name on the Marshalled List, the purpose of which is to put an end to industrial de-rating. On these Benohes we have always taken the view that the de-rating of industry at the expense of the revenue of local authorities is wrong. It was wrong in 1939, it is wrong now, and it ought to be ended. This Amendment, therefore, seeks to re-rate industry to 100 per cent., as against the 50 per cent. proposed in the Bill. If industry has to be assisted—and I am not admitting at this stage that there is any need so to do—the assistance should not be given at the expense of local authorities and their revenue, but should be given by the Government, through the national Exchequer.
It is a curious circumstance that for several years before the introduction of this Bill, the Government have said that they were anxious about finding new sources of revenue for local government. I believe it to be the case that they appointed a Committee, or were associated with the appointment of a Committee—a high-powered Committee under ægis of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, the purpose of which, among other things, was to find new sources of revenue. Here is a source of revenue which ought to be returned to them. At the present time, the local authorities are deprived of 75 per cent. of the rateable income which would other-
86
wise be receivable by them. After April 1 of next year, under the Bill, they will still be losing 50 per cent.
I think that it is of some utility to refer briefly to the history of de-rating. After some ten years of mostly Tory administration in this country, in 1929, the then Tory Government, finding industry very much in the doldrums, with the industrial equipment of this nation running down in an awesome fashion and to a disturbing degree, decided that something should be done to help industry. The condition of industry, of course, was largely, if not wholly, due to the calamitous policy of going back on to the gold standard which was followed in 1925, when we were asked to contemplate with pride the pound looking the dollar in the face. What happened, of course, was that millions of unemployed and their families were forced to look misery in the face. The economic consequences of that decision, we know, were tragic and calamitous. There are grounds for saying that it directly led to the General Strike of 1926, and it certainly aggravated most gravely the economic crisis of 1931.
However, the Government decided in 1929 to subsidise industry by the process of de-rating. One of the considerations, of course, was that there had been a revaluation for rating purposes in this country, the results of which had come into operation in April, 1925. The assessments were largely increased because the earlier assessments went back, by reason of the war period, to 1909 or 1910. In the original block grant there was no provision for compensating local authorities in respect of the de-rating of new industrial properties or in respect of an expansion of existing industrial properties. The loss in respect of those properties had to be borne until 1948 by the local authorities. It is the case that after 1948, if a local authority was entitled to share in the equalisation grant, they might get something in respect of the loss of rateable value on new properties coming into assessment. But inasmuch as the total grant was fixed at 22½ per cent., which I think amounted to something like £22¼ million, it can fairly be said, I believe, that the local authorities, by and large, had to bear themselves, without recompense, by grant or otherwise, the loss of rates on new industrial properties.
We all know that owing to the impulse of war and post-war years there has been an amazing expansion of industrial hereditaments. It is almost unbelievable that until 1956 our booming industry was paying no more in rates than £15 million a year, which is a derisory figure, having regard to the prosperous condition that industry was in during those years, and for the most part is still in. In support of this submission as regards new industrial properties I should like to read a statement made at a recent conference of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers by the City Treasurer of Hull, a Mr. Pollard. He said:
" Although it may properly be said that in the original block grant of the 1929 Act there was compensation for this de-rating loss of rates, it has long since lost its character, and in any event the compensation was £2¼ million, whereas the present value of de-rated properties is estimated at not less than £90 million a year. "
We have always contended that de-rating is unsound. It is indiscriminate in its operation; it takes no account, as taxation does, of whether a concern is profitable or otherwise, or of the measure and degree of its profit or of its losses. That was the opinion of the Committee to which I have already referred, of the Institute of Public Administration; and it is the opinion of an independent committee of economists, accountants and rating valuers which reported in October, 1956, on the effect of de-rating and re-rating on industrial costs. In their report that committee said:
" If the policy of extending relief to industries OT firms in special need "—
and I stress the word "need"
"is to be pursued, then it is recommended that some means of giving it other than rating relief should be found. Rating relief is indiscriminate, and need is not efficiently measured by liability to pay rates."
In proof of what I have said, I should like to cite the shipping industry. At the time de-rating was originally instituted, the shipping industry was in a pretty bad way, with hundreds of vessels laid up; and to-day an increasing number is being laid up. If any industry needed help, shipping certainly did. But shipping was not within the Schedule to the 1929 Act as being eligible for de-rating relief, and until the Rating and Valuation Act of last year, which de-rated ships, hotels, offices and miscellaneous properties, shipping received no relief
88
under de-rating provisions. It now receives 20 per cent. under the provisions of that Act, to which we also objected, principally for the reasons that we object to industrial de-rating. But whereas shipping and other industries in difficulties were excluded, the prosperous chemical Industries, the metal industries, the engineering industries and a large section of food and drink industries were eligible and have since 1929 received this substantial relief at the expense of local authorities.
The Government, of course, are most interested in de-rating, because they make a profit out of it. They will make a profit of at least £5 million under the provisions of this Bill, in this way. The increased rateable income of local authorities, under the proposal to re-rate up to 50 per cent., will be £30 million, and of that the Government will contribute by way of lost taxes, whether income tax, surtax, or both, £15 million, because there will be less profit assessable to tax. But they are not content with taking that £15 million, which really belongs to the local authorities, but are to take £20 million, leaving the local authorities only £10 million. But after April next year industry will be receiving a relief which is estimated to be £60 million a year, and of that sum, on the Government's own figures, the Government will take, by reason of additional taxation, no less than 50 per cent.
As regards commercial de-rating, it is estimated that that will result in a loss to the local authorities, of £40 million, and of that the Government will take £15 million a year in additional taxation. So one can understand the keen interest the Government has in maintaining de-rating; they are making a pretty good thing out of it—almost a sharp practice. In the result, as from April 1 next year, if industrial and commercial de-rating be taken into account, the local authorities will lose a total of £100 million plus the £20 million which they are to lose under the provisions of this Bill by reason of the deduction of that sum from the grant. Industry and commerce will get £55 million and the Exchequer will get a total of £65 million, at, I submit, the expense of the revenues of local authorities.
In the face of those facts, it is idle for the Government to complain of the

89
increase in the proportion of rate expenditure contributed by the Government, because, by the policy initiated and pursued by the Government the local authorities have to go short each year of some £120 million in rateable income and resources. Commercial de-rating was introduced by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government without any prior notice or consultation with the local authorities. I understand the local authorities sought to see him by way of deputation and he declined to see them. Nevertheless, that policy has, as I have indicated, meant a loss of some £40 million a year in rateable income. Our view is that whatever may have been the case on the grounds of hardship for instituting de-rating in 1929, those conditions do not now apply. Industry could quite well pay its fair share of rates. It benefits very largely from rate expenditure, especially that large item of rate expenditure which is incurred on education. Thirty million pounds a year is not going to harm industry, with a total gross output of £10½ thousand million, according to the last census of production in 1948.
The Committee to which I have referred have estimated that the complete abolition of de-rating—industrial de-rating, leaving aside commercial de-rating—would add no more to the gross output of the eligible industries than .385 of 1d. in the pound. If the net output of the eligible industries be taken, the loss, or the additional cost if you care so to put it, would be no more than 1.21d. in the pound. In my submission, it cannot be said that this additional sum would seriously affect, if indeed it would affect at all, our export trade. Up to the present our export prices are not higher than those of our competitors. If we are at some disadvantage with exports it is principally because of delays in deliveries and also because of the restricted credit facilities available in this country in comparison with the much more liberal credit facilities which are available for encouraging export business among our competitors.
I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name on the grounds that I have stated: first, that this is not a matter where the local authorities should be asked to subsidise not only industry but the Exchequer; and,
90
secondly, that as regards the economic position of industry there is no longer any need to continue this relief. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, leave out (" fraction of ").—(Lord Latham.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): This is a most important Amendment. It is a fundamental Amendment really, and the noble Lord, I think, has fully conveyed that impression to the House. He is suggesting that we should re-rate industry fully, instead of up to 50 per cent. as the proposal at present stands in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him into the attractive and provocative fields into which he has journeyed concerning the return to the gold standard—of which I somehow seem to think Mr. Philip Snowden approved—the causes of the general strike, and other matters. If I do not follow him into those fields I hope he will not think I am tacitly agreeing with the many arguments of a provocative, interesting nature he put forward. May I confine myself to the facts at present before us?
This is the third occasion (apart from the proceedings in another place on this actual Bill) within three years that this issue of industrial re-rating has been before Parliament. It was fully debated in Committee in another place on the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 1955; it was debated again in another place in 1956 on the Second Reading of the Industrial Rating Bill. Those debates were carefully studied when the Government were considering what should be done about industrial de-rating. Your Lordships have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, of some of the past history. Perhaps it may be of interest to your Lordships if I were to recall for a moment some of the figures that were prayed in aid on former occasions. We were told that in the year before industry was de-rated from 100 per cent. to 25 per cent. (that is, 1928) industry contributed 10 per cent. of the rateable value of local authorities, and that immediately after de-rating that figure fell to 3·41 per cent. Local authorities, it was argued, would benefit as a result of the repeal of industrial de-rating—that is from 25 per cent, back to 100 per cent.—by approximately £20 million

91
a year, and that industry would thereafter contribute 12 per cent. of the rate burden as against 3·5 per cent. in June, 1955. I come to this conclusion. The Opposition in 1955 thought that an increase of nearly 250 per cent. in industry's share of the rate burden was not unjust.
Since 1955 there has, as your Lordships know, been a general revaluation. Clause 9 of this Bill proposes to re-rate industry and freight-transport up to 50 per cent. Before revaluation, industry's share of the rate burden was just over 4 per cent. After the measure of re-rating which we propose has effect, its share will be nearly 12 per cent. That is an increase of over 180 per cent. in industry's share. There is not, therefore, very much difference, I suggest, between what the Opposition considered to be acceptable in 1955 and what the Bill now actually provides for. Noble Lords opposite are increasing their demands. But I think I am entitled to emphasise that whilst industry's share of the rate burden will have risen to about three times its 1955–56 level, the share borne by householders will have fallen by about 20 per cent. over the same period, while the share of shops and miscellaneous properties will have risen by about 7 per cent. The increase over the period in the total amount levied in rates applies, of course, to all classes of ratepayers equally. If the increase continued at the speed it has achieved in recent years, industry would be paying considerably more than three times as much as in 1955–6.
LORD LATHAM: May I just intervene? I think this should be said: that of course industry pays its rates out of gross income, whereas private persons pay their rates out of taxed income.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes; that fact is perfectly acceptable. The noble Lord in his argument talked about the export trade. May I refer to that for a moment? If we bear in mind the need to keep down prices and to maintain exports in the face of growing competition, the Government were, I think, right when they decided that this increase in the rate burden was just about as much as could safely be levied on industry. Full re-rating, such as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and his friends advocate, would add perhaps £45
92
to £50 million to the rate burden of industry in 1959–60 in addition to the £30 million or so added by re-rating to 50 per cent. proposed in the Bill. That is a total of between £75 and £80 million added to the burden on industry. That is a lot of money.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say whether the added burden is by reference to the rating before 1956 or after?
LORD MANCROFT: I am saying that the added burden which would be put on industry if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted would amount to £75 million to £80 million.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry, but that is not so. A goodly proportion of that is due to the revaluation, and industry was paying rates on assessments which went back to 1934.
LORD MANCROFT: Come what may, you are going to add a considerable burden to industry, and the noble Lord wants to add twice the burden that we suggest should be added to industry.
LORD LATHAM: Thirty million pounds.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord says "thirty million pounds" rather scornfully. I suggest that it would be folly to increase overheads by £30 million, or by the £75 million to £80 million, which I suggest is the more probable figure, at a time when the prospects of halting, and perhaps reversing, the wearisome trend of rising prices from which this country has suffered for several years are so promising. Widespread price falls are, as your Lordships know, having a stabilising effect on the wholesale prices of manufactures—such falls, hitherto exceptional, seem to be becoming almost common form, at any rate in manufacturing industry. Take the figure of an increase of £45 million. That would be roughly the equivalent of either a 3 per cent. wage increase for all operatives in metal manufacture, shipbuilding, engineering and vehicles; or a 1½ per cent. wage increase for all operatives in manufacturing industry; or a 2 per cent. rise in the import bill of manufacturing industry. Are these insignificant figures? Are these figures that we can dismiss lightly as merely marginal?
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Lord refers to £45 million. According to the figure in the White Paper, it is £60 million, of which, of course, £30 million is recovered in relief of taxes.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the noble Lord is arguing on a false premise. He is trying to double the burden that we suggest is the full burden that industry can bear. I am arguing to your Lordships that the burden which noble Lords opposite are seeking to put upon industry is a heavier burden than industry could or should fairly be asked to bear. Let us riot quibble about pounds this way or that. An increase of this order, as suggested by noble Lords opposite, would double the burden that we are seeking to impose.
An increase of that order in the burden of rates would, I suggest, certainly be a disincentive to private investment. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in his Budget speech that one of the Government's principal objectives is to maintain a high rate of savings and investment. On this, as your Lordships may know, the national economy depends. My right honourable friend has also since further increased the concession on initial allowances which he proposed in his Budget to encourage industrial investment. I think noble Lords opposite to-day agree with my right honourable friend's views. This, at any rate, is clear to me from Mr. Harold Wilson's speech in the Budget debate in which he criticised the Budget on the grounds that it would fail to produce the necessary increase in investment. He went on to say that, second only to exports, investment must be given a clear priority over all other calls on our economic resources. But, surely, any addition to industrial overheads must, in the absence of compensating price increases, cut into funds potentially available for investment and have some disincentive effect on investment. Admittedly, re-rating at 100 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, proposes, rather than 50 per cent., would mean only a marginal increase in costs, taking industry as a whole, but—and this is where the noble Lord and I differ—it is a margin that matters. For instance, the increase in capital expenditure by manu-
94
facturing industry between 1956 and 1957 was only about £50 million.
I hope that your Lordships do not feel that this increase will be unimportant because, as the figures which were quoted on earlier occasions sought to show, it was small compared with gross profits. Surely it is misleading of the noble Lord to try to judge the effect of changes of this kind by averages. The consequences of even the Government's proposals may be, I readily admit, severe for individual firms. As we all know many manufacturers are finding it increasing difficult to compete successfully in the hardening export markets to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has drawn attention, and their position would undoubtedly suffer from the addition of even small amounts to their overheads. As we are abundantly aware, world trade is no longer expanding and trading conditions are likely to be more difficult in the months to come, so that any increase in export prices, however small, could have harsh repercussions. We just cannot afford to ignore facts of this kind.
I have carefully reconsidered the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, made in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill in this context. If I understood him aright, he tried to show that the effect of 50 per cent. de-rating of industry was to compel local authorities to subsidise (that was the word he used) both industry and the Exchequer. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I would suggest, with great respect, that that is rather an odd word to use in either context. Rating authorities will be collecting more than £60 million in rates from industry, while the Exchequer are currently paying local authorities over £500 million a year in grants. In any event, I suggest that it is necessary in this case to take a much broader view. The real effect of de-rating is to reduce the share of the rate burden borne by the de-rated ratepayers and to increase the share borne by the others. All ratepayers—most of us—in fact have a stake in the ability of industry to compete successfully in overseas markets, and it would obviously he wrong to reach a conclusion about the proper measure of re-rating without regard to the consequences to industry. But even if this were a possible course, there is, I suggest, no case for full re-rating of industry at a time when perhaps

95
99 per cent. of the rest of the ratepayers enjoy de-rating in one form or another—be it in 1939 values for houses or 20 per cent. relief for shops and offices.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, talks about fair shares. I agree with that entirely. I suggest that the burden we are putting upon industry at the moment is a fair burden. I suggest that it is about as severe a burden as industry can bear. I suggest that whether we argue this way or that about a few million pounds, which to some people seem unimportant but to me on this occasion are important, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment will be to put an unfair, if not almost an intolerable, burden on industry. I think we have gone as far as we possibly can. We have asked industry to do all it possibly can. This, I am afraid, is a fundamental point, and I cannot possibly accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
3.50 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I agree with the last words of the noble Lord, that this is a fundamental point. I think he has put the best possible case for the Government position, but there are one or two things in his argument which I could not possibly accept. He has based his case almost entirely on the need to preserve our export trade, but this concession—and it is a concession as compared with the other ratepayers; the concession of giving to industry half their rates—applies to all industry, whether it is for export or for the home market. The vast bulk of industry is for the home market, and even if it were assumed (which I do not assume) that the export trade really needs this subsidy—and I am continuing to call it a subsidy—the noble Lord has made no case for the people engaged in the home trade who are getting the full benefit of it as well.
He rather brushed aside the case that my noble friend made, and referred to it as something that was irrelevant. He said, "Let us get down to the relevant time" but it is relevant to try to under-stand the circumstances in which the original concession was made. In 1929 there was a crisis in industry—not merely in the export trade, but in all industry—and it was necessary, looking back to the position as it was then, to give some relief to industry in order to enable
96
it to keep on its feet, and that concession was given. But is the position the same to-day? Does the noble Lord say that that concession is still necessary? Is it still necessary to-day, in present conditions, to give to industry a subsidy on its rates? How does the noble Lord measure it? Have we got half-way back to the position where it can stand on its own feet and no longer need a subsidy? I just do not understand by what argument the Government come to the conclusion that to-day it is right to relieve industry of half its rates; that in 1929 it was right to relieve it of three-quarters of its rates, and that apparently for all time we must remain in the present position. The argument that the noble Lord put before us to-day for relieving industry of half its rates, in so far as it applies to the export trade, will apply for all time. Is the noble Lord then saying that for all time we are to relieve industry of half its rates?
He rather brushed aside my noble friend's figures, but they are relevant and important on this issue. It is important to bear in mind that the Government are paying, by way of relief of taxation, a proportion of any increase in rates that industry has to bear. If industry is relieved of £80 million, would not the Government then get half of that in additional taxation? If industry were to pay at the full rate, the burden on public funds would in fact be only half, because industry would be relieved of paying taxation on half its rates. So that if my noble friend is asking industry to pay another £30 million or £40 million by way of rates, it in fact means only £15 million or £20 million out of the pockets of industry. Therefore, in my submission, it is not a burden that it is unable to bear. If you look at the output of industry in the last financial year—my noble friend gave the figure—you will find that it was £10,500 million as against £30 million or £40 million which would be the net amount that it would be required to pay if it were rated to the full extent. That is roughly about £1 in £300 on its output and is not going to make all the difference in the world between its being able to compete with other countries in export and not being able to do so. It certainly is not going to make any material difference so far as the home market is concerned.

97
While I realise that this is a matter upon which the Government have come to a decision and that they are not likely to change it in this House, nevertheless I submit that the Government have not really made their case for continuing to subsidise industry to the extent of 50 per cent., and none of the arguments which have been put forward today have been in any way convincing. I quite agree with the noble Lord that this matter has been debated on a number of occasions
4.8 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
" () Where before the passing of this Act such industrial hereditament was demised or let on terms which provided for the payment of the rate (within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925) on that hereditament or on part thereof by the owner and there is no provision in the lease or contract in respect of such demise or letting or otherwise for the owner to demand an increase of rent in respect of such rate the owner shall be entitled to receive from and shall be paid by the person liable to him for the payment of such rent an increased rent equal to the additional rate from time to time payable in respect of such hereditament or such part thereof by virtue
in another place, but not here. I do not think we have discussed this subject for many years. I feel that it is necessary for us to register our views quite definitely, and we propose, therefore, to vote in favour of our Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 57.
of this section and such increase shall for all purposes in connection with the recovery of rent be deemed to be part of the rent originally reserved or made payable on such demise or letting.
For the purposes of this subsection "owner" shall mean any person for the time being entitled to receive the rack rent of the industrial hereditament whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any other person. "

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rea, L.

Hall, V.

Kershaw, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Merthyr, L.

Sinha, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Carnock, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams, L.

Ebury, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winster, L.

Grantchester, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmur, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Cilcennin, V.

Dynevor, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elton, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Gage, V.

Forbes, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Geddes, L.

Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

Soulbury, V.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Tenby, V.

Hylton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Albemarle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Leconfield, L.

Dundee, E.

Addington, L.

Mancroft, I..

Gosford, E.

Allerton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Home, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Mills, L.

Howe, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Milverton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Newall, L.

Powis, E.

Birdwood, L.

Rollo, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chestham, L. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Saltoun, L.

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

Sandford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Derwent, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Digby, L.

Teviot, L.

Bridgman, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It relates particularly, but not necessarily exclusively, to the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates, Limited, and the Treforest Industrial Estate—an estate which I believe both the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, know very well, as I do. This

99
company is not a profit-making concern. It was founded as a company limited by guarantee without a share capital on June 27, 1936, and I am told that the directors receive no remuneration. Its object, when it was founded, was to encourage individuals or firms to start manufacturing businesses in the then depressed area of South Wales. Similar estates, of course, were founded in other depressed areas. For this purpose the company built modern factories at Treforest, which, as the two noble Lords will know, is about half-way between Cardiff and Pontypridd. These factories were let at attractive rentals as a means of encouraging light industry to develop in this area where the old, established heavy industries were unable to offer sufficient employment to men or, of course, to women.
Apart from the British firms who applied for these attractive facilities, many of the businessmen who were so attracted there were those who had fled from the Nazi terror. In later years there have been those who have fled from behind the Iron Curtain, from the Communist terror. The name on the label changes but the effect on these unfortunate people is the same. The foreign business men who came to Treforest were unused to British ways, and in many cases were unable even to speak the English tongue. They could not be expected to understand what so few British people do; that is, their way through the rating jungle. Consequently, almost invariably they insisted upon inclusive rentals—that is to say, that the rentals should include the rates which were levied on the premises.
I am glad to inform your Lordships that the Treforest Industrial Estate has done very well. It made a splendid contribution during the war, and has done so since, to the industrial life of this country. I might say that on my own visit there in 1951, to address the management and workers of the B.O.A.C. factory, I heard the highest praise of the stability and quality of the workers. Firms and business men occupying these factories have become rich and they have offered a diversified range of employment for workers in Rhondda, Pontypridd and the surrounding district. The factories built by the Estate Company or adapted from war-time buildings now give employment to more than 62,000
100
people; but, unfortunately, the surplus for the year 1956–57 from the Industrial Estate was £116,830, which was £15,058 less than the loan interest for the year, at 4 per cent., which they paid to the Treasury.
The effect of Clause 9 in its present form will be to reduce the benefit of industrial de-rating from 75 per cent. of the net annual value to 50 per cent. after March 31, 1959, because, as I have said, the Estate Company granted certain leases before the war—and also since the war in consequence of certain commitments entered into before the war—at rents inclusive of rates, without provision for the Estate Company to recover increases in rates, however arising; and they are subject to a heavy loss and an increasing loss. The effect of the proposed changes in industrial de-rating in their present form would be an increase in expenditure from the Treforest Industrial Estate account from £27,500 to £55,000 on account of the rates of factories let at inclusive rentals over the twelve years from 1959 to 1971. Against this expenditure of £55,000, the Estate Company will collect only £42,000 in rents for the factories concerned, so that for the period there will be a loss of £13,000. That is assuming that there is no increase in the level of assessment on the premises and also that the rate levied in the £ does not increase. I might say that these are most unlikely grounds on which to base any assumption, because I think it is almost certain that there will be an increase in the assessments; and it is equally certain that there will be some increase in the rating.
I have put down this Amendment to deal with this situation. I may say that it is of highly respectable Parliamentary parentage, because at the Committee stage in another place it was moved by my friend Alderman Percy Morris, one of the Members for the Borough of Swansea, and on the Report stage it was moved by Mr. Graham Page who, as your Lordships know, is a highly respected member of the Conservative Party. So there are no Party politics in this matter—in fact the Amendment could not be more respectable in its origin. I base the Amendment on the following grounds. First, the parties to the leases in question had in mind, when the terms were negotiated, only the level of assessments then in force, just before the war, and the

101
rate then being levied in the £. These two elements of risk were carried by the Estate Company, because in those days that was the only way of attracting business men and industrial companies to the special areas, which were known as distressed areas. No thought in those days was there of the possibility of industrial de-rating; indeed, there was no reason why there should be, because it is only to-day that a clause appears in the present Bill upon the subject; and we have just had a Division upon that very clause.
My second reason or ground for moving this Amendment is that the parties to the leases could not possibly have foreseen at that time the change in the law relating to industrial de-rating, and would have assumed, I think, if they had been able to foresee it, that the Government would make some provision to assist them in the way they have assisted others who have been affected. For example, there are the provisions of the Finance Act, 1941, now re-enacted by Section 486 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. Those provisions, I believe, protect people who contracted to pay to annuitants and others net sums after deducting income tax in the days when the standard rate of income tax was 5s. in the £, or a little less, and when normally prudent persons would not have contemplated a substantial increase over 5s. in the £. Then there are the provisions of the Rent Acts. When, in 1914 and 1939, the levels of rents were frozen, there was provision to enable landlords to recover the excess rates in the form of extra rent. We must remember that, conversely, the Local Government Act, 1929, by which industrial de-rating was introduced, required landlords of industrial property let at inclusive rents to pass on the benefit of de-rating to their tenants. We are now asking that the converse should apply and that when there is less de-rating than before the landlords should be able to pass that on to the tenants.
Then the tenants involved have had something like twenty years, in most cases, in which to settle in the development areas, and there is no reason why they should be subsidised in this way at the expense of the taxpayer—because it is the taxpayer who will ultimately pay, if there is a loss. There is no reason why these gentlemen and companies should now be put in this handsome
102
position not only in face of other ratepayers but also at the expense of the taxpayers.
In the other place the Minister made a curious comment on this matter. If he had heard it, I am sure that Mr. Gladstone would have revolved violently in his grave. This point was put in another place by Mr. Bevins, who was replying for the Government. He said:
" It is difficult in this one known case to make any substantial plea of hardship on behalf of the landlords. If there were a distinct element of hardship the proposition would probably be different. This Company, for whom we have a great admiration for its work in South Wales is not constituted for profit, and the worst that is likely to happen if the Company makes a loss is that it would partially default on its interest payments to the Exchequer. That will not be any hardship. "
That is surely a most extraordinary statement for a Minister to make at any time, and particularly on this Bill, when our withers have just been wrung by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has been talking about what a hardship increases in rates would cause. Apparently it is a hardship if rates are increased to those who should pay them, the people enjoying the property; but it is no hardship to the unfortunate taxpayer if he has to pay the rates which they should pay! That, I think, is a ground on which we should have some reply, because I suggest that the reply and the ground given in another place by the Minister were ludicrous; and I should have thought that no Minister had ever given such a ground before.
I am coming to the end of my grounds, but there are just two more. In a community like the Treforest Industrial Estate, all the others will get to know that this is happening, and there will be a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of those who will be paying considerably more in rates than these particular people are paying. They will also know, what in fact will be the case, that the rates on these properties paid by the Company will be more in some cases than the rents the latter will receive, so that the tenants will be entirely subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer. Surely no Bill is supposed to have that effect.
The complete abolition of industrial de-rating is a distinct possibility. Your Lordships have heard the arguments put forward so cogently by my noble friend Lord Latham and supported by my noble

103
friend Lord Silkin. The Estate Company will be put in an even more difficult position than they are now if in the future there is industrial de-rating. They should not be expected to suffer in that way. Whether there are any more persons in this position I do not know, but whether there are others or not, I suggest that the facts that I have given show your Lordships a case which should be met by the Government. It is a case in which we are all in a sense interested, because we are taxpayers. But that is not the sole argument: the directors, managers, secretary and staff have done a fine job of work throughout the years and take a great interest in it. The directors are unpaid. They all want their estate to be a success and do not want to default so that the taxpayer has to make good the amount they cannot find. They want it to be not only an industrial success, which it is, but also a financial success, which it cannot possibly be for years to come unless this Amendment, or one like it, is carried. With these grounds in mind, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord's Amendment would come into effect when the tenant of an industrial hereditament was paying rent inclusive of rates and his tenancy agreement or lease contained no provisions for increases of rent to take account of increases in rates. The object of the Amendment, as the noble Lord told us, is to secure that in that case, if the letting took place before this Bill reached the Statute Book, the tenant should pay the owner an increase in rent equal to the increase in rates attributable to the re-rating of industry by Clause 9, which we are now discussing. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my pointing out that there are serious deficiencies in the drafting of the Amendment, but I do it purely as a formality and not out of discourtesy. I also agree that there is no political intent in this Amendment, as there has been in others. But because it has respectable antecedence in the support of Mr. Percy Morris and Mr. Graham Page in another place—respectable, indeed—that does not mean that the Amendment is a good one.
104
As the noble Lord told us, it is primarily concerned with the Treforest Trading Estate, and he was good enough to suggest that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I know this estate well—my noble and learned friend when Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Welsh Affairs and I when I was Under-Secretary in the same Department. I visited the estate on many occasions and I remember this problem, and I should have paid a great deal more attention to the details of it if I had known that I should ever have to grapple with it from this Dispatch Box. The problem, if I remember rightly, was largely pre-war and war-time in origin. As the noble Lord has told us, the tenants on the estate were largely refugees. I remember being introduced to one who spoke hardly anything except Yiddish and who married a lady from the noble Lord's part of the world who spoke hardly anything except Welsh. I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing more likely to bring a roomful of people to complete silence and standstill than a marital row between husband and wife in Yiddish and Welsh.
These refugees were apprehensive about taking leases at exclusive rentals in case they were overwhelmed by rate increases. Those who have argued the point elsewhere have recognised that the company accepted the risk of increased rates but maintained that they could not have foreseen the possibility of industrial re-rating in part or in whole. It was suggested in another place that the problem was not peculiar to this company but that there must be many small industrial properties let at inclusive rentals. If the company's tenants at inclusive rentals escaped any increase in rates on re-rating, we were told that" an unfortunate position would be created "between them and the company's tenants at exclusive rents. The other place was told that lettings at inclusive rentals were not unusual and it was argued that it would be grossly unfair not to provide for the converse of the provision in the Local Government Act, 1929, which required the landlords of property let at inclusive rentals to pass on to their tenants the benefit of de-rating. Re-rating, we were told, was being introduced because the Government considered that industry, not the landlord, could bear the additional burden. The fact of re-rating was itself tantamount to

105
an interference with the terms of the tenancy and, it was suggested, could be clearly distinguished from normal increases in rates due to increases in poundages.
At Report stage in another place, the Opposition pointed out that this Amendment of the noble Lord provided only a partial solution and did not deal with any possible further measure of re-rating or with increases upon revaluation. The solution, it was argued, was a fresh lease. At Committee stage in another place the Government undertook to look at the extent and character of the problem but my honourable friend indicated that the Government inclined to the view that it would be wrong in any event to apply the Amendment to any lease or tenancy entered into after 1945. At Report stage the Government said that, despite the publicity given to this problem, no other instance had come to their notice; and so far as I know, that is still the case—I am subject to correction on this point.
I must honestly confess that the Government do not think it right to alter the law solely to meet one known case, even if the merits there were beyond dispute, and I suggest, with respect to the noble Lord, that, in fact, the merits are not quite beyond dispute. The pre-decessors of the board of management had accepted the risk of rate increases, but because they had not envisaged the possibility of a measure of re-rating we are asked now to indemnify them at the expense of the tenants, whose concern had been to safeguard themselves against increases from any quarter. It is difficult in this one known case even to make any substantial plea of hardship on behalf of the landlord. I think that the noble Lord has had Gladstone revolving in his grave. This company was not constituted for profit and, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in another place, the worst that would be likely to happen, if the company made a loss, would be a partial default in its payment of interest to the Exchequer. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is not in his place. He complained that the Exchequer was getting too much out of this Bill, and this might put him slightly at ease. My honourable friend agreed that some re-negotiation of terms between company and tenants
106
might be appropriate. However, there are no break clauses in the leases.
It was suggested that one reason justifying a general application of this Amendment would be the clear distinction between increases in rates due to re-rating and ordinary increases due to rising rate poundages. But re-rating is not a new idea. The original scheme of de-rating was opposed by the Party opposite and various attempts have been made since to modify or abolish it. The last of these was the Industrial Rating Bill presented by the honourable Member for Acton in another place in November, 1955, which we were discussing on previous Amendments. Five months earlier, the Government had announced their intention of including de-rating in the comprehensive review of local government finance which led to the presentation of the present Bill. In December, 1954, the honourable Member for Southall had presented his Industrial and Agricultural Rates Bill. Clearly, for example, it would be wrong to give relief where the letting took place after the Government had announced the review of de-rating. Since I think it is probably fair to say that re-rating has in fact been a live issue ever since de-rating was introduced, it seems equally wrong to give relief for earlier lettings. While, therefore, nobody can criticise a factory owner who has taken a chance and let at an inclusive rental, I must say I find it difficult to see why Parliament should intervene to rescue him because the chance has not come off.
Nor is the argument that this is merely the converse of the 1929 provision passing the benefits of de-rating to tenants conclusive. The de-rating of industry was, in a Parliamentary sense, a new idea. It was not, as re-rating has been, an event which had been lingering in the background for many years; and I think a distinction can fairly be drawn between the treatment of this issue on de-rating and on re-rating. In all these circumstances, I am afraid I can see no reason for withdrawing the Government's opposition to this Amendment. If there should be a change in circumstances and many other cases should come to light, then I quite agree that we might have to look at it again. At the moment, however, I am afraid the Government's decision must stand.
LORD OGMORE: Although the noble Lord has been answering the arguments in another place rather than those I ventured to put forward to-day, I take it that the Government will look sympathetically at the Industrial Estates Company when, as must happen, they are unable to pay the full per cent. interest which they have to pay to the Exchequer. I do not think I need pursue this matter further. The Government are the watchdog of the taxpayer, and as the taxpayer has to bear the burden, if the Government are satisfied, why should I argue? I merely say that I think it is an extraordinary position to be in: that the Industrial Estates Company, a public company, will have to pay more in rates than it will get in rent. The noble Lord's friend who has a Welsh-speaking wife is going to be in a very happy position. I do not think it matters whether he speaks English or not; it could not have been any better for him if he had spoken English. In the circumstances, having ventilated the matter, I do not think there is anything more I need say, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, after (" ' levied ' ") insert (", in the second place where it occurs ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 17, agreed to.
Clause 18:
General scope of Commission's proposals
18. The changes which may be put forward in proposals of the Commission on the review of any area are changes to be produced by any of the following means or any combination of those means (including the application of any of the following paragraphs to an area constituted or altered under any of those paragraphs):—
(d) the abolition of an administrative county or county borough and the distribution of its area among other areas being counties or county boroughs;
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SOULBURY VISCOUNT SOULBURY moved to add to paragraph (d):
" provided that not less than one administrative county shall be retained in each geographical county; "
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will be aware that, excluding county boroughs within a county, the boundaries of the administrative county as a rule coincide with the boundaries of the geographical county. There are a few exceptions, such as Yorkshire and Sussex, which contain more than one administrative county, but I know of no exception the other way. In short, the geographical counties have always had at least one administrative county. This Bill permits the relevant Commission to recommend the abolition of a county as an administrative unit and to leave it, presumably, merely as a geographical unit without, so far as I can see, any administrative functions, or, indeed, further reason for its existence, except perhaps as an historical abstraction—a museum piece whose identity may be worth preserving as a vestigial relic of mediæval development. I can see no further place for time-honoured offices, the Lord Lieutenant, the High Sheriff or other offices or organisations which have been associated with the area for centuries. Incidentally, I think it is Clause 25 (3) and the Seventh Schedule which make provision for the preservation of mayors and deputy mayors, but of nobody else.
The Bill provides for the distribution of the area of a county among the areas of other counties, and I think it may well be expected to lead to the abolition not only of the administrative county but of the geographical county itself and thereby extinguish the valuable traditions of loyalty and co-operation that tie the people of a county together. Throughout the ages, in war and in peace, a man's pride in and affection for his county have been a considerable asset to the country. That is true of small counties as well as of large ones, and perhaps truer. I think one may sum it up by saying that local patriotism is a most important ingredient of national patriotism.
By Clause 17 the proposed change will be authorised if the Local Government Commission think it
" desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. "
But convenient to whom? Surely not to the local inhabitants or the local ratepayers—and, it seems to me, for obvious reasons. One would be that the new administrative centre is almost certain

109
to be more remote from the majority of them than the existing centre. As we all know, the number of those persons to-day who can spare the time for local government work and to attend the formal committees of the council or for informal talks with the county officials is regrettably small, in spite of the comparatively easy access which most of them enjoy. It will certainly be far less convenient in the future, and we may anticipate that the number of those who are still sufficiently public-spirited to attend will gravely decrease. As regards those who are still able to attend, it is almost certain that they will find themselves part of a small and probably ineffective minority, in the presence of a majority many of whom will have precious little interest in the affairs of the small county.
It may be said, and with truth, that an amalgamation is more convenient for the central administrator and for the Ministry because, broadly speaking, the fewer and the larger the units with which the central authority has to deal, the easier the administration—the less correspondence and so forth. But I have yet to be persuaded that the convenience of the civil servant at Whitehall should take priority over the ratepayer in the county. It will also have to be shown that the proposed amalgamation is more effective in producing a more efficient and economical local government. Size, as most of us know front some experience or another, is by no means always coincident with economy, or with swift action or decision. Organisations can soon become too large and elaborate, clogged up with red tape, cumbersome, machine-like and inhuman. For the ratepayer in the small county there is no reason to suppose that the new administration proposed will be more efficient than the administration he at present enjoys, and it will certainly be more productive to him of vexatious delays and inconvenience.
As your Lordships know, a county councillor in a district knows most of the residents, the ratepayers in the villages and so forth, and has definite personal contact with them. That contact is more likely to produce closer scrutiny of expenditure and policy than is possible in a much larger area. The same applies to local contacts with officials. Moreover,
110
as regards economy it is not at all unlikely that the augmented administration after amalgamation will before long fall victim to what is known as Parkinson's Law. In any event—this is the practical point of view I want to put to Her Majesty's Government—in England, at all events, the number of small units, except perhaps small boroughs, likely to fall within the mischief of Clauses 17 and 18 is almost negligible. I find it hard to think of many more than those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his speech on the Second Reading. The two instances he gave were the County of Rutland and the Soke of Peterborough. The latter is, of course, not a county, and is not touched by my Amendment. The noble Lord warned Her Majesty's Government of the howl that would arise if it is sought to join little Rutland with the adjoining county or to get rid of the Soke of Peterborough. I think the noble Lord is right. There is more than likely to be a howl with which a great many people will sympathise.
I ask Her Majesty's Government, is it really wise, either administratively or politically, to provoke that howl? Is it really, as a matter of practical politics, worth while, for the sake of dubious and uncertain gains in effectiveness and convenience to local government, to rouse and encounter the certain opposition, resentment and indignation of the ratepayers of the absorbed county? Amalgamation, no doubt, may produce in certain cases a tidier and neater administration, but to my mind it is a grievous pity to sacrifice what will be only a handful of historic communities just for the sake of tidiness and neatness. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, went on as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209, col. 644]:
" I venture to prophesy that in five years ' time, after the review has taken place, the County of Rutland will remain the County of Rutland and the Soke of Peterborough will remain the Soke of Peterborough. "
I hope the noble Lord is right, and it is not inconceivable that some day or other he may find himself in a position to ensure that his prophecy comes true.
In the meantime, however, it may be said that these small units such as Rutland and maybe one or two others are squealing before they are hurt, and that no Government would dream of authorising their amalgamation without. full consultation and inquiry. Well, my noble friend

111
Lord Conesford has an Amendment on the Paper which will bring that into effect, either in those or in other words. But if the Government would accept my Amendment there would, of course, be no need for his, and no need for the expense and delay of the inquiry. In other words, my Amendment would be more in the interests of effectiveness and convenience. I hope, for that reason, that the Government will give a favourable hearing to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Soulbury.)
LORD MILVERTON: I rise to offer, very briefly, some objection to the Amendment which has just been proposed. I do not wish to depreciate in any way the strength of the arguments used by the noble Viscount, but there is another aspect to this question. The Amendment, if adopted, would prevent the Commission from carrying out a proper review of the administrative counties. It is true that it would prevent them from embodying Rutland in any other county for administrative purposes, yet there would be nothing to prevent the Commission from combining, say, East and West Sussex, or the three Ridings of Yorkshire, into a single administrative unit.
It has been suggested to me that the Amendment strikes at the root of the agreement between the local authority representatives which form the basis of the proposals in the White Paper (Command 9831) entitled Local Government: Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales. I have ascertained that the Association of Municipal Corporations—and they are surely entitled to some consideration of their views, especially in view of what I have just said—view this Amendment with considerable misgivings, and they feel that it would possibly cause a reopening of the whole question of the power of county councils to make proposals for the reduction in status of non-county borough councils and also lead them to ask for safeguards against a reduction in the status of county borough councils. I therefore suggest that the Amendment would not be a wise one to adopt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend, Lord Milverton, has deployed the main argument but, with your Lordships' consent, I should like to elaborate it a little. The restriction which my noble friend Lord Soulbury proposes would be one on the effectiveness of the reviews, and it would be absolutely contrary to the basic objective of this Part of the Bill, which is to enable the whole of the local administrative structure in England and Wales to be reviewed and, where necessary, overhauled. My noble friend who moved the Amendment mentioned some remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The whole basis of Lord Silkin's speech, as I understood it, was that this matter should have been considered by a Royal Commission, before a Bill was introduced, and that the recommendations of the Royal Commission should have been embraced in a Bill. I did not understand the noble Lord to be saying that it was wrong that the whole structure should be considered.
But the point that my noble friend Lord Milverton has made is surely very important. The objective of this Bill, that the structure should be reviewed and overhauled in the interests of effective and convenient local government, has not only been wholeheartedly accepted, but has been demanded. It has been demanded, first, by all the local authority organisations; secondly, by all political Parties; and thirdly, by responsible public opinion interested in this matter for many years. It was that demand which underlay the agreed proposals put to the Government by the local authority associations in 1955, the White Paper of 1956 and the many debates on local government that we have had. Indeed, as again my noble friend Lord Milverton has reminded the Committee, the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing the boroughs, have assented to the proposition, even though it means that certain ancient municipalities will lose their local government functions—although, of course, they will keep certain offices which are not connected with those functions. The County Councils Association, for their part, have equally accepted that administrative counties also must be subject to the change if necessary; and in their case no question of any non-local government functions arise.

113
When one has had that general acceptance, to introduce the limitation that my noble friend suggests would, I think, be wrong, and would certainly strike at the basis of agreement which has been come to by all local authorities and, as I say, all political Parties. But having said that, I want to make it clear to my noble friend that I sympathise with his objects. I sympathise with the importance of local patriotism; I sympathise with the importance of the convenience of the place of local government to the ratepayers and persons governed. Therefore I want to indicate again, as I did on Second Reading, how many and clear are the protections which the Bill gives against any derogation of these rights or conveniences. It is well understood that people do associate the administrative counties, although they are of modern origin, with the historic shire, and no one would want to see any administrative county or any other kind of local unit disappear without very good reason. That is why the Bill contains such full provisions ensuring adequate safeguards at all stages. No change can be proposed except in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
If one considers the inquiries of the Commissioners, that is not a matter of projecting the views of Whitehall; it is a matter of collecting the views of the persons affected on the spot. The regulations requiring Parliamentary approval will give guidance as to the matters to be taken into account in this connection, so that will come back to this House; and the guidance will include reference to the importance of considering the wishes and convenience of the inhabitants—the very point on which my noble friend expressed his fear. The character of an area is another of the points; and a third, of course, is the record of administration of an existing local authority, whatever its size or population.
That is one branch of the protection. But there is also the provision for each Local Government Commission to hold preliminary consultations locally, to circulate its draft proposals, to consider and confer on the comments of the draft proposals, and to submit to the Minister final proposals and a report in a form for everyone to see. Then, when everyone has seen them, and has been able to comment, the Minister must advertise
114
and circulate them, and must consider objections. He would certainly hold a public inquiry into objections where the proposals of the Commissioners involved the disappearance of an existing county.
I will not say any more about an Amendment which we shall discuss further later on, but I say without any fear of contradiction at all that he would certainly hold an inquiry in this case. If, in the end, he decided to give effect to such a proposal, he would have to do so in an Order as far as possible dealing with that issue only, and he would then have to obtain the approval by Resolution of each House of Parliament. I cannot imagine a stronger series of protection, and I hope that when my noble friend has considered all these safeguards, he will come to the conclusion that no administrative county or any other well-respected local government institution, can possibly be eliminated lightly. It is too early to say whether any counties will in fact be eliminated at all. I am not going into that discussion; I think it would be wrong to do it at the moment.
LORD LATHAM: It would be very dangerous.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But it must be reviewed with one aim only in mind—namely, effective and convenient local government in the part of the county concerned. If the continued separate existence of any county, however small, can satisfy that test, it will have nothing to fear. But, equally, I say—and I am sure that the Committee will agree with me—that if it cannot satisfy that test, namely, that it gives effective and convenient local government, we should be all the more wrong to have singled it out for exception and not have it considered. That is the position, and I would ask my noble friend, especially in view of the first part of my argument, which was really a repetition of my noble friend Lord Milverton's account of the agreement, not to press this Amendment but to hold his fire for a later Amendment which I am sure he has in mind.
VISCOUNT SOULBURY: I am not entirely convinced by the argument of the noble and learned Viscount; I am slightly disappointed. On the other hand, my disappointment is alleviated by his expression of sympathy, and will be still further alleviated if the Government give

115
a favourable reception to the Amendment which follows shortly in the name of my noble friend Lord Conesford, an Amendment which will make it quite clear, either in the terms in which it stands at the moment or in similar words, that the certainty of a consultation, a full public inquiry, in such cases is assured. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Special review areas: distribution of functions]:
4.59 p.m.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commission, in any case in which they think fit so to do, from putting forward a proposal that the special review area or the part thereof to which any proposals put forward under this section may relate shall form part of an existing administrative county. "
The noble Lord said: Clause 20 deals with the distribution of functions in a special review area. This, of course, is a function of the new Local Government Commission when it is set up. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, in dividing any special review area into units of local government, the Minister should not be precluded from proposing that the council of the county, part of the area of which is within the special review area, should be the authority to administer some of the functions of the first-tier authority within the special review area. I apologise for these somewhat technical phrases, but I think that the intention of this Amendment must be clear to noble Lords.
There are certain functions of first-tier authorities or county councils—call them what you like—which require a large geographical area over which to operate in order to get the most efficient results. To that I think all the noble Lords will agree, especially to-day, when the use of greatly increased quantities of machinery makes very small areas unsuitable for that particular function. One can think at once of several functions that come within that definition. I would suggest to the Government that the fire service, for instance, comes within that definition of a function that requires a very con-
116
siderable geographical area to develop its full efficiency. If that were not so, the fire service would not have been put on a county basis not so many years ago. Because the small local fire brigades were found to be operating within small geographical areas, out of touch with their neighbouring fire brigades, the whole thing was put under the charge of the county council; and to-day these fire services operate on a county basis, rather expensively, but on the other hand, I believe, very efficiently.
Another service I can think of where, the same is true is the police service. Small units of police forces are not, I believe, considered to-day to be the most efficient units. That comes about for many reasons. One of the principal reasons, of course, is that there is not sufficient scope for the personnel to obtain experience within a small unit they have not the chance of being transferred from one town to another. Therefore, the bigger area is, in the opinion of many, desirable for the police forces.
The same point occurs in the legislation dealing with town and country planning. There again, in 1947 the Government put the main function of town and country planning on a larger geographical basis: they put it on counties. And only the other day in this House the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he wanted even larger planning areas because, in his opinion, even counties were not large enough to fulfil all planning functions. If that is so, then I think a case can be made out that where the Local Government Commission, in a special review area, proposes to cut off parts of one county or parts of several counties in order to make some new local government authority, then it should not be precluded from recommending that certain functions should still remain with the larger geographical units, which in effect would be, in many cases, the existing county councils.
I do not know if this Amendment has the support of my noble friend Lord Milverton—if it has not, no doubt he will tell us later on—but I think there is a case to be made for giving the Commission power to look into this point, because, as the clause is at present drafted, the Commission is prevented from putting forward proposals on these lines. It should at least be entitled to do so, always

117
provided that it thinks that the proposals would be appropriate to the special review area on which the Commission is reporting. I do not think I need add anything more, as I do not wish to detain your Lordships. I think the case is perfectly clear. I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, at end insert the said subsection—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD MILVERTON: I should not like to disappoint the noble Lord, and there are one or two points that I suggest ought to be considered. Although at first sight the object of this Amendment would seem to be to give greater flexibility to the powers of the Commission, it seems to me that in fact it strikes at the basis on which the reviews of the special review areas are to be undertaken. Each special review area is designated as such on the basis that all the authorities in the area need to be looked at together because they have common problems which are not shared by adjoining areas, whether they be rural or urban; and if the common problems extend into other adjoining areas there is provision in the Bill for these areas to be brought into the special review area. Having thus taken the special review area out of its existing local government surroundings so that it can be looked at as a whole—and, so far as it requires joint provision, enabling such provision to be made for it as a whole—it would be quite illogical, I suggest, once again to dismember the area by returning parts of it to adjoining administrative counties. That is the hesitation that I would suggest to the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, first of all, that I am in entire agreement with Lord Hylton's premise that the fire service, the police service and town and country planning require large areas. I had the honour to be responsible for the first two of these services for three years, and I am sure that anyone who has had either national or local experience would agree with him. Indeed, I think my recollection is right that after the fire service was denationalised by the Labour Government following the war there was no political argument about the need for large areas. On that point I do not think that my noble friend need have any apprehension. But, having admitted
118
one of his premises, I have much more difficulty in connecting with that his conclusion that one ought to deal differently with conurbations, and that is a point which I should like to develop because I think it is a very important one.
The intention of Clause 20 is to enable a Commission to propose, as one of the possibilities for all or part of a special review area, a two-tier conurbation structure with a distribution of county and district functions designed specially for that conurbation, and different from the distribution of county and district functions in normal counties. It is only in giving this power for redistribution of functions that the clause adds anything that is not already contained elsewhere in the Bill. We have included that clause because we feel that the possibility of a special arrangement of that kind—the conurbation county—cannot be ruled out. But it would be a big step to take and, in our view, would be justifiable only where the local government circumstances of the conurbation concerned had two characteristics: that it was markedly homogeneous and, secondly, markedly self-contained and (this is the point I would ask my noble friend to note) different from the circumstances of the surrounding areas.
If your Lordships will forgive the personal intrusion, I may tell you that I lived in and was for nearly twenty years Member of Parliament for one of the Liverpool Divisions, and I am therefore very familiar with the Merseyside special review area which noble Lords will find dealt with in the Third Schedule, paragraph 5, which says:
" The Merseyside Area shall consist of the county boroughs of Birkenhead, Bootle, Liverpool and Wallasey, the following country districts in the county of Chester, that is to say the boroughs of Bebington and Ellesmere Port "
and three of the Wirral areas. I would suggest to my noble friend that the Merseyside fulfils my qualifications of being homogeneous, self-contained and different; and it is the difference that I would again stress, for it is quite different from the rest of Lancashire. I do not know whether my noble friend is familiar with Lancashire, but if he considers the district North of Preston, around Ulverston and Barrow-in-Furness, I believe he will agree that that is completely different from the Lancashire

119
towns constituting the special area with which we are dealing.
It is in these circumstances, where one gets homogeneity and where the area is self-contained and different, that a two-tier local government structure for the area should clearly not contain any pockets of one-tier government. Hence the requirement in Clause 20 that the powers of the clause should be exercisable only in the case of a "continuous county"—that is, that any county boroughs in the area should be demoted.
Even more important, if the area really has such homogeneous and distinctive features as to justify demoting its county boroughs and creating a local government organisation containing a specially designed distribution of functions, it follows logically that there should be a self-contained organisation for that area alone. And that is why we find that Clause 20 has been drafted in such a way as to allow it to be used only in the case of a new county whose boundaries are confined to the special review area. In other words, Clause 20 provides for a special new kind of distribution of functions, with the elimination of county boroughs as a condition thereof, only where there is to be a new and self-contained county of a special kind—a conurbation county covering the conurbation only. In all other cases the distribution of county and district functions will have to follow the pattern applicable to the country as a whole, and any demotion of county boroughs will have to be justified otherwise than by purely conurbation considerations. I would stress that point.
It is difficult not to be technical on these matters but I hope I have made them clear. In one case there is the homogeneous, distinct and different area which constitutes a conurbation, and there we shall have the special distribution of functions and the demotion of county boroughs. To those of us accustomed to the grandeur of county borough status it must not be forgotten that the demotion of a county borough of the character of, say, Liverpool or Birkenhead is a very serious matter. That is what the conurbation will include. On the other side, where we have no conurbation, there will be the usual structure
120
where no county borough could be demoted unless there were reasons of a totally different character.
Apparently the Amendment of my noble friend contemplates a situation in which, first, the county boroughs in a conurbation would be demoted, and secondly, there would be a special new distribution of their functions devised so as to give them more—or less—powers than those of the usual county district, merely in order to throw them, with the rest of the conurbation, into one of the existing counties. As I have indicated, however, with regard to Lancashire, which happens to be one I know very well, the existing counties contain in every case large areas of mixed urban and rural countryside which cannot be described as homogeneous with the conurbation areas or possessing the same distinctive features and problems. I believe that applies in every case. I know South East Lancashire area fairly well because I was Recorder of Oldham for six years; and I know the West Riding because a long time ago I had a constituency there so I am fairly familiar with these areas.
What the Amendment contemplates would therefore turn Clause 20 on its head. We should still start with the proposition that a conurbation area had to be found to have such distinct homogeneous features as to need its own special treatment, but the treatment we should then give it would be to force it into an ordinary existing county (subject to some adjustment of the powers of some of the districts) with most of which it has nothing in common. I would ask my noble friend to consider my example and assume that the Commission decide that there should be a conurbation for Merseyside. On my noble friend's suggestion we should have the arrangement of the functions for Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle, and Wallasey and then the Lancashire County Council who are concerned with the area north of Preston—Ulverston, Barrow and the like—it having been possible to give to that county council the police or fire services. When one considers the problem of the conurbation, I do not think that that is a practical solution.
With great respect, I consider the Amendment raises another difficulty. Clause 20 (and the Amendment does not alter the clause in this respect) applies only on the condition that the county boroughs in the conurbation being dealt

121
with are all, as I said, demoted. It is one thing to demote all the big and well-established county boroughs of a conurbation in order to incorporate them in a new county created specially for the conurbation area; but it is quite another to demote them merely in order to include them as districts (whether with more or less powers than normal districts) in a dressed-up existing county stretching a long way outside the conurbation and consisting of quite different communities, many of them rural.
To take my example, suppose you find the need for a conurbation on Merseyside, that implies that you demote Liverpool. But if this Amendment is carried, it will make it possible, not that Liverpool should he part of the conurbation with a special area, but that it should be part of the area of Lancashire County Council, with the north of which it has no community of interest at all. To take away and demote a borough in order to do that would, I think, be asking for trouble from the point of view of future co-operation. May I take another exaniple?—I do not want you to think I am pursuing my own "King Charles's head" of Lancashire. Let me turn your Lordships' attention to the Midlands. It is conceivable—I will put it no higher that that—that a case may be made for turning Birmingham into a special district of a special urban county created for the West Midlands conurbation, as is dealt with in the Schedule. That could be done under Clause 20 as it stands. But it would surely be absurd to seek to demote and convert Birmingham into a district of Warwickshire on the plea that this was needed because of the special distinctive and homogeneous nature of the West Midlands conurbation. That is the sort of thing that this Amendment would imply.
With an apology for trespassing on your Lordships' time, may I sum up by saying that Clause 20 is addressed solely to the case where a conurbation is found to have such a homogeneous and self-contained character as to require throughout a special two-tier structure of its own—I repeat, of its own. If there are other good grounds for not giving a separate organisation of its own—for example, because that would mean carving off so much from an existing county as to leave a rump that was neither viable in itself nor suitable for
122
amalgamation with another county—that point would have to be considered. Clause 20 is not the only solution, nor even necessarily the best solution, for a conurbation: it might in those circumstances be found best, on balance, to make more limited changes. But that is no justification for amending Clause 20 so as to mean something quite other than what it is designed or needed for. There is provision for demoting a county borough, and putting it into an existing county, in Clause 18. If that is really what is wanted in any particular special review area, that is the provision which should be used; and if it is right that the county borough should go as a district into the existing county, it is also right that it should get no more and no less functions than are available to the other districts elsewhere in the county's area.
That is the one problem. The other is the conurbation problem, and in regard to that I suggest to my noble friend that the solution which he puts up as a possibility is not compatible with the underlying idea which the Commission may follow if that is their wish. Therefore, I would ask him not to press the matter—or, rather, I would put it more moderately than that: I would ask my noble friend Lord Hylton to consider in cold print what I have said, I am afraid, in a somewhat lengthy and necessarily technical form. If, having done so, he still has any worry, I shall be glad to see him before Report stage; or, if he feels that I have not been convincing, he can put down an Amendment on the Report stage and I will deal with any point then.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am in no way qualified to deal with the technical arguments so industriously and effectively put forward by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. But what I do not understand is this: Why is it, with all that has been said in their minds, that I have a letter from the Essex County Council again begging me to support this Amendment? I am not an expert, but why do they want it supported if all the arguments we have heard are good?
LORD HYLTON: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his most lucid and careful explanation of the Government's view. If I may venture to say so, I should like to suggest

123
that he has rather blown up and inflated this Amendment far further than it was the intention, at any rate of the mover, to inflate it. In my opinion, and if I am correctly informed, all this Amendment seeks to do is to give the Commission power to make a recommendation for more convenient and economical administration; and I ventured to mention two or three functions. If the conditions are right—that is to say, if the conurbation county is such that these functions could be more economically and efficiently administered by one of the former county councils—it seems to be reasonable that the Commission should be given power so to report to the Minister. That is all that this Amendment, in my humble view, seeks to do. Of course, Essex (if I may be allowed to refer to Essex) is a county that might be affected by the creation of a conurbation county, and therefore has a particular interest in preserving, let us say, parts or the whole of its county police force. That is my suspicion in this matter. Of course, it may be that the existing police force would be the best and most efficient form of police protection to deal both with the administrative county and with the new conurbation county. However, the noble and learned Viscount has said that he will reconsider some points, and in view of that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Procedure for Commission's reviews]:
5.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), after "then" to insert "either—(a)".
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is one of a group of linked Amendments all serving simply to clarify and put beyond doubt the position arising where a Local Government Commission or county council, when carrying out a review under the Bill, decide not to make any proposals for a change in the area reviewed. This is admittedly a fairly remote possibility so far as county reviews are concerned, but it is not so remote as regards reviews by the Commissions, since these latter bodies will be concerned (outside the special review areas) only with the numbers and boundaries of counties
124
and county boroughs. The effect of the Amendments is to make it quite clear that local authorities and the public, in any review area where no proposals are made, are notified of this fact and are still enabled to see the reviewing body's report. I do not think I need to go into this Amendment any further. I am sure that it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11, after (" then ") insert (", either—(a) ").—(The Lord Chancellor).
>On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 13, leave out (" specifying ") and insert (" or
(b) if the Commission have not formed the opinion that there are changes which are desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government, shall notify the said authorities and bodies that they have no draft proposals to put forward,
and in either case shall specify ").—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 14, after (" proposals ") insert (" or, as the case may be, as to the desirability of proposals being put forward by the Commission ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18 line 19, at end insert (" if any. ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 21, leave out (" preparation of draft proposals ") and insert (" action taken by the Commission under subsection (3) of this section ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, at end add—
(c) if the Commission notify local authorities that they have no draft proposals to put forward, the Commission shall give public notice thereof ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Commission's reports to Minister]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is likewise consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) When on any review the Commission have completed their proceedings under the foregoing section, they shall submit to the Minister a report on the review together with the proposals they have formulated or, as the case may be, a notification that they have no proposals to put forward. "). (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"(5) The Minister shall secure that the report of the Commission on any review, together with copies of the proposals of the Commission or, as the case may be, their notification that they have no proposals to put forward, is furnished to all local authorities in the area to which the review related and to any other public authorities appearing to him to be concerned, that public notice of the submission of the report and proposals or notification is given and facilities are provided for enabling members of the public to inspect the report and any proposals, and that a time is fixed within which representations may be made with respect to any proposals by any local or public authority or member of the public. "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power of Minister to give effect to proposals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, leave out (" the foregoing subsection ") and insert (" subsection (5) of the foregoing section ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to add to subsection (3):
" Provided that a local inquiry shall in all cases be held where the abolition or amalgamation of an administrative county or county borough is proposed. "
The noble Lord said: The principal object of this Amendment is to make certain that a historic county shall not cease to be a separate unit of local government, if it objects, without a local inquiry. That proposition could be commended briefly in any event, but I think that my task is made all the easier by the useful debate which took place a short time ago on the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Soulbury, in which the case for the Amendment I am now proposing was made by my noble friend and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his very clear reply.
My noble friend's Amendment would have prevented, had it been accepted, a historic county from ceasing to be a separate unit of local government in any event. Her Majesty's Government thought that that would be going too far, but, in seeking to take away any fears that my noble friend might have, my noble and learned friend was good enough to state the various safeguards that existed in the Bill, which, in his submission, would prevent any serious risk of a county ceasing to be a separate unit of local government without the most careful consideration. The list of safeguards given by my noble and learned friend included this very safeguard of a local inquiry. Thus we have an admission in both Houses that the inquiry for which I seek ought invariably to be held.
In another place the case of Rutland was put in the debate on Second Reading by my honourable friend Sir Roger Conant, the Member for the area concerned, and in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary gave a specific assurance that a local inquiry would certainly be held in such a case. I need not trouble your Lordships with further particulars of that undertaking, because it was repeated in express and satisfactory terms by my noble and learned friend

127
to-day in reply to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Soulbury. We now have an express statement by Her Majesty's Government in both Houses that a local inquiry will invariably be held in such a case as that for which I seek to provide.
The only question that can arise is whether the local inquiry which, by universal admission, ought to be held, ought to be expressly provided for on the face of the Statute. I do not think that in any quarter of the Committee there will be any doubt about that. If it is universally admitted that in such a case a local inquiry should invariably be held, the Statute ought so to provide. It should not be assumed that all Ministers will invariably be wise, though I do not think that any Minister would be likely to be so foolish as not to grant a local inquiry in such a case. Nevertheless, I think that all noble Lords will agree that the matter should be plain on the face of the Statute.
The only matter that remains is the question: are the words I propose the most suitable for effecting this object? I have far too long an experience in both Houses in amending Bills to assume for one moment that the words of an amateur draftsman will be good enough. Therefore, if my noble and learned friend assures me that he will provide that there shall be a local inquiry in every such case, but that my words are not the most suitable for effecting that object, I shall have no hesitation in following his advice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am going to accept the Amendment in principle, but I do not want to stop the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, from speaking on it.
LORD OGMORE: I was just going to support the noble Lord's Amendment. I have been asked by the Merionethshire County Council to say a word on this matter for the reasons which the noble Lord gave. There has been some misunderstanding on the part of some of my noble friends about the word "where". They read that as meaning place, but in fact I think it is time and should really
128
be "when" —"whenever the abolition or amalgamation …" and so on. I think that the noble Lord made it clear in his speech, but it was not clear to some of my noble friends from the Amendment. With that rider, I support what the noble Lord has said and hope that the Government will accept his suggestion.
LORD MILVERTON: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask one question? I agree with all the aims and objects of the Amendment, but I wonder whether writing it into the Bill does not weaken the case for an appeal by a local authority by in effect challenging Parliament. As in all cases of inquiry, if certain things are specified and others are not, when one of the unspecified things has to be inquired into the case seems to be weakened.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Milverton for raising that point, because it is one of the matters which I was going to crave in aid in order to ask my noble friend Lord Conesford not to press these terms but to allow me to find some words which would deal with all the requirements. I accept the Amendment in principle. One point is that which my noble friend Lord Milverton has raised. We in the legal profession put it rather barbarously: inclusio unius, exclusio alterius—and I have always been rather doubtful about these Latin quantities. I should like to consider that point. I should also like to consider this aspect, which may interest my noble friend: that if we are going to do it with counties and county boroughs, we ought to consider non-county boroughs as well. I will take into account the consideration my noble friend Lord Milverton has advanced, and try to find an Amendment which will not create the mischief which he has mentioned, while satisfying the point of my noble friend Lord Conesford. Therefore, I hope the Committee will not tie me to the actual form of words, but I shall find the best I can before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD: I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the word "where" in my Amendment had the meaning which he attributed to it; and it was

129
because I had in mind the point raised by my noble friend Lord Milverton that I was conscious that the words of my Amendment might be imperfect. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his undertaking and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment which is consequential on the fact that Clause 23 (6) was altered in another place so as to include lines 7 and 8 the words:
" or the constitution of a new county borough by amalgamation of two or more non-county boroughs. "
I need not detain your Lordships further on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 14, after (" district ") insert (" or, as the case may be, of any of the boroughs to be amalgamated ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Power of Minister to initiate changes in default of proposals of Commission]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another of the group of linked Amendments that I mentioned a few moments ago. I beg to move it as a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, leave out (" any ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 34, at end insert—
" (2) If, in a case where the Commission have notified the Minister that they have no proposals to put forward, the Minister is of opinion after consideration of the report of the Commission and of any representations made to him by any local or public authority or member of the public and after consultation with all local authorities in the area to which the review related, that provision is required for the purpose of securing the effective and convenient organisation of local government in the area reviewed, the Minister may make proposals for the said provision. "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
Variation of special review areas.
(2) If for the purposes of their review of a special review area it appears to the Commission expedient that the whole or any part of a county district adjoining the special review area, or of the remainder of a county district part of which is in that area, should be treated as if it were comprised in that area, they may after consultation with the councils of the county and of the county district notify the Minister and the councils of the county district and of the county within which it is comprised that they propose so to treat the county district or part, and unless within two months from the notification the Minister directs them not to do so they shall so treat the district or part and proposals may be made, and given effect to, as if it were comprised in the special review area.
5.45 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2), after "area", where that word occurs a third time, to insert: "or contiguous to such district ". The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the special review areas and, as your Lordships appreciate, gives the Commission the power to make recommendations in regard to a number of areas which are, in effect, the conurbation areas. I am interested in this problem primarily from the point of view of one of the most important of these conurbation areas; that is, the Birmingham area, which has a valuable green belt that has been particularly in the minds of those of us who have been concerned and active in the amenities movement over these last years. I well remember the time when I had the great pleasure of being taken by the late Sir Patrick Abercrombie, one of the great Englishmen of our time, to see the working plan which he had put up to the local authorities concerned for the establishment of a green belt, particularly along the southern side of this Birmingham conurbation.
Birmingham is not peculiar in this matter, however. There are other important cities, and particularly perhaps the London area itself, in which the green belt is of real importance and has already proved of the greatest benefit to the people. It does not seem to me, and to other people who are concerned with this problem, that the Commissioners are given quite sufficient latitude in making their recommendations. It is true that they are, in effect, entrusted with the problem of tidying up, as it were, the boundaries. In the Birmingham area, for

131
instance, there are involved six county boroughs, nine boroughs, ten urban districts and two parishes of one rural district, together with three county councils. Obviously this is an important area and there is a dominating problem of land usage. The centre of it is no doubt the problem of Birmingham's overspill population, which is already estimated at something like 100,000 to 120,000—more than Birmingham has housing sites to accommodate.
If this problem is to be dealt with in a comprehensive and sensible manner, without the sacrifice of the green belt on the south side of Birmingham, which I am sure would be a crying shame, it seems that the Commissioners ought to be given more elastic powers to consider the area as a whole and to go outside the county districts immediately adjacent to Birmingham and the other parts of this conurbation. I believe it is only in that way that the green belt can be saved from substantial depredations into it. Looking at it from a wider point of view, I think it is only in that way that the population problem of Birmingham, in particular, can be dealt with. The city is already, I think, the largest city in England, and I submit that it would be a mistake to allow it to extend its population immediately outwards. More sensible planning proposals would be to establish satellite towns of the kind that have been established outside London. This central conurbation in England has reached a stage when it ought to be, I submit, dealt with in much the same sort of way; and therefore the review Commissioners ought to be given much wider terms of reference in order that they can consider the whole matter.
In another place an attempt was made to give them this wider power by omitting this subsection (2) and leaving it, as it were, at their discretion. If your Lordships look at subsection (2) you will see that the Commission are given power only to consider districts adjoining a special review area, and any district adjoining a special review area must be a district within the green belt—that is, of course, in the individual case of Birmingham. It was suggested in another place that this condition attached to the Commissioners' review of the situation should be left out, but that proposal met with
132
the reply that this was rather absurd, because they might then go any distance, even 100 miles. I do not think the Amendment put down was pressed, or at any rate it was not satisfactorily answered, so far as I know, and I have tried to get over this problem by limiting the review area, so that it could not be 100 miles or some very wide area of that kind, yet allowing the Commission to go a little further than the adjoining districts and as far as districts which are contiguous to the adjoining districts. I think that would, on the whole, enable them to go to the other side of the green belt. At any rate, it would certainly widen out their terms of reference and put them in a much better position for making a review of the whole situation, which is surely what one needs.
This is, no doubt, very amateur draftsmanship on my part, and I should welcome an indication of opinion from Her Majesty's Government that they are in sympathy with this proposal and that they would be prepared to take over the problem of the draftsmanship, which could be done, of course, at the next stage of the Bill. I am entirely in their hands from that point of view, but meanwhile I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble and learned Viscount and the Committee that this is a very reasonable proposition and one which ought to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 19, after first (" area ") insert (" or contiguous to such district, ")—(Lord Chorley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My difficulty here—because I should like to help the noble Lord after the most conciliatory way in which he has moved the Amendment—is that the problem is not what territory should be added; it is what territory should be added without reference to Parliament. Clause 25 (2) is to enable the Local Government Commission for England, when making proposals for changes in the local government pattern of a special review area, to extend slightly the scope of their proposals so as to cover fringe territory which, though not in the actual area designated for special review, would nevertheless best be covered by the same set of proposals. For example, it may be found that just on the fringe of the special review area

133
there is new development which is really an extension of the conurbation and should be dealt with as part of it. The Commission are empowered to do this, subject to local consultation and to veto by the Minister, without the necessity for getting an order formally varying the special review area's boundaries. In other words, they are allowed a certain degree of flexibility in observing the limits within which Parliament, in the Bill or on an order under Clause 17 (2) or Clause 25 (1), has decided that the special review area provisions should apply.
I think it is important that the Commission's discretion to stray beyond the special review boundaries agreed by Parliament should in some way be limited to the sort of cases where it is really justified, and that is the problem in front of us. These cases could arise only where all or part of the odd district or rural parish just outside the special review area's boundaries is found in the course of the review to be so nearly an attached fringe of that area as to be much more suitable for treatment along with the conurbation than with places outside it. That is why Clause 25 (2) is so worded as to allow the Commission, as it were, to stray beyond the terms of reference, but only to the extent of one district from the special review area's boundary, or, where the special review area takes in part only of a district, to that district's outer boundary.
The Amendment seeks to widen that discretion, and, apart from certain difficulties in the wording to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has very modestly referred, its apparent intention is to enable the Commission effectively to extend the special review area not merely by the width of one district but by the width of nearly two districts where one is partly within the area and one is not. I have already referred to the five special review areas scheduled in the Bill, and the only type of case of a district partly inside and partly outside is where the special review area includes a small bit of territory at one end of a rural district. The Amendment would, therefore, in practice enable the Commission, without any prior reference to Parliament, effectively to extend a special review area in any direction by nearly all of one rural district plus the whole width of the district beyond it. I think that is ping too far.
134
In our view, the extension of a special review area on that scale should not be left to the discretion of the Commission or even the Minister; it should be a matter referable to Parliament. In other words, if it seems to the Commission to be needed, they should recommend it to the Minister under Clause 25 (1), which is provided for that purpose, and then if, after the Minister has had a chance of local consultation, he agrees to the extension, he must make an order and submit it to Parliament for rejection or acceptance. Long and bitter experience of dealing with questions of this kind has, I think, made all of us decide that in the end it is better, when you are in any doubt, to refer it to Parliament and let Parliament have its say. While I am not objecting in any way to the ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, promulgated, I think this is going too far, because, as one knows, there are very big rural districts. I would ask him to consider what I have said and see whether, on reflection, he does not agree that this is the sort of thing, where we want to take in a second district, in which it would be better for Parliament to have its say.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to keep the House very long on this Amendment. I see the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said. Nevertheless, there may be cases where it is desirable, in the interests of efficient government, that an area beyond what is contemplated in this subsection should be included. It would be a great pity if we were to preclude ourselves entirely from power to take it in. It may be that the Amendment goes too wide, but if the noble and learned Viscount would look at the subsection he would see that there are ample safeguards against the Commission's going too wide. They have to consult with the local authorities concerned, with the county council and the county districts, and then the Minister virtually has to give his approval. Unless that is done they cannot take into consideration these other areas. I cannot myself think of any particular case where it is desirable, but with the developments that are taking place all over the country I should think there might well be an odd case where it would be a good thing that that should be considered in the special review. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount

135
has not closed his own mind to the possibility of slightly amending this provision so that it can be done in the exceptional case.
LORD CHORLEY: I entirely accept what the noble Lord has just said. The noble and learned Viscount did not deal with the green belt aspect of this matter which, in a sense, is a subsidiary aspect. While I appreciate the constitutional difficulties which he has indicated so clearly, I should like to press him to see whether something cannot be done. If, in fact, this biting into the adjacent areas on the South side of Birmingham takes place, it can be only at the expense of the green belt. It would be such a pity if the green belt, which has with such difficulty over the years been secured around this enormous centre of population, should be frittered away in this manner just because of these, in effect, constitutional difficulties which have been indicated. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount, with the assistance of the able people in the Ministry, should be able to find some solution which would meet the planning difficulties in the area and at the same time give an opportunity to preserve the green belt. Having said that, I would beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Provisions as to joint boards]:
6.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 36, leave out from (" board ") to (" proposals ") in line 37 and insert (" the power of the Commission or Minister to make proposals shall include power to make ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 3, leave out from beginning to (" proposals ") in line 4 and insert—
(" (2) The power of the Commission or Minister to make proposals on the review of a special review area shall include power to make ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Holding of reviews by county councils]:
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ADDINGTON: My experience in local government, which has been a major activity of mine for some considerable time, has been in the countryside, and the village in which I have lived most of my life has now, all told, about eighty inhabitants. I therefore feel strongly that local government should be based upon the parish—that is, upon the smallest unit. I think that a village is an entity, and that those on the council, or even a parish meeting, should be given worthwhile and useful functions to perform and should be able to convey to higher authority the needs and wishes of the parish. I trust that, normally, a parish will not be amalgamated, abolished or grouped with another parish, as is possible under paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of subsection (3) of this clause. I fully realise that, in a few cases, there may be exceptional circumstances. Under subsection (4) of Clause 29 even a parish meeting, if it maintains an objection, can require the Minister to hold a local inquiry. But it is probable that there will be a good many conferences and consultations between, on the one hand, the Minister and his advisers and, on the other, those who are to conduct these reviews of districts, and some general directions and guidance may be given on this. I trust that the Ministry will feel able to emphasise the point I have endeavoured to raise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to be able to assure my noble friend Lord Addington that the Government share his anxiety to preserve and foster the usefulness of the parish council system in rural areas. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of this fact, but some years ago, when I was Home Secretary, I had the honour of being asked to speak to the Parish Councils Association. I was most impressed, not only by the variety of subjects discussed but by the vigour and strength of the feelings held upon them. The Government have welcomed, and assisted in, some modest but useful additions to parish council powers that have reached the Statute Book in recent years.

137
With regard to the point that my noble friend raised, under the Bill parishes must be subject to a review and alterations, where necessary, just like any other kind of local government unit—as, indeed, they are already under existing law. I assure my noble friend that there is no intention to go in for amalgamations and so forth for their own sake. The county councils who are to carry out these reviews are given their objective quite specifically by the Bill itself, in Clause 28 (1). Their proposals must he aimed solely at effective and convenient—I repeat "and convenient"—local government, and at that alone. The procedure of the county reviews ensures that there must be extensive consultations and conferences before any proposals are submitted to the Minister; publicity and an inquiry into any local objections before the Minister makes an order, and an opportunity for Parliament to reject the order if it thinks fit. When the time for the county reviews comes, my right honourable friend the Minister will, as in the case of previous county reviews, issue a circular of guidance to the local authorities, and undoubtedly this will draw attention to the value of the parish council system in rural communities and to the importance of ensuring that the size and boundaries of the parishes are realistic in relation to the communities in them. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend on the points which I am glad he raised.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Procedure on county reviews]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 9, after the second (" and ") insert (" any ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is designed to effect a modest improvement in the procedure for county reviews. Clause 29 (2), as at present drafted, requires a county council, having completed a review of its districts, to submit to the Minister a report and any proposals for change and also to send copies to the county district councils appearing to the county council—I repeat
138
and emphasise the words "appearing to the county council"—to be concerned. That wording is similar to that of a comparable provision in the 1933 Act. We have considered the matter, and on consideration we feel that all the county district councils in the area reviewed should be entitled to receive copies of the county council's report and any proposals: it should not be left for the county council to decide which of them should be regarded as being concerned. The improvement which will be effected by this Amendment is in keeping with a similar Amendment incorporated in Clause 23 (2) in another place to entitle all the local authorities in a review area to be sent copies of the report and any proposals of the Local Government Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out from (" districts ") to (" and ") in line 11 and insert (" in the area to which the review related, ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 12, leave out from (" notice ") to (" proposals ") in line 14 and insert (" that the report has been submitted to the Minister, stating whether any proposals have been made and that copies of the report and any ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 15, leave out the second (" the ") and insert (" any ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 22, leave out (" the proposals ") and insert (" any proposal submitted to him by the county council ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 35, leave out (" and proposals ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Consequential and transitional arrangements relating to Part II:]
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a word or two about this clause, and to ask the spokesman of the Government whether they could consider the deletion, in the next stage of the Bill, of subsection (6). As your Lordships will see, the point very shortly is that due to this subsection the boundary extension will not carry with it an extension of the passenger transport area of the local authority which operates a passenger transport service in the particular district, without their going through the quite possibly difficult process of getting a consent or permit from the Traffic Commissioners.
This subsection was inserted in the Bill in another place only at a very late date, and without the usual consultations which take place with the organisations which represent the local authorities. There are, although not a large number, some district councils which run transport undertakings, and they are rather upset by the interposition of this subsection in the Bill at this late date. They very naturally take the view that when they have an effective transport system of this kind centred in the chief population area of the district in question, it is natural and sensible that on an extension of the area the transport undertakings should be extended as well. I am sure that commonsense argument is entirely on their side, and it seems that this subsection must have been inserted rather hurriedly and without the consideration which ought to be given in a case of this kind. I would suggest to the Government that it would be wise of them to take this subsection out at the next stage of the Bill, and I should like to have their reactions to this suggestion.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I think the noble Lord who has just spoken
140
is mistaken both as to the history and as to the purpose of this subsection. The subsection was put into the Bill simply to ensure that the position as regards public transport operating rights, and the need to get consents and licences for their extension, will be just the same and not different on the extension of a borough by order under a Bill as it has in practice been for several years past on borough extensions effected by Private Bills or by orders under existing legislation.
A deputation from the Municipal Passenger Transport Association recently saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport about this matter, and the position was fully explained to them. The Government fully realise that the whole question of road traffic licences and consents for local authority transport undertakings is somewhat controversial, but this subsection does not enter into that controversy. Its purpose is simply to continue the present practice in borough extensions. That is really the answer to the noble Lord's criticism. So far as the considerations of common sense are concerned, I should have thought that it was obvious, under the system of licensing that, so far as I am aware, we have now obtained in passenger transport throughout the country, that the mere fact of the extension of the local government boundary did not automatically dispose of the position as regards transport for which arrangements had already been made.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. No doubt what he has said will reach the organisations which are interested in this problem and will be given due weight by them.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
Boundaries between English and Welsh areas not to be affected
43. Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as enabling any alteration of areas to be made so as to alter the boundary between an area in England and one in Wales.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to leave out Clause 43. The noble Viscount said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I questioned the desirability of Clause 43. Now, on the Committee stage, I am not going to revert to that point, but I am going to deal with this

141
clause from the point of view of what I believe to be sound administration on the Welsh Border. This clause was not in the original draft of the Bill as it first appeared before another place, but it was inserted in Standing Committee. When it was inserted in Standing Committee, my noble friend who spoke for the Government made it clear that, notwithstanding the introduction of this clause in the Bill, it was still possible to proceed with adjustments on the Border between England and Wales under the Local Government Act, 1933, but he did not go on to say that Her Majesty's Government would give facilities for the use of that Act under these conditions. As your Lordships know, what is lawful is not necessarily expedient, and therefore, while it might be lawful to use the procedure of the 1933 Act, it by no means follows that the Department would be ready to see it used. I believe that that makes all the difference.
There are a number of places on the Border between England and Wales where quite serious anomalies exist. In some places the Border runs right through the middle of a village, and in other places the highway goes in and out over the Border and consequently is awkward and expensive to maintain. Most of these places are quite well known to the Departments concerned. I am talking now of the small places, not the bigger ones. Most of these difficulties ought to be cleared up, and it is my belief that they can be cleared up by agreement between the two local authorities concerned, with the agreement of the people who own and occupy the land. If substantial agreement cannot be reached, then, of course, I do not think it would be right that these cases should be put up to the Ministry by the counties concerned. But I believe there will be a number of places where agreement is reached arid where, therefore, there will be a good case for putting the cases to the Ministry.
I consider that the counties concerned have a right to know that if agreed cases come up to the Ministry, the Ministry will give facilities for the use of the procedure under the 1933 Act. I hope that that is an assurance which my noble and learned friend will be able to give me in a few moments. I believe that it is
142
important because, under certain conditions, it is possible that agreement might be reached between those who are materially affected, and yet a piece of land might be used as a stamping ground for all kinds of extremists, pressure groups and people of that kind. I hope that if the case were put the Ministry would be sufficiently strong-minded not to listen to pressure groups but would be guided by local authorities on both sides of the Border who had reached substantial agreement and by the owners and occupiers of the land concerned—that is, by those who were materially interested in any way. I have no idea of whether once these matters are gone into there will be a case for a piece of England to go to Wales or for a piece of Wales to go to England; and I do not think that matters. That is a matter for the counties concerned to choose to initiate the procedure under the 1933 Act. I feel, however, that we are entitled to some assurance that where local agreement is reached the proposals will be given a fair hearing by the Ministry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 43.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
LORD OGMORE: I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will not consider me a pressure group, but after careful consideration of all he has had to say I do not feel that this is an advisable Amendment to make. I understand that originally the Bill did not contain this clause and that, in those circumstances, it would have been possible for either Commission to have made suggestions for an alteration of the boundary. At that stage the Welsh Counties Association, representative of all the county councils of Wales, came into the picture. They felt very strongly on the matter. They sought and obtained the agreement of the County Councils Association, and then approached Her Majesty's Government with a view to the insertion in the Bill of some such clause as this; and during the stages in the other place this clause was moved by Her Majesty's Government.
It is quite true, as the noble Viscount has said, that in certain places the boundary between England and Wales goes in a rather odd fashion, and there are one or two places where the boundary has

143
obviously resulted either from a local battle or a local truce, for one wonders how on earth the boundary went in that particular way. I believe there is a bit of Flintshire in the county of the noble Viscount—Shropshire. There is certainly an odd bit of one county appearing in another. This boundary has been in existence for centuries past, and people on both sides of the Border feel very strongly upon it. I feel that it would necessitate not just a resolution by a Commission but a full scale Act of Parliament, whereby all interests would be represented and the whole thing could be threshed out, for there to be any alteration of the boundary between England and Wales.
I am certain that it is that kind of consideration which actuated the County Councils Association—which, after all, is representative of councils in both England and Wales—in pressing Her Majesty's Government to put the clause into the Bill. Having some knowledge of the feeling in Wales, at all events, I certainly feel that it would be wrong possibly to endanger the harmony in certain areas by permitting a Commission to make recommendations for boundary alterations. For those reasons I would support Her Majesty's Government and ask your Lordships to agree to the retention of the clause in the Bill, in spite of the persuasive and attractive way in which the noble Viscount moved his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before my noble and learned friend replies, may I say that I hope the noble Lord opposite realises that the attitude I was taking up was that I should be perfectly happy to see the clause remain in the Bill if I got the assurance for which I asked—that the 1933 Act would be allowed to be used in appropriate cases.
LORD OGMORE: I take it that if the Act is on the Statute Book there is nothing to prevent its being used. The noble and learned Viscount is to reply, but presumably the 1933 Act will not be used in improper cases; it can be used only in proper cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the explanation, which I hope will satisfy both noble Lords. There is only one point which I want to add to the history given by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
144
The House will have noticed that under the Bill the Commission for England is empowered to deal only with England, and the Commission for Wales can deal only with Wales. So that even before there was this addition to the Bill it was clear that they were to be restricted to the respective countries and were not to act in problems which involved both.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has indicated, this clause was inserted because of some doubts which arose as to whether the machinery for dealing with the joint problem was enough. But that does not mean that the possibility of the adjustment of the boundary by other means is excluded. The view of Her Majesty's Government, which I am told is also the view of the County Councils Association, is that the means that exist are more appropriate and realistic. These are Sections 140 and 143 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which are being left in force, subject to certain amendments which are set out in the Eighth Schedule. They empower the Minister—I stress, the Minister—to make orders adjusting county boundaries ad hoc, at any time—which means, in practice, during the intervals between general reviews. The county boundaries which may thus be adjusted include, of course, those which also constitute a boundary between England and Wales.
I will come to the spirit of Lord Ogmore's suggestion in a moment, but I should just like to indicate what are the procedures in the Eighth Schedule which are improved by the amendments. Either the two county councils (or a county and a county borough council) concerned on opposite sides of the boundary can agree to apply for an adjustment—and in that case the Minister—again, I stress the Minister—will be able, after any necessary public inquiry, to give it effect by order under Section 143 of the 1933 Act; or, failing agreement, the county council that seeks the adjustment can apply to the Minister for an order under Section 140 of the 1933 Act. The application will have to be advertised, and notified to every local authority and parish council or parish meeting in the area affected; there will be a period for objections to the Minister and any necessary public inquiry; and then the Minister will be able, if he thinks fit, to make

145
an order effecting the boundary adjustment asked for, subject to approval by a Resolution of each House. So one is very nearly in the noble Lord's position, in that it does not require legislation, but it requires approval in the House.
On the general point I submit this. For a peculiar and sensitive matter like adjustment of this boundary, this method has great advantages. As I have stressed as I have gone along, it puts the responsibility for the decision directly on the Minister—which is how it should be, I think, in such a matter, which goes beyond ordinary considerations. Where there is local agreement on an adjustment, the decision can be taken and implemented quite simply. Where there is disagreement, any adjustment decided on by the Minister will have to be positively confirmed by Parliament, as I have said. That is the Minister's side of it, and I think that the other side is equally important. By keeping this sort of issue out of the scope of the Local Government Commissions we shall avoid a situation in which the Commission's task of review and their set of proposals for the generality of an area lying against the Welsh Border, get clouded over by arousing feelings, which we know might well happen.
But it has been said—and I want to face it quite straightly—that even where a need for adjusting boundaries is in fact found to exist, in practice nothing will ever be done about it. But if one really assumes that no use will in practice be made of the amended powers of the 1933 Act, it would seem to be pointless to write virtually a duplicate set of the same powers into Part II of the present Bill. It must always be, in any particular case, ultimately for the Minister of the day to decide (if necessary with the approval of Parliament) whether an adjustment should be made. He already has the powers—and the Bill improves them. Clause 43 simply makes it quite clear that it is those powers, the powers of the 1933 Act, that will have to be used for this particular purpose. It was, as I have said, generally welcomed in another place, and has also the support of the County Councils Association.
The inclusion of Clause 43 does not mean that changes to this boundary under the 1933 Act provisions will not be considered. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore,
146
said, these provisions exist; they are the law and they can be used. When they are used they will, of course, be considered by the Minister, and if there are adjustments which should be made to the boundary there is no reason why they should not be considered on their merits and the changes made if they are shown to be in the public interest. But these will, as I said, be dealt with by the Minister if they are agreed, and by Parliament if there is any disagreement. I hope that for once the middle road has not succeeded in just offending both people the more. I think I have shown to Lord Bridgeman that by maintaining these provisions still in effect, the procedure can be taken, and if a suitable case arises it will be considered. In answer to Lord Ogmore, I think it is right not to get the Commissions which are operating, one in England and one in Wales, involved in this matter. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend Lord Bridgeman will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am sure that both the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and myself are grateful to my noble and learned friend for the careful and full statement he has made on the matter. So far as I am concerned, I should like to say at once that I am absolutely satisfied with that statement. It makes it clear that, if one road is barred, the other road is at least open to those with a good cause. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: May I say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I think his explanation has cleared up any doubts there may be on this subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: In view of the progress of the Bill at this stage, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we do not take the adjournment for dinner as planned. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall carry straight on and finish the Amendments remaining on the Marshalled List. I hope that those noble Lords who have already put down their names for dinner will remain and eat it, so that any alarm and despondency in the Refreshment Room may be avoided.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 43 to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to Cinque Ports
" 44.—(1) No change of area or status effected under this Part of this Act or under section one hundred and forty-one of the Act of 1933 shall affect the continuance of the Confederation of the Cinque Ports.
(2) An order under this Part of this Act or the said section one hundred and forty-one affecting any port or ancient town of the Confederation may make provision for securing the continued discharge of functions in relation to the Confederation (including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, provision for the preservation so far as necessary for the purposes of this section, and with or without modifications, of any existing corporation), for appropriating property or providing funds for the discharge of functions as aforesaid, and otherwise for securing that anything required or authorised to be done by, to, or in relation to the Confederation or any Court thereof may continue to be done.
(3) Subsection (5) of section thirty-eight of this Act shall apply in relation to the foregoing provisions of this section as it applies in relation to subsections (1) to (4) of that section. "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause is designed to ensure that any changes of area or status found necessary in the interests of effective and convenient local government in the Cinque Ports, or in the associated Ancient Town of Rye, can be put into effect without impairing the continued existence or the dignities and traditions of the Cinque Ports Confederation. I am sure that everyone will agree with this measure of protection, and I need not elaborate the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 43, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Schemes for exercise of health and welfare functions by councils of county districts
45.—(1) The following functions of a county council shall, so far as they relate to a county district for which a scheme under this section (in this Part of this Act referred to as a delegation scheme) is in force, be exercisable by the council of that district on behalf of the county council, that is to say, their functions under—

(b) sections twenty-nine and thirty of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which relate to welfare arrangements for disabled persons),

148

(d) the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938.

and, subject to subsection (2) of this section, their functions under—

(f) Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, so far as it relates to residential or temporary accommodation, and

(g) section twenty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946, so far as it relates to the care in residential accommodation of persons suffering from mental illness or to the after-care in such accommodation of such persons.

VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), to transfer paragraphs (b) and (d) to follow paragraphs (f) and (g). The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will understand that one of the innovations of this Bill is that there was introduced into certain services the principle of compulsory delegation; that is to say, a borough of over 60,000 inhabitants would have a right to demand that they should exercise control over various services, particularly education, health and certain welfare services, and to supervise that work with their own staff. In general, I do not think that anyone would quarrel with that idea—it has been the subject of negotiations that have been going on for a long term of years—although we sometimes feel that there will be duplication of staff and some additional administrative expense. There are certain highly specialised services, particularly those dealing with the blind and the mentally afflicted, where delegation might produce a duplication of officers and extravagance in expenditure which would not be justified. Also the number of specialists who can deal with this work is not unlimited and we do not want to have unnecessary fragmentation of their work. Taking the blind, for example, I understand that there are 96,000 registered blind persons in England and Wales. Dividing this on an average basis, that would mean 120 blind persons in a borough of 60,000; and of those I suppose that at least 50 per cent. would be over the age of seventy. Similar calculations regarding the mental health service show that the average for the 60,000 borough would be 105, which would probably be divided up into categories, each of which would demand separate specialist services.
I do not suggest that delegation should be ruled out. There may be, and often will be, cases where boroughs have ample

149
reason to demand their own administration of these services, where delegation would be perfectly proper. What I am asking for is that delegation should not be made automatic in regard to these specialist services, if the county council feel that delegation would result in waste of money or manpower. I ask that the council should have power to make representations to the Minister and that the Minister should have power, if he thinks fit, to withhold delegation. All I am suggesting is that the services mentioned in these two paragraphs should be transferred to the category of services where the Minister's consent is required. That seems to me to be a reasonable submission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 15, transfer paragraphs (b) and (d) to follow paragraphs (f) and (g) at end of line 34.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD AMULREE: I should like briefly to support this Amendment. It seems to me that far more is going to be gained if the tiny numbers of blind and mentally unwell people are not compulsorily transferred to the smaller authorities—partly, as the noble Viscount has said, because of lack of trained staff to deal with them properly, and partly because it is not good for people suffering from these complaints to be dealt with in such tiny numbers. I very much hope that the Government will see fit to going some way towards agreeing to the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The effect of this Amendment, which I must say is a piece of exquisitely elegant draftsmanship (sometimes Ministers say that Amendments are not well drafted, but this seems to be an admirable piece of draftsmanship), is that the functions relating to welfare arrangements for disabled persons, under Sections 29 and 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and functions relating to the care of the menially ill and mentally defective, under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938, would not be included in delegation schemes unless the Minister of Health had consented to their being so included. The whole object of Part III of this Bill is to provide for the delegation of health and welfare functions where the circumstances make this consistent with considerations of efficiency.
150
The question is whether the effect of this Amendment would be consistent with these considerations, and our present view is that it would strike at the root of the principle which is vital to the whole conception of delegation—that is, that the administration in any area of the health services, including the mental health services, should be kept in the hands of a single authority.
We regard this as necessary because of the inter-relation of the services in question and the need to co-ordinate them closely. Often this need goes to the extent of even employing the same staff—I instance the work of the health visitors—on two or more of the services. In our view this renders it necessary, as a matter of principle, to keep the administration of the health and welfare services in the hands of a single authority and we must adhere to that principle. It is true that, as in all cases where principles have been enunciated, the Bill thereupon inevitably goes on to provide for exceptions. Some of these exceptions are in paragraphs (f) and (g) of the subsection we are discussing which are made subject, as this Amendment would make (b) and (d) subject, to the provisions of subsection (2). One of the exceptions provided for is the ambulance service, which for practical operational reasons we think is not suitable to be delegated at all, and a second is the provision of residential accommodation for the aged or handicapped under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which your Lordships will see in paragraph (f)), and for the mentally ill, under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and paragraph (g) of this subsection.
With your Lordships' permission, I will give our reasons for regarding these two examples as exceptional. From what I have said, I hope it will appear clear that the whole object of delegation is to provide for it where circumstances make it consistent with considerations of efficiency, and I hope that I have shown why, at least in our view, it is unnecessary, and may well be wrong, to exclude services or parts of services unless there are special considerations, such as those applying to the provision of residential services. In our view these special considerations cannot be said to apply to the welfare service, under Sections 29 and 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, which is the service referred to under

151
paragraph (b), or to the mental health services in the Lunacy and Mental Treatment and Mental Deficiency Acts, as being the services referred to under paragraph (d). On the contrary, in our view there are good reasons why these services should be grouped with those which come automatically within the scope of any delegation scheme.
As regards the welfare services, the Guillebaud Committee expressed the view that a division between these two branches would be "calamitous", and said that
" the aim in future should be to combine the health and welfare functions as closely as possible. "
The Committee of Inquiry on the Rehabilitation. Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons, presided over, as your Lordships no doubt remember, by the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, which reported in 1956, thought that the welfare services should be closely linked with the arrangements for after-care under the National Health Service Acts, the latter being a service which will be delegated under paragraph (c) of this subsection. The mental health services of the local authorities include a home visiting service by mental welfare officers, health visitors or other social workers, and the provision of training centres for the mentally defective, all of them linked closely with the other health services and being required on a sufficient scale in an area of 60,000 population (which, as my noble friend Lord Gage reminded us, is the principal criterion) to justify delegation. There is accordingly every reason against making an exception of these services from the general principle that health and welfare services should go together.
I feel that I should explain the reasons for making special exceptions in the case of the services described in paragraphs (f) and (g) in regard to the residential or temporary accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, which, of course, is the subject of paragraph (f). We consider that this needs to be planned over a wide area and, being in short supply, it may require for some time to be so planned, particularly in view of the restrictions on capital development which at present exist. We think, therefore, that in that case it is desirable that control should remain in
152
the hands of the county council, who can make the best use of what accommodation is available by assigning to individual units a wide catchment area. In such a case automatic delegation of control of particular units to district councils might seriously prejudice the ability of the county council to make proper plans for its area as a whole or to ensure effective use of the remaining accommodation.
Some residential accommodation under paragraph (f) is of a specialised type—for instance, that for the blind, epileptic, deaf and dumb. The numbers of these involved are generally small and it will always be necessary, whatever the capital investment situation may be, to have large catchment areas for accommodation of this type. The sort of exceptional circumstances that might justify partial delegation of this service would be the existence in a large district of units of accommodation—for example, homes for old people—which closely matched the needs of that particular district. But we think that each case of this kind should be examined on its merits, and as your Lordships will see from subsection (2) of the clause, the provisions of the Bill secure this.
Secondly, the care in residential accommodation of mentally sick under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, is also treated as exceptional under paragraph (g). No accommodation of this kind is yet provided under Section 28 although there is some provided by voluntary organisations, with financial help from local health authorities. The provision of such accommodation by local health authorities is a new development of the mental health service, strongly recommended for persons not requiring hospital care by the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency. The extent of the provision which will need to be made, and the precise pattern which it will follow, cannot be known until some progress has been made in the development of the service. It is clear, however, that similar considerations apply to it as to residential accommodation described in paragraph (f), which I ventured to develop when I was talking about the residential accommodation for the aged. It will, moreover, in any event generally be desirable that control of this particular

153
residential service should be in the same hands as control of residential accommodation for the aged, since for obvious reasons the categories involved tend to overlap.
For this reason, our view is that paragraphs (b) and (d) are rightly placed under the general rule, because considerations of efficiency so demand; and that equally, because considerations of the catchment area and the other considerations I have mentioned really necessitate it, paragraph (f) and (g) are rightly separated from the others and are made subject to the consent of the Minister and the procedure under subsection (2). I, of course, bow to the great personal knowledge of my noble friend Lord Gage in matters of this kind, on which his judgment would be one which I suppose we should all accept as of the highest authority, but in this case the Government feel that the Committee cannot be advised to accept the Amendment, and I hope that in view of the explanation I have given, he will not press it.
6.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, not having anything like the authority of my noble friend Lord Gage. On the other hand, as I understand it, the County Councils Association feels strongly about this matter and, I believe, are unanimous on the point. It is clear from the speech we have just heard that the Government have given careful consideration to this point, and I am sure they want to do what is best. But I am bound to say, having read what the County Councils Association have said on the matter and, still more, having heard the views of my noble friend Lord Gage, and particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on the question of lunacy and like complaints, I should hope that the Government would reconsider, at any rate, paragraph (d), although I should hesitate to pronounce on paragraph (b). I should have thought that even the arguments which my noble friend the Lord President of the Council has adduced, as to why the matters under paragraph (g) about mental illness are treated separately and require the special approval of the Minister, were in themselves greatly in favour of the argument that paragraph (d) should be put in the same classification and treated in the same way as paragraph (g).
154
After all, what we want here in this Bill, as has been so rightly said on both sides of the Committee, is efficiency. We want the careful consideration of what is best for the individual people concerned, and we want economy; that is a matter which the Government have stressed very strongly. I should have thought, that from the point of view of economy, at any rate, it must be clearly right that the mental services, the treatment of lunatics, whether in their locality or in a central institution, cannot be divided. Persons are continually moving. We know how the local doctor gets on to the central mental institution; people are sent there for observation. This sort of thing is quite unsuited to an area of 60,000 people. I would suggest that in the interests of the patients themselves it is most desirable that at any rate all these matters with regard to lunacy should be treated in the same way and should be treated as paragraph (g). After all, if you leave a matter to be dealt with automatically by delegation, there it is; but if you transfer it and classify it under paragraph (g) you are not preventing this from happening in a suitable place. On the contrary, if a good case is put up for allowing a delegated authority to have control over all the lunacy matters, then the Minister can perfectly well approve it. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will be willing to consider this matter again, at any rate so far as the lunacy services are concerned.
LORD CONESFORD: May I support very strongly the pleas that have been made? When I saw some of the very expert gentlemen with experience of these matters from the county councils, the example that impressed me, I think even more than the example just given by my noble friend Lord Swinton, was the example given by my noble friend, Lord Gage, in his original speech—namely, the blind. I think that in the case of the home visiting of blind persons there is evidence that a single person—and I imagine he must be a fairly expert person—visiting the blind in their homes can deal with more blind persons than will be found in the comparatively small authorities we are here considering.
I think, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Swinton is quite right in saying that, unless we have some Amendment of this clause, the Government will be insisting

155
on waste, and on a wasteful use of perhaps a limited number of people—because I imagine that the number of people who are skilled in teaching the blind in their homes is not so very great. Therefore, for the purpose both of a practical arrangement and of an economic arrangement, I think there is a good case for some Amendment of this clause. I could not follow, as I heard it, all the very careful speech of my noble friend the Minister in his reply. Although it seemed to me that this Amendment was a good one, I dare say that there are some objections to it; but I think we must avoid this automatic delegation which actually leaves, so far as I can see, the blind in a worse position than now obtains.
LORD HYLTON: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President will look at this matter again. I would ask him if he is aware that in 1954 all the four local government associations agreed that mental health should not be delegated under a county scheme. It is not often that these four associations agree on any policy, but if this rather surprising conclusion was right in 1954, I believe that the Government must have some tremendously strong reason why they should now wish to force delegation of these subjects on to the authorities concerned. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord President has not told us the fundamental reason. He has given us no real reason for this, except that they thought it might be a good thing. That really is not the point. The point really is that on this business you have to count heads: if there are not enough blind or enough mental defectives in a 60,000 population, then it would be wrong to delegate because they would be better looked after under the existing system. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President will look at the point again.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of what has been said, perhaps I ought to mention that the Association of Municipal Corporations are entirely behind the Government in this matter and are opposed to this Amendment.
LORD HYLTON: I did not know they had changed their minds since 1954.
LORD MILVERTON: I think their reason is that, where efficiency is possible, the care of the sick and so forth should essentially be carried out by people of that locality; that there should not be a distant authority, and that it is better to have it in the area which they are trying to serve.
LORD LATHAM: This is a tricky matter. It cuts right across local government and it cuts across Parties. I had some experience of transferring health services from the metropolitan boroughs to the London County Council in 1946. I think it was a proper thing to do, but I did not find universal assent to that proposition. I believe that now that the services, as a consequence, have been established, proposals are afoot for the transfer of quite a number of them back to the metropolitan boroughs. On this matter, I should have thought that it was not likely to result in efficiency or economy or in the provision of the necessary quality of services to delegate the welfare of the blind to, relatively speaking, small units. For instance, I gather that within the provisions of the National Assistance Act, 1948, there are services for the blind, including home visiting, home teaching, home workers' schemes, employment in workshops for the blind and recreational facilities. I find it difficult to visualise a relatively small authority providing workshops for the blind. They are very difficult to provide. All sorts of problems arise in connection with them. London County Council at one time (I do not know what the figure is now) had some 8,000 blind persons within its charge, and quite a number of workshops; and even then we found the problems at times almost insurmountable.
Then there are perhaps more difficult problems, not so wide in extent but, in my view, more difficult, in dealing with the deaf and dumb. I should have thought that those were eminently services which should be dealt with and provided by the county council, unless, of course, an almost unanswerable case can be made to the Minister for delegation. I am also equally disturbed about the proposal to transfer mental services and functions to authorities having a population of 60,000 and over. Dealing with persons mentally affected and providing treatment under the various

157
Lunacy and Mental Acts is a matter of great complexity which requires expert staff, of whom there are not too many available.
Therefore, in the interests of the nation it should be possible to employ those special specialists (if I may use that word) to the full, rather than have them as officers of, relatively speaking, small authorities and therefore, by reason of the facts of the case, not fully employed because, happily, the number of the persons to be served and dealt with is not sufficiently large. Contemplate running a workshop for fifty blind persons. It cannot be done except at, relatively speaking, staggering cost per head. We are often regaled with figures about this cost and that cost. I admit that the figures are very disturbing, but one must always bear in mind that if there are only ten persons to deal with those ten persons will, in many cases, have to carry the same overheads as a hundred persons. That is why the per head costs or per unit costs appear to be, and indeed are, so high.
I cannot accept the view of the noble and learned Viscount, speaking for the Government, that the purpose here, namely, to secure an efficient, economic and (as I assume the noble and learned Viscount would wish) equal service—will be achieved merely because delegation is automatic. The delegation under Clause 45 is automatic. As understand it, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is asking that the services comprehended within subsection (1) (b) and (d) should not automatically be delegated, but that they should be, as it were, delegated by permission and approval of the Minister, after he has considered all the circumstances not only of the demand but of the capacity to meet the demand that may exist in any particular area. In those circumstances, I think that the Government should look at the matter again in the light of what has been said in the debate.
7.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would agree that there has been strong feeling shown in this debate that, as Lord Latham has said, this matter ought to be looked at again. My noble friend was good enough to attribute all sorts of special knowledge to me which I do not
158
claim. But I am concerned with administration, and the argument that has appealed to me in the County Councils Association's case is that it is not just transferring a group of people from one existing service to another existing service. To do their job properly the boroughs who claim to look after these afflicted people will have to go out and recruit specialists that they have not got at present. I speak in all sincerity when I say that, because of my responsibility as a county councillor, I should feel much happier if the experts on this matter—for it is an expert matter—had a really careful examination of what is entailed under the Bill as it stands. I should say that I am not greatly impressed with the fact that the Association of Municipal Corporations are against this Amendment. It is the sort of thing that I suspect they would be against, and it rather strengthens my case that this particular suggestion ought to be looked at again most carefully. Therefore, in view of the strong feeling that has been shown in this debate, I hope that my noble friend will consent to look at it again.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether it would be the wish of the Committee that I should reply to the various invitations that have been extended to me, or whether they would prefer me to remain silent. But I always like to reply to invitations, and perhaps it is better that I should do so. I know that my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill would not wish me in any sense to give the impression that the Government's mind was closed upon what is obviously a controversial and complex subject, and certainly do not want to give the impression, therefore, that this matter will not receive further consideration. On the other hand, there are sometimes different tones of voice in which one offers further consideration. Sometimes it amounts to a virtual promise that one will yield to the pressure and to the feelings which have been expressed. I do not want to give that impression either in what I say—in other words, while the Government's mind is not closed. I do not wish to encourage belief that this is a change of view on the part of the Government. For that reason, I would rather indicate one or two arguments which I feel I ought to put, after

159
hearing the debate and listening with great attention and interest to the various opinions which have been expressed.
Of course, it is not for me to express any preference as such for the divergent views of the municipal corporations and the county councils as stated in their professional bodies. Each association is rightly proud of its own jurisdiction and powers, and of the different and divergent advantages which each type of authority offers. I think this matter has got to be viewed on its merits. I am bound to say that, listening to the case presented for the county councils' view, I did not think they had really grappled with the point: that many of the services required by these afflicted persons are provided by generalised home visiting services and mental welfare officers. For instance, as regards mental health, the whole trend has been to integrate this service with the other health services. This was one of the principal attitudes adopted by the Royal Commission's Report.
The provision of workshops for the blind, referred to by the noble Lord opposite (of which he has great experience) is a specialised subject on its own, and the considerations applicable are sometimes different from the point of view of both municipal and ordinary counties. They are a very special case, and they are, as a matter of fact, already provided to cover the area of several local authorities by one local authority providing and the others using the workshops. Therefore, they do not really assist one, I think, in coming to a conclusion as to which of these two rival views is the better. At the same time, I would say to my noble friend Lord Swinton that I am not at all convinced by the argument that because residential accommodation for these afflicted persons needs to come from a wider catchment area than a 60,000-inhabitant municipal corporation, then services other than residential accommodation for the same afflicted persons need necessarily be treated in the same way.
For exactly the same reason I fail to follow my noble friend Lord Conesford. I myself do not take the view that economy is the primary consideration here, but he seemed to think that the Government's view was necessarily the
160
more extravagant of the two views expressed. I must say that I do not feel convinced by that, if you once assume, as the Government believe—and which certainly has not been controverted by figures—that the 60,000 population is sufficiently large to be able to require health services justifying delegation as a matter of statistics, and, secondly, that the home visiting service which has to be provided for the blind and the deaf and the dumb consists of mental welfare officers, health visitors and other social workers whose activities will not be confined to those afflicted. I know that it would not be the desire of either the Committee or the local authorities concerned to duplicate services of this kind. Having said that, I would add that the last thing I wish to do is to create the impression that we are adopting an absolutely intransigent or dogmatic view about what is obviously a controversial matter. I certainly should like to think that both my right honourable friend and my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in charge of the Bill in this House will give the matter further consideration in the light of the debate.
VISCOUNT GAGE: In view of what my noble friend has said, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Variation and revocation of delegation schemes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, I am advised and believe, a drafting Amendment relating to the provision in Clause 47 (1) whereby a district council that has once got a delegation scheme for health and welfare under Part III of the Bill is exempted from any need to get consent before making and submitting a fresh scheme varying or revoking it. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clearer that this exemption applies not only irrespective of what the district's population may be at the time but also irrespective of whether or not it is a rural district. I am advised that it really is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 26, leave out (" population ") and insert (" circumstances ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Contributions by county councils to expenses of county district councils]:
7.26 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON had given Notice of two Amendments, the first being in subsection (1), after "but" to insert "subsection to subsection (3) of this section" and the second to insert a new subsection (3). The noble Lord said: The purpose of the two Amendments standing in my name is to ensure that the much wider power now proposed to be conferred on county councils to make contributions towards the expenses of county district councils shall be exercised with due regard to the needs of the councils to be assisted, and also to the justice of requiring other county districts to contribute to its expenditure. Under the Bill, rate deficiency grants will be paid in the future to county district councils direct where those councils qualify for such grants because their average resources are below the national average for county district councils. This provision means that in future there will be no poor county district councils, as the rate deficiency grant will bring up the resources of the poorest to those of the average. One of the chief reasons for county council contributions to county district councils' expenditure is therefore being removed altogether by this Bill.
The four main causes of expenditure in regard to which heavy burdens may be placed on a county district council are the provision of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal, coast protection and expenses in connection with schemes of town development. As regards all these matters county councils have powers under independent statutory provisions to make grants to county district councils. Indeed, certain of these Statutes impose obligations on county councils to make contributions where the Minister of Housing and Local Government has himself agreed to contribute. In rural districts, which generally are those having small resources but which will be very con-
162
siderably assisted by the rate deficiency grants under the Bill, the county council is responsible for the repair and maintenance of unclassified roads, so that there can be no undue expense falling on the rural district in respect of highways.
Having regard to these considerations, it may be unjust to the more progressive authorities if county councils make grants towards the expenditure of backward local authorities. For example, if one authority has, entirely at its own expense, made complete provision within its area in respect of some service, it seems quite unfair for that authority to have, as it were, to pay twice by contributing through the county council precept towards the county council grant offered to induce some other authority to make some similar provision, perhaps, within its own area, unless it can be shown that the resources of the authority so assisted are such as to make a county council contribution essential to enable the work to be carried out. The clause is put forward by the Government as a contribution towards the relaxation of controls on local authorities. It must however be expected that some controls will continue to be necessary under any arrangements, and these arise when third party rights exist. For example, it would not be suggested that a local authority need no longer seek the confirmation of a Minister before making and putting into effect a compulsory purchase order. That is an obvious case where third party rights exist and must be protected.
Similarly here, although in theory the county council raises its own money and therefore should be entitled to do with it as it pleases, it is to be remembered that this money is obtained by precepting on the county districts within the country. This means that where a contribution is paid to one of the county districts the county council are giving away money which has been raised from the ratepayers of the other county districts within the administrative county. These districts in some cases may be equally in need of assistance. It is right, therefore, that the county district council should be able to challenge the intention of the county council to give away money raised in their area.
In support of this it is notable that the Royal Commission on Local Government which sat under the chairmanship of the Earl of Onslow from 1923

163
to 1929, when recommending that county councils should be empowered to contribute to the expenses of county districts, also recommended that the power should be limited to certain essential services and that any proposals to make a contribution should be subject to an appeal to the appropriate Minister—then the Minister of Health, now of course, the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
It may be said in the interests of county district councils that they should not look to the county council for financial assistance for their various local projects save in cases of absolute necessity, because contributions by a county council may lead to undesirable but inevitable interference by the county council in the affairs of the county district assisted, and that if the practice of looking to the county council for contributions is persisted in over a period it may produce an attitude of subservience on the part of the county district councils towards the county council which will militate against the creation and maintenance of a healthy and independent system of local government among the county district councils.
Having regard in particular, therefore, to the improved financial resources which will be available to the poorer county district councils as a direct result of this Bill and to the injustice of imposing on progressive county districts the financial burden of contributing towards the expenditure of other areas on services which they themselves have provided in their own districts, at their own expense, I move this Amendment, which seeks to ensure that there shall at least be an opportunity to appeal against the possible irresponsible generosity of any county council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 37, after (" but ") insert (", subject to subsection (3) of this section, ").—(Lord Milverton.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have not consulted the County Councils Association on this Amendment, but, speaking from my own point of view, I believe district and borough councils are admirable bodies; I have myself served on both. They have good and bad instincts, and this Amendment is calculated to appeal to their very worst
164
instincts, for it is based on the fear that some county district council is going to do better than another. The county councils must have discretion in this matter and, after all, they are collective bodies which often include members who are also members of district councils. In any case, the principle of election should provide that the different points of view of different areas are properly represented. If this procedure had to be adopted whenever a grant had to be made I believe that it would not only cause a great deal of unnecessary trouble but might cause delay which, in some cases—for example, in matters dealing with erosion—might prove dangerous. I do not know what Her Majesty's Government will say in reply, but on the whole I should say that this Amendment should not be supported by the Committee.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On the previous Amendment I found myself somewhat supporting the municipal corporations against the view which was admirably expressed on behalf of the county councils. On this occasion, with what I hope will be regarded as an impartiality devoted to the merits of each case, I am bound to say that I align myself with my noble friend Lord Gage, rather than with my noble friend who proposed this Amendment. The power which is conferred by Clause 55, under which this Amendment is proposed, empowering the county council to make such contribution as they may think fit without the need for ministerial consent, replaces more limited powers given respectively under Section 307 of the Public Health Act, 1936, referred to in subsection (1), and under Section 126 of the Local Government Act, 1948, in subsection (2).
Under the present law which this clause replaces and enlarges, no ministerial consent is required for the exercise of the first power, but ministerial consent is required for the exercise of the second power. We have to bear in mind the whole policy underlying the Bill. This is a Bill designed to give local authorities greater responsibility to manage their own affairs. I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is to create machinery whereby county councils must not exercise this power without the Minister's consent—at any rate if the decision is challenged. To that extent, it takes away from local authorities the right to manage

165
their own affairs. The ground on which the argument is presented is that the individual interests of local communities inside the county council area may be prejudiced if this is done—I believe that even the fear of irresponsibility was voiced by my noble friend Lord Milverton. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that county councils are not likely to prove irresponsible bodies; and, after all, the people who may be precepted to their disadvantage within county council areas as my noble friend Lord Milverton fears, are persons themselves residing within the county, and the county council is responsible to them no less than to other people.
Wherever there are local authorities there are, and must be, divergent interests. It is sometimes surprising to see local authorities showing for their interests all the passion shown by rival business concerns, though we all know that they act out of the purest public spirit and very often, as in this case, on behalf of individuals who are in fact constituents of both areas. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that county councils are to be trusted with this power and that it will be adequately safeguarded by the ordinary processes of discussion and democracy without the unnecessary belief that the "man in Whitehall" will know better than either.
LORD LATHAM: I should have thought the main objection to this Amendment was that it is calculated to impair the good relations between county councils and county districts. Whatever we may think of this Local Government Bill, local authorities, through their associations—which have been in pretty energetic disagreement over many things over the past twenty years—hope that, whatever deficiencies, in their view, this Bill may contain, the relationships will be improved. I can think of nothing more likely to impair good relations between county districts and county councils than the power which it is sought to give county districts under this Amendment. My own view is that it would impair the self-esteem of the county districts and the self-respect of the county councils. I very much hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
LORD MILVERTON: Without in any way agreeing with a single word of the noble Lord who spoke last, I should like
166
to thank the noble and learned Viscount who replied on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for his sympathetic and clear expression of his difference of opinion. In view of his words, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is really a drafting Amendment which is consequential on an alteration made to Part II of the Bill in another place, as a result of which the definition of "local authority" was inadequate for the purpose, as it did not include the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 3, at end insert (" and in the said Part II includes the Council of the Isles of Scilly ").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
First Schedule:

PART I: RELEVANT EXPENDITURE
9. Expenditure incurred by local authorities within the meaning of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, in the provision, or in aiding the provision, of facilities for physical training and recreation, including the provision and equipment of gymnasiums, playing fields, swimming baths, bathing places, holiday camps and camping sites, and other buildings and premises for physical training and recreation, and in respect of the training and supply of teachers and leaders.
7.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to add to paragraph 7:
" so however that nothing in this Act shall affect the payment of the grants authorised by section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, in respect of expenses incurred for the purposes of police forces. "
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is one of three linked Amendments which are necessary to give effect to the intention, already known, of preserving the police grant in respect of expenditure on providing and maintaining vehicles and equipment used by police forces in enforcing the law relating to road traffic. This forms part of police expenditure, and accordingly should, as I hope your

167
Lordships will accept, as with other types of police expenditure, continue to attract the specific Exchequer grant towards police services. This particular expenditure also attracts at present a grant from the Ministry of Transport under Section 57 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (as amended by Section 4 of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955), and this latter grant is to be superseded by the general grant; expenditure of this type is therefore made "relevant expenditure" by paragraph 7 of Part I of the First Schedule.
The three linked Amendments are necessary because the general grant is expressed by Clause 1 in its present form to be "in lieu of grants paid or payable" in respect of relevant expenditure, and this would have the unintended effect of replacing the police grant on this part of police expenditure as well as the separate Ministry of Transport grant. This Amendment has the effect of securing that the general grant shall be in lieu of grants in respect of relevant expenditure, save as provided in Part I of the First Schedule. We then amend paragraph 7 of Part I of the First Schedule to provide that the inclusion of motor-patrol expenditure as "relevant expenditure" is not to affect the payment of police grant. With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept these three Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 45, at end insert (" so however that nothing in this Act shall affect the payment of the grants authorised by section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, in respect of expenses incurred for the purposes of police forces. ")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved to omit paragraph 9. The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down in order to emphasise the national, as opposed to the local, nature of the provision for recreational facilities. In another place the Minister, in reply to an Amendment of the same sort, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, April 17, 1958 (Standing Committee D), col. 1379]:
" I beg the Committee not to accept the argument that a local authority will never do anything unless it receives a specific Exchequer grant for that purpose. We never imagine in ordinary life that that is the case. No one ever maintains that local authorities will not provide libraries, street lighting or refuse collection because there is no specific grant. Yet
168
it is being argued that local authorities will fail to do their duty with regard to parks and open spaces if they do not receive a specific grant. "
Well, I think this is a question of priorities for local expenditure. I am sorry the Minister thought fit to bracket, as it were, refuse collection with playing fields. But if one might take street lighting or refuse collection as an example, there is an immediate reaction by the public, through complaints, if lighting or refuse collection is deficient.
Recreation has a rather low priority in the scheme of things. Spaces for recreation are, I would say, in a very different category. They have much longer effects. In fact, you have to look almost generations ahead to see the effect of open spaces and the use of them for recreation, and the benefit from them is indefinable and indeterminate. I would not say that this was a question of local authorities failing in their duty; but it is a question of special assistance to local authorities to raise the priority of this type of amenity as a national policy—a question of special assistance as an incentive to proceed and to take some action. I again quote the Minister. He said in another place [Col. 1380]:
" There is the additional argument that those who benefit from a new park or open space in the main live in the neighbourhood. There does not seem to be any particularly cogent argument why the nation as a whole should be called upon to make a specific contribution towards a new open space which unquestionably will be visited almost entirely by those who live within a mile or two miles of it. It is, therefore, a natural discretionary decision for the local authority, whether or not the people of that area are willing to pay the additional cost to get the additional amenity. "
Perhaps I might reply to that. I do not know whether I have any cogent arguments. It is, of course, more usual for local open spaces to be used by local people, but I would emphasise that it is by no means universal. I can call your Lordships' attention to all sorts of cases where running tracks, for instance, are used by people a great many miles away, and there has been some effort to provide more of these. On one occasion I was at the site of a running track and I asked where the nearest one to that was, and I was told it was a hundred miles away. People go great distances to try to get these means of recreation; and that applies to swimming facilities as well. Ever since the Physical Training and

169
Recreation Act, 1957, it has been national policy, through special grants, to encourage youth in all recreational activities, and I think everybody would agree that it has been a great success in increasing all recreational facilities.
There was an instance of the Government's approval of the policy only recently when an Amendment which I put was accepted in the Town and County Planning Act; that was evidence of the appreciation of the necessity of special national assistance in certain cases. Up to that date, and in the Act to which I have referred, it seems that this was still the concern of Her Majesty's Government, but now the policy has changed to one of indifference. If all this encouragement and assistance ceases I can see a great decline in the provision of open spaces and recreational facilities throughout the country, which would be a great disservice to the nation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 5, leave out paragraph 9.—(Lord Luke.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to reinforce everything that my noble friend Lord Luke has said. When we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading, I ventured to draw attention to the risk that, if we were not careful here, a national policy might be stultified by local action. I think that this is a case where the risk is perhaps greater than in other directions. After all, we have a national policy in this matter of recreation grounds and open spaces. We have had it since the passing of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and if my memory serves me (I have not been able to look up the references) the point was made again in the debates on the Education Act, 1944. The trouble is that this idea that recreation is a matter of national importance is, up to a point, a new idea. The "old-timers" on the county councils and borough councils did not have the benefit of recreation grounds and playing fields. Many of them came up the hard way, and the idea that this should have priority is not thought by some still living in another age to be right. Therefore, the fears that my noble friend Lord Luke has voiced are not entirely idle words. If we do not take care, it is possible that
170
the national policy may work very unevenly in the areas of different local authorities. Whatever happens to my noble friend's Amendment, this is a matter on which the greatest watch will have to be kept, if we want the policy embodied in the Physical Training and Recreation Act to be a reality all over the country.
7.53 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support what has been said in respect of this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, has dealt with playing fields and other needs under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and he has been capably supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I should have thought that the national interest is very apposite in this matter, and even more so in regard to open spaces. These are specifically dealt with in paragraph 5 (1) (c) of the Schedule which refers to
" the acquisition under any enactment not hereinbefore referred to of lard for use as a public open space; "
I should like to see this point included in the Amendment. No doubt it is not possible to do so at this stage, but I think that it would be feasible to deal with open spaces at the next stage in the Bill.
The provision of open spaces, as opposed to recreation grounds, has so far been dealt with under the 1937 Act, under which local authorities can obtain assistance from the central authority in the purchase of open spaces. That provision has been taken advantage of in a number of cases, to the great help of people who want to go out from the congested areas in big cities and towns to obtain open air exercise in the country, but has not imposed on the central authority any expense incommensurate with the advantages obtained. It is not possible for authorities in the country, who are often not at all well off, to make provision, for open spaces for ramblers and hikers and people coming out from the big towns unless some assistance is forthcoming from the central authority. If there is anywhere in this Part of the Bill a matter which is of national rather than local interest, I should have thought we have it here. I hope that the Government will be prepared to indicate that they will look not only at recreational facilities in the nature of sports and games but also at

171
the wider interests of people who go into the country in order to take advantage of our open spaces.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that I have not read the debate in another place, and if my noble friend who moved this Amendment was offended by the comparison between the subject matter of the Amendment and refuse collection, I can only apologise on behalf of my right honourable friend who, I am perfectly sure, did not intend any offence by the comparison. Without betraying any rifts in the Government, I would say that for certain purposes, at any rate, the comparison would appear to be inappropriate. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept my apologies.
Oddly enough, no noble Lord has mentioned what appears to be the conclusive argument against this Amendment. Physical education, which is really the basis of our subject matter, is an integral function of the education service. This is its essential characteristic. I realise, of course, that on the matter of general principle noble Lords opposite sought to exempt the education service from the general grant—or, rather, they opposed this general grant in principle, because 85 per cent. of it would be in respect of educational expenditure. I should have thought that nobody could suggest that this was a class of education separated in any essential characteristic from the administration of the education service, of which it is part. It is true that there is a national policy on physical training and recreation, but I hope that my noble friend will not think that there is not a national policy in respect of school education. School education is certainly as important as physical recreation: perhaps more important. Whether the Government are right or, as noble Lords opposite think, wrong about the general policy, which we have already threshed out on Second Reading, and assuming that the policy is to be carried into effect—and that was the decision of your Lordships' House on Second Reading—it must be wholly wrong to propose an Amendment which would have the effect of separating one part of the education service from another. To my mind, that is a conclusive argument against the Amendment.
There is another argument of a more inconclusive kind. The Physical Training
172
and Recreation Act, 1937, was originally intended to have a limited operation for three years only. Owing to the outbreak of war and other circumstances, it has continued in force up to the present day. It has, however, become largely superfluous because, in their capacity as local education authorities under the Education Act, 1944, county and county borough councils now have powers which, to a great extent, cover the same ground. It is therefore fully appropriate on this more limited ground, now that the Government are undertaking a systematic overhaul of the system of local government finance, to simplfy the financial arrangements under which local governments must make provision for physical training and recreation and, at the same time, leave the responsibility for deciding about local expenditure of this type where it can be more effectively exercised—in the hands of the local authorities themselves. Physical education is, as I have said, an integral part of the general education service, and I think that any attempt to finance it separately from the remainder of the service will inevitably fail.
There is a final point, I am afraid of a pedantic character, but Ministers have to make these pedantic points from time to time in order to correct the record; and I hope that I have directed my mind to the merits of the case and not to pedantic considerations. The effect of this Amendment, if it were unaccompanied by any other Amendment not so far proposed, would be to remove from the category of relevant expenditure this service which we all wish to see paid for, so that the local authority, while retaining the responsibility for providing the service, would be deprived of any money in the general grant formula for the purpose of providing it.
8.2 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I rise to support this Amendment. While I appreciate the kindly references made from time to time to my association with the London County Council, I think I should say that I also had eight years' experience with a relatively small local authority, first as an urban district council and then as a borough council. I am not, therefore, wholly uninformed or inexperienced as to local government on a lower plane than that of the London County Council.

173
The noble Viscount referred to the difficulties which faced the operation of the Act of 1937 owing to, first, international, and then war conditions. I well remember the passing of that Act, the great acclaim with which it was welcomed and the great hopes which were associated with it. The noble Viscount said, I think, that the provisions of that Act are now regarded as being somewhat superfluous, having regard to the provision within the educational services. As I am sure he will well know, there was a Select Committee on Estimates which went into the operation of the youth service, which included consideration of the operation of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. I will not refer to the somewhat astringent remarks made by that Committee as regards the attitude of mind, as they understood it, of the Minister of Education towards the youth employment service and the youth service generally, including, the provision (let me emphasise this) of sports grounds, open spaces and playing fields.
There was a recent Bill giving local authorities power to make to voluntary associations not only grants but also loans. I said at the time that Bill was in your Lordships' House that it was intended to merge the grants formerly given under the Act of 1937 in the general block grant within the provisions of this Bill. I think we must remember, in connection with the submission of the noble Viscount that this is really a problem to be dealt with by the education service, that the service provides not only for those who are at school, but also for the adolescents and indeed the adults.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord must not misconstrue what I said. I said that it was part of the education service, and the education service also provides education for adults and for those who are not at school; and it expressly refers to physical education.
LORD LATHAM: Yes; I am very sensible of what it does. I would say this, however: that it was precisely because the educational service had not up to 1937 adequately dealt with this problem that we had the special Act of that year and the special machinery that was set up—rather comprehensive and, as I thought at the time, rather ambitious
174
machinery. I think we must all agree that this service, while it need not necessarily be a national service in too rigid a sense, ought not to be too dependent upon the fragmentary provision of, relatively speaking, smaller local authorities. I think that that was the view taken which led to the 1937 Act: that the provision should be by direct grant on a national basis.
There can be no doubt as to the need for sports grounds, open spaces and playing fields. There is no more corroding agency for our youth than boredom. I have recently read a book the title of which is Asphalt Playground. I am not unaware of conditions in London and elsewhere in regard to some of the playgrounds and some of the schools, or in regard to some of the housing, but I must confess that I was almost terrified at what I read in that book; and I have no reason to believe that it is exaggerated or that it is not based upon the fairly close experience which the author himself has had. If we are to abate the disturbing increase in juvenile delinquency, and, indeed, juvenile crime of a frightening order in some cases, we must provide for the employment of the leisure of adolescents and give them something to offset boredom and hanging around the street corner and the lamp post. I can think of no expenditure which will show a better return than that on the provision of open spaces, sports fields, running tracks and facilities for other cultural employment and enjoyment.
Leaving aside the general question of percentage grants and block grants, it is a little petty, is it not, to include within the block grant the provision which has hitherto been made, and will, I hope, in the future be made, under the provisions of the Physical Training and Recreation Act? I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount who has conduct of the Bill for the Government at this stage will think again and represent to his right honourable friend the need for dealing with the matter in the way that the mover of the Amendment suggested.
LORD LUKE: I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just said in emphasising the distinction between these two, which was not clear from the speech of the noble Viscount in the first instance. I am sorry that it

175
seems to have been the wrong Amendment in the wrong place, but I am not at all sorry that the matter has been discussed. I regret that there was no reply from the noble Viscount on what I said about the national policy for recreational facilities. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in Part III, in paragraph 8 (1), to leave out "police". The noble and learned Viscount said: This is one of three linked Amendments. Paragraph 8 of Part III of the First Schedule is intended to provide for a supplementary grant in respect of the high costs in the Greater London area which affect the cost of providing local government services. In its present form the Bill provides for the supplementary grant (which takes the form of a prescribed percentage of the basic grant) to be payable to authorities whose areas are wholly or partly within the Metropolitan Police District.
The material point, so far as concerns these Amendments, is that the paragraph also provides that there may be different percentages for authorities whose areas are wholly within the Metropolitan Police District and those whose areas are only partly within the District. The purpose is to enable, but not to require, the Minister to prescribe a higher rate for the former group of authorities, the point being that in counties which are only partly in the Metropolitan Police District, such as Kent, high metropolitan costs may not prevail in the part of the county most remote from London to the same extent as in counties like Middlesex and London.
The Amendments are necessary because the administrative County of London is not wholly within the Metropolitan Police District—the City of London, which has its own police force, being outside that district. Clearly, if there are to be two prescribed percentages for high metropolitan costs, the London County Council should qualify for the higher percentage. I am sure that the noble Lord
176
opposite will hear those words with satisfaction.
LORD LATHAM: No dissent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Amendments therefore substitute for "Metropolitan Police District" the expression "metropolitan district" which is defined as being the administrative County of London plus the remainder of the Metropolitan Police District. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will accept these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 23, leave out (" police ").—(Viscount Hailsham).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is part of the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 29, leave out (" police ").—(Viscount Hailsham).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 30, at end insert—
(" (3) In this paragraph ' metropolitan district ' means the administrative County of London together with the remainder of the Metropolitan Police District. ").—(Viscount Hailsham).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON had given notice to move, in Part IV, to leave out subparagraph (c) of paragraph (4). The noble Lord said: Since I put down this Amendment I have heard that there has been a meeting—I think it took place this afternoon—between the Minister of Education and some of those concerned with local government on this very point of pooling expenditure on further education. I therefore suggest that it would be more suitable if I did not move this Amendment now but let the matter be reconsidered, if necessary, at a later stage.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eight o'clock.