Sitting of 25 June 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    National Service Men (Cyprus)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the worsened situation in Cyprus, he will immediately stop sending National Service men there.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I do not see why.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it fair to send young conscripts to Cyprus and to use them not in defence of our own country but to clear up the dirty mess which the Government have created? If it is intended to use the thousands of National Service men in Cyprus for the purpose of intervening in the Lebanon, is that not even more shameful and also more worrying to their parents?
    Mr. Sandys: First of all, I should like to say that National Service men are, of course, an integral part of the British Army. Secondly, having seen something myself of the spirit of these men as they went off to Cyprus the other day, I am quite sure that if they had been left out they would have been not only disappointed but many of them would have felt positively insulted.
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Defence what is the minimum period of training before sending National Service men to Cyprus.
    Mr. Sandys: From nine to eighteen weeks, according to the Service involved.
    Mr. Allaun: Since the number of volunteers has risen, why cannot those men who can have a longer training be sent there instead?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. He seems to suggest that there is a new policy. There is no change of policy. This has been the practice for a very long time. It was the practice under the Labour Government when they regularly sent National Service men overseas for all kinds of operations, including the war in Korea.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Will the Minister see that these National Service men are equipped with automatic weapons so that they can defend themselves?
    Mr. Sandys: Of course, they will be properly equipped like the Regulars.

    Germany (Tactical Atomic Weapons)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is now the policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to equip West German forces with tactical atomic weapons.
    Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 21st April last by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware of the widespread public dismay at the fact that the new German Army is to have access to these tools of mass destruction and because of the belief that the so-called safeguards are worthless because, before long, the Germans will be able to manufacture the warheads themselves? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in no circumstances would any German have the authority to give the order to use these arms?
    Mr. Sandys: In the first place, the weapons in question will, of course, be American weapons and the warheads will be under American custody. I think that answers most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. With regard to the manufacture of these weapons in Germany, the German Government renounced any right to manufacture such weapons in Germany.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the point clear that, in fact, these tactical atomic weapons are not under the control of the Federal German Government but, technically, under the control of the American forces?
    Mr. Sandys: If it is necessary, I shall be glad to make that clear. I thought I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman that these would be American weapons and that the nuclear warheads would be under American custody.

    European Arms Pool
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the proposed European arms pool so far as it concerns aircraft, missiles, warheads and associated equipment.
    Mr. Sandys: A number of proposals for joint weapon development and production have been formulated by Her Majesty's Government and certain other Governments of the Western European Union. These have been discussed by experts recently in preparation for a further meeting of Defence Ministers next month.
    Mr. de Freitas: I welcome that statement, but is it not a fact that unless there is a great deal more co-operation and pooling among the European members of N.A.T.O. it would be wiser to cut their losses entirely and wind up Western European Union?
    Mr. Sandys: I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman to see really effective co-operation of arms development and production. I have been pursuing this idea, not altogether successfully, for a number of years, both with the Americans and now with our European allies. So far as Western European Union is concerned, it exists for more things than co-operation in arms development.

    Blue Streak and Thor Missiles
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence the total estimated cost of developing the Blue Streak hydrogen bomb rocket and of building launching sites for it; how many sites it is planned to build in Great Britain; and if he will consider halting the projects in order to lessen international tension and the danger of making this country more vulnerable.
    Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Can the Minister state that the reported cost of £150 million is approximately correct? If one of these missiles is launched by accident or by design, is it not obvious that there will be a military retaliation in which our people will be wiped out? What kind of defence is this? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the maps prepared by Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, showing the devastation which would be caused if a bomb were dropped on Manchester? Will he prepare similar maps for other parts of the country to show the folly of this policy?
    Mr. Sandys: Of course, if a thermonuclear bomb is dropped anywhere it will devastate a large area, but that is not the issue here. I am satisfied—and I think that the great majority of people are satisfied—that the addition of this weapon will increase the effectiveness of the Western deterrent. So far as the question of whether the possession of these weapons will increase the vulnerability or the likelihood of this country being attacked in retaliation, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues on the benches opposite that Great Britain has been a first-class military target for any enemies of this country ever since the Labour Government, very rightly, decided to manufacture British atomic bombs and to give the United States bomber force facilities and bases in this country.
    Mr. de Freitas: Cannot this missile, apart from its military use, be used for scientific purposes, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be used for a satellite or anything like that?
    Mr. Sandys: We are talking now about the Blue Streak rocket. I have no doubt that all these things will have scientific applications, and there is no doubt that the progress of peaceful science has derived a great deal from the efforts put into military developments of all kinds for many years.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what are his plans for manufacturing in this country atomic warheads for the British Blue Streak missile and the United States Thor missile.
    Mr. Sandys: The nuclear warheads for the British ballistic rocket will be made

    397
    in Britain. We are not planning to make British warheads for the American Thor weapon.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the Paymaster-General's statement yesterday about military plutonium, the increased cost to the atomic energy stations will be borne on the Defence Estimates so that we may get a true picture of the cost of our own atomic weapons?
    Mr. Sandys: There is a separate Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

    Forces, Cyprus
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Defence what forces were stationed in Cyprus on 1st May; what forces have since been despatched to the island; and for what purpose.
    Mr. Sandys: In view of the unsettled situation, it was recently decided to reinforce the garrison of Cyprus with two additional brigade groups. It would be contrary to normal practice to publish figures of total forces on operational duties overseas.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of his answer, in view of the unsettled situation, could easily apply to the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean and only add credence to the fears that these forces which are going there may be for intervention in the Lebanon? Will he make perfectly clear what is the intention of the Government and what is the boundary of the term "unsettled situation"?
    Mr. Sandys: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, reading the newspapers, would have seen that the unsettled situation in Cyprus was quite enough to justify large reinforcements to that area.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In regard to the reinforcements and my hon. Friend's previous Question, we were given several undertakings during the period of the Labour Government that no boys doing their National Service would be sent abroad under a certain age or before having done a certain number of months' training. Is that now being applied?
    Mr. Sandys: I have already answered two Questions on that subject.

    Plutonium Supplies (Nuclear Power Stations)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what decisions he has taken to arrange that plutonium for weapons will be produced at atomic energy plants designed for peaceful uses.
    Mr. Sandys: This is the Question to which I referred the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas).
    I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General yesterday.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister is getting more and more laconic and less and less impressive in the House. Is he aware that we thought that he was sent to his present position to reduce expenditure, whereas the increased cost of his latest decision is to put between £12 million and £15 million on our national bill? Is he also aware that this means a massive increase in national expenditure in the sixties, which will be the time when we need to use these atomic plants for industrial purposes?
    Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about expenditure, all I can say is that these modifications, at a relatively small cost, will have the effect of greatly reducing the cost involved in making this additional military plutonium, should the need arise.
    Mr. de Freitas: My question was much simpler. While not dissenting necessarily from the increased charge being put on, I should like to know if this money will be accounted for in the Defence Estimates so that we may know what the cost of this is?
    Mr. Sandys: The cost will be borne on the Defence Vote and, therefore, will not affect the cost of electricity.

    The Lebanon
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence the nature of the routine precautions in the field of defence which Her Majesty's Government are taking in relation to the situation in the Lebanon.
    Mr. Sandys: We have endeavoured to put ourselves in a position to meet any possible eventuality.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that he is getting less and less impressive as time goes on? He is supposed to be here to answer Questions and not to dodge them. Can he give a definite assurance that these troops, who were so enthusiastic about going to Cyprus, will not be used in another Suez venture in the Lebanon?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman is altogether more and more repetitive.
    Mr. Hughes: It is needed.
    Mr. Sandys: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary gave a definite assurance the other day that no action would be taken contrary to the United Nations Charter or to the established rules of international law. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bevan: May I say that that is not quite satisfactory? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is in accordance with the rules of the United Nations Charter as interpreted by the United Nations or by the Government?
    Mr. Sandys: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal later on with Questions on this subject which are on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Bevan: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman. I am asking him a question to elucidate what the right hon. Gentleman said. He was very tart with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I should like him to be a little more explicit. He said that these troops were stationed where they are in anticipation of any eventuality that may arise. He said that they would only be used in connection with the Charter of the United Nations and with our international obligations. Who is to interpret the Charter—ourselves or the United Nations?
    Mr. Sandys: I have not so far mentioned the word "troops" in my reply to the hon. Gentleman. We do, in fact, maintain troops in Cyprus for two purposes. One is to carry out internal security duties, and the other is to have a reserve to meet possible eventualities in emergencies in the Eastern Mediterranean area. I think that the recent outbreak of inter-communal strife, as the House will recognise, made
    400
    it essential to increase the forces necessary to keep order in that area, while preserving the normal reserve which we have there for outside emergencies. If we had not sent this additional force there, we should not have had enough to deal with the internal security problem and we should have had to commit to police duties the reserve force which we normally preserve as a precaution in that area.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the profoundly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Cyprus Airlift
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the recent airlift to Cyprus.
    Mr. Sandys: About 6,000 men and about 200,000 lb. of freight were transported from Britain to Cyprus in Hastings, Comet, Beverley and Shackleton aircraft of the Royal Air Force. The movement was carried out with commendable efficiency by all concerned.
    Mr. de Freitas: Does not the operation show clearly that there is a grave lack of transport freight aircraft for such an operation? Is it not now time to let the Air Ministry consider the purchase of additional freight transport aircraft to enable it to do the job which is imposed upon it by Government strategy?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that for the operation which was carried out the aircraft proved most adequate. I should like to emphasise that the operation was not carried out at maximum speed. That was not necessary. It was thought right to give the troops reasonable warning to make their private arrangements before they left. It was not necessary to transport large quantities of freight to Cyprus. One of the elements in our policy, as I have explained to the House, is to keep stocks of heavy equipment in various theatres where they can be available and need be transported only the short distances which are necessary within the theatre.
    Mr. Bellenger: Were any of these troops, who, I take it, were part of the strategic reserve, moved by civil aircraft, as was reported in the newspapers? Is

    401
    the Minister satisfied that in time of emergency, much more urgent than that which caused these troops to be sent to Cyprus, he has sufficient aircraft to make the move quickly?
    Mr. Sandys: I should like to check it, but I think I am correct in saying that no civil charter aircraft were used for this move. Replying to the general question, of course I should like to have a larger Transport Command to carry out reinforcements. That is why we have ordered twenty Britannia aircraft. When they are received it will greatly increase the airlift of Transport Command. As the strength of the Army goes down, the carrying capacity of Transport Command will be going up.

    Compassionate Leave
    Mr. McAddenasked the Minister of Defence if he has yet completed his examination of the question whether Service men who are granted compassionate leave should have their normal leave reduced.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. It has been decided that in all cases the grant of compassionate leave shall, in future, not be allowed to affect entitlement to normal leave.
    Mr. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first Question which he has had to answer today from this side of the House? Is he aware that the Answer is extremely satisfactory and will be welcomed on all sides of the House? Does it not show that in pursuing a practice which is in accordance with the best practice in industry, my right hon. Friend is a progressive and forward-looking Minister whom the House should be pleased to congratulate?
    Mr. Sandys: I am overwhelmed.
    Mr. J. Paton: Is the Minister aware of the deep sense of grievance among some of the parents of the boys who have been airlifted to Cyprus that they were not given the normal embarkation leave? Is he aware that there is a feeling of great inequality about this matter, since the members of the Brigade of Guards apparently had four days embarkation leave before they were sent abroad? Will the Minister see that these inequalities do not recur?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Shower your compliments now!
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think there will be any sense of grievance about the reply I have given, which, of course, dealt with an entirely different point from that raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton).

  UNITED NATIONS (ISRAELIARAB BORDERS)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what action he has taken, or proposes to take, through the United Nations Organisation, to clarify the responsibilities and powers of the individual members of the United Nations Observer Corps on the Israeli-Arab borders; what steps he is suggesting should be taken to strengthen their authority; and what action is to be taken to provide more assurance for their personal security;
  (2) if he will instruct the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations to press for the necessity for the fullest possible inquiry into the shooting of Lieutenant-Colonel Flint, Chairman of the Israeli-Jordanian Mixed Armistice Commission.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I am sure that this House would wish to be associated with the sympathy already expressed to the Canadian Government on the death of Lieutenant-Colonel Flint. On 17th June the Secretary-General of the United Nations circulated a report on the matter by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation. This document is available in the Library of the House.
  I think it is for the Truce Supervision Organisation itself and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to say what support they need to enable them to carry out their task. But Her Majesty's Government have always made it plain that they stand behind Mr. Hammarskjold in this, and I know he has been taking a very active interest in the matter just recently.
  Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that I speak with some feeling on this

  403
  matter since I had the privilege of spending some time in the company of Colonel Flint a few weeks before he was shot through the head on Mount Scopus? I distinctly remember his saying to me that as a professional soldier he did not mind being shot at but that he did wish to know what was the objective to be secured. Is it not a fact that we are posting men out there with immense responsibilities but with practically no powers and no means of self-protection? Have we not a special responsibility, as the United Kingdom Government, to ensure that we look to the basic causes of unrest there, and that if we have a United Nations Force it is not only charged with responsibility but has powers to carry out this responsibility?
  Mr. Lloyd: There is a great deal in what the hon. Member said, if I may say so. We will certainly pursue the matter with the Secretary-General.

  ICELAND (CLOSER CO-OPERATION)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give consideration to ways of ensuring closer co-operation with Iceland.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are anxious for this closer co-operation.
  Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is any opportunity to help Iceland to decrease her economic dependence on fishing by obtaining some diversification in her forms of livelihood? Does he think we could help by advice or by offering any means of exchange of new industries to help forward Iceland's economy?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think my hon. Friend is quite right in her suggestion. For example, we have recently provided experts to take part in a study, which the Icelandic Government asked O.E.E.C. to undertake, of a new plant in Iceland which would have the effect of diversifying her industries. We will certainly do all we can to help.
  Sir R. Boothby: In view of the urgent necessity to conserve the spawning grounds of fish in the North Sea, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think
  404
  that a fresh approach might be made to the Icelandic Government to see whether we could not come to a settlement on a scientific rather than a political basis and protect some of our own spawning grounds, for example, the Moray Firth, as well as their spawning grounds?
  Mr. Lloyd: We shall be ready to do that. I shall be very willing indeed to enter into negotiations with the Icelandic Government.

  HONG KONG (REFUGEES)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the refugee problem which imposes a heavy burden on the Hong Kong Government and the fact that the money is raised in the Colony for these refugees, he will make a further special grant available through the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees of European origin in order that they should be able to leave the Colony without any delay due to financial difficulties.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I know that the High Commissioner views the present situation with considerable concern. I am therefore re-examining the problem with particular regard to the question of onward movement from Hong Kong. By 1st July, about thirteen hundred refugees should have been moved on since 1st January of this year, and the objective is to move a further two thousand three hundred during the second half of the year.
  Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him whether he would like any assistance from me with the Treasury?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would always be obliged to my hon. Friend for any assistance in a good cause.

  HUNGARIAN LEADERS (EXECUTIONS)
  Mr. D. Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take, either inside the United Nations or in consequence of the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the Treaty of Peace with Hungary,

  405
  on the execution of Prime Minister Nagy, General Maleter and their associates by the Hungarian authorities.
  Mr. Kirkasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the Hungarian Peace Treaty, what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take following the execution of Prime Minister Imre Nagy, General Pal Maleter and two other leaders of the Hungarian people; and whether he will make a statement;
  (2) on how many occasions the British delegate at the United Nations raised the question of the whereabouts of M. Nagy and his colleagues in pursuance of his undertaking of 11th February, 1957.
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British delegate to the United Nations to express the abhorrence of the British nation at the murder of Mr. Imry Nagy and his associates in the discussions that are to take place in the United Nations on this matter.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The indignation aroused by the execution of these men in spite of the safe conducts offered to them is shared by Her Majesty's Government and, I am sure, by the whole House, and I welcome this opportunity of placing this on record.
  As regards the particular points raised by hon. Members, the provisions of the Peace Treaty with Hungary have long been frustrated by the Soviet and Hungarian Governments, and there is no prospect that any representations made under the Treaty would be effective.
  The Special United Nations Committee on Hungary set up in January, 1957, is considering the executions.
  The whereabouts of Mr. Nagy was not raised in the United Nations debate of September, 1957. He was believed then to be in Roumania, and reliance was placed on the assurances which had been given by the Roumanian Foreign Minister that every measure would be taken to guarantee his security and that the Roumanian Government would observe the rules of political asylum.
  Mr. Price: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the action of the Hungarian Communists in betraying the safe conduct and in subsequently murdering their Prime Minister shows that the word of a Communist cannot be trusted and that some action is demanded by the United Nations if an international rule of law is ever to be established?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that public opinion throughout the world will draw the appropriate inference from these actions. As to United Nations action, as I have said, the Special Committee is considering the matter.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the real damage arising from this, apart from the personal tragedy involved, is that once one's word is broken on one matter it is very difficult to gain confidence on wider issues, and would he make it his specific responsibility to bring this point to the notice of the Soviet Government?
  Mr. Lloyd: Most certainly, I will.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the feelings of repugnance that have been aroused by this action of the Communists in Hungary are shared by hon. Members on this side; but is he also very well aware that, in the interests of international peace, we should not let our vision be obscured by atrocities of this kind?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon Gentleman is perfectly right. It does, however, give us stronger ground for pursuing a policy of trying to get agreements compliance with which can be proved by deeds.
  Mr. Kirk: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has any information about other trials that may be pending, and whether deportations are still continuing?
  Mr. Lloyd: I should like my hon Friend to put that Question down.
  Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is precisely because we believe that it is concrete obligations that should be undertaken and not vague generalisations that we have put forward definite proposals from this side?
  Mr. Lloyd: I was not seeking to raise an element of controversy between us. I thought that, for once, there was some agreement between us.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to prepare a draft scheme for the system of international inspection required to ensure that an agreement to suspend nuclear tests will be observed; and whether they will lay this scheme, as a basis for discussion, before the Committee of Experts who are to consider the matter.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We have been considering this matter for some time. Our experts will be ready to put forward and discuss constructive proposals at the Geneva meeting in conjunction with the other experts. The importance which we attach to this meeting is, I think, shown by the fact that Sir William Penney and Sir John Cockcroft have been nominated as the principal United Kingdom representatives.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask whether I am right in understanding that our experts will put forward a concrete plan showing what measures of control we are ready to accept?
  Mr. Lloyd: Certainly our representarives will put forward proposals, and the proposals will indicate the measure of control that we ourselves are prepared to accept.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will specify the Governments which are to be represented at the forthcoming conference of experts to be held in Geneva on 1st July, their terms of reference, and the date by which they have to report.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As a result of exchanges of letters between President Eisenhower and the Soviet Prime Minister, it has been agreed that, on our side, the team for the Geneva talks will include experts from the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Canada. On the other side, we have
  408
  been informed that Soviet, Czechoslovak and Polish experts will take part. The purpose of the talks is to examine in a scientific and technical sense methods of detecting violations of any agreements that may be proposed by either side on the suspension of nuclear tests. Both sides agree that the experts will work as quickly as possible. I cannot yet say when they are likely to report.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the widespread resentment and mistrust which has been created by the recent executions of Mr. Nagy and his associates, may we take it that it remains the intention of the Government to make use of the opportunity that this conference affords in order to achieve results in the methods of supervising and controlling any agreement which may be reached on the suspension of nuclear tests?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

  FISSILE MATERIAL (PRODUCTION)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the system of international inspection embodied in the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which came into force in October, 1957, for the control of the cut-off of new production of fissile material for warlike use.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The International Agency has not yet considered the methods to be used in implementing the safeguard provisions in the Agency Statute. It would therefore be premature to estimate how much there is likely to be in common between the Agency scheme and any scheme appropriate for control of the cut-off.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I not right in reading the Statute to mean that there shall be a system of permanent, continuous inspection by resident inspectors of the kind that the Foreign Secretary urged on the Russians in 1954?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have the Statute with me, and all I can say is that, on my reading of it, I think that it is rather vague as to how exactly these various obligations are to be carried out.

  DISARMAMENT
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals for the reduction of the armed forces of the leading powers and of their conventional armaments were laid before the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee during its session in London in 1957.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The information which the right hon. Gentleman requires is contained in the report on the proceedings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, Command 333, a copy of which has been sent to him.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am familiar with the document, but can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what the reductions in Western manpower would have been under these proposals, and what types and quantities of arms would have been stockpiled in the dumps on national soil for which they provided?
  Mr. Lloyd: I really think that if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the document he will find that that information is therein contained.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have examined it with the very greatest care, but, so far as I can make out, the proposals make no reduction in Western manpower, and there were no proposals as to the types or quantities of arms to be stockpiled. It is precisely that information that I am asking him to give to the House.
  Mr. Lloyd: The reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary is that he is quite wrong. Definite figures were put down for reduction: in the first stage, down to 2½ million, and 750,000 for us; in the second stage, 2,100,000, and 700,000 for us; and in the third stage, 1,700,000, and 650,000 for us. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right on the other matter. Precision was not given to the actual reductions in armaments. The right hon. Gentleman, who, I hope, wishes to be fair in this matter, will remember that this is one of the points about which we have sought again and again to have discussions with the Russians.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have every desire to be fair, but, as I understand it, the figures that the Foreign Secretary has
  410
  quoted would not mean any reduction for the Western Powers at the first stage and, in the second and third stages, would not operate until undefined political conditions had been fulfilled.
  Mr. Lloyd: In the first stage, it is true that the figures for the United Kingdom did not involve any reduction, because we had previously announced that the total of the Armed Forces was coming down substantially below that figure. I should think that was to our credit, not to our discredit. I am informed that it did involve a reduction for the others.

  SPAIN (BRITISH PROTESTANTS)
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lodge a protest with the Spanish Government against the continued discrimination against Protestant British subjects in Spain and, in particular, the denial to British Protestants of the right to contract a civil marriage.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the hon. Member will send me details of any particular cases he has in mind I will certainly look into them. I know of no discrimination against British subjects as such, but Spanish regulations only permit civil marriage to those who can show that they were not baptised Roman Catholics.
  Mr. Fletcher: I certainly will send details to the Foreign Secretary, but will he bear in mind that I have had representations that the increasing number of British tourists there are quite scandalised by the discrimination against Protestants in Spain?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any particulars, I will be only too glad to take them up.

  THE LEBANON (SITUATION)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a further statement on the situation on the Lebanon-Syrian border in view of his discussions on this matter with other Governments.
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests have been received from the Government

  411
  of the Lebanon for arms and military intervention; and what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government in relation to these requests.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the consultations between the United States Secretary of State and British representatives on the Lebanon situation on 15th June.
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in the United Nations towards the Lebanon-Syria dispute in so far as it affects world peace.
  Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports have been received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the situation in the Lebanon; and if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As a result of the submission of the matter to the Security Council, United Nations observers have been sent to the Lebanon and are attempting to operate there.
  Before he left New York, the Secretary-General circulated a report, dated 11th June, on the implementation of the Security Council Resolution. A copy of this is available in the Library. I had a talk with Mr. Hammarskjold on 18th June when he passed through London. I assured him of our full support in implementing the Security Council Resolution. We await any recommendations he may put forward as a result of his visit to the Middle East.
  With regard to arms, I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) on 11th June. No request for military intervention has been received from the Government of the Lebanon.
  The answer to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) is, "No, Sir."
  Mr. Henderson: Can we have an assurance that the Government will not participate in any military intervention in the Lebanon except upon the direct authority of the Security Council or the
  412
  General Assembly and following conclusive reports from the United Nations observers who are at present in the Lebanon that there has been a direct attack upon the Lebanon by another country?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a similar Question on 19th May and I answered then that Her Majesty's Government would not act contrary to the Charter or to the established rules of international law. That remains our position.
  Mr. Henderson: I am asking the Foreign Secretary something quite specific this afternoon. I am not asking whether his assurance refers to the legal interpretation of the Charter but whether, in fact, the Government will give an assurance that they will not participate in any military intervention without the direct authority of the United Nations. I am asking whether he will give an assurance that they will not participate in any military intervention in the Lebanon except upon the direct authority of the Security Council or the General Assembly.
  Mr. Lloyd: I have given a very carefully considered Answer—[Interruption.] I do not believe that any Government would answer this Question differently. I do not think that it is profitable to consider various hypothetical possibilities, but what I do assure the House is that we will give full support to the United Nations operations that are going on. I think that that is the constructive way to approach the matter. And I tell the House absolutely frankly that we will do everything we can to make the operations a success, because I think that they are the only effective way to secure peace in the Lebanon.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, following his last statement, he will have the full support of this side of the House? But in view of the statement of the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary's answer this afternoon, there is now a most undesirable ambiguity about the situation. Is it not a fact that our position is that the body responsible for interpreting the obligations of members of the United Nations under the Charter is the United Nations authority itself and not individual nations? If individual

  413
  nations themselves interpret what the Charter means, or what international law means, we have gone away from collective security back once more to unilateral action. Therefore, why will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking, so as to remove all doubts, that the Government will not act in the Lebanon except on authority given either by the Security Council or by the United Nations General Assembly?
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. For example, action under Article 51 is the responsibility of the individual Government—collective self-defence. There are certain circumstances which are not covered by the formula of acting only under the authority of the United Nations. I have given a very carefully considered answer on the legal aspect of the matter. As to the reality—the practical policy of the Government—we are going to give the fullest possible support to the present United Nations operation.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that we will not act in an armed way in the Lebanon except in self-defence?
  Mr. Lloyd: Article 51 is one of the matters involved. For example, the President of the Lebanon has just said today that he would not ask for military intervention outside the framework of the United Nations. He also talked about Article 51. I maintain that no person in my position would depart from the formula which I have given.
  Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the statement by the Foreign Secretary that he intends to support the United Nations up to the hilt, may I ask him to make clear that he will not countenance any intervention in the Lebanon which is contrary to the decisions of the United Nations or is due to internal causes and not external causes?
  Mr. Lloyd: My formula—"contrary to the Charter or to the established rules of international law"—covers the position.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that suspicions have been aroused on this subject because apparently right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not yet realised
  414
  the folly of Suez, and that if our troops were used, even in a successful intervention, this would invite immediate economic reprisals which would be disastrous for that small country? May I further ask what steps he can take to inform the House before our troops are used?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into a discussion of other matters. A lot of malicious people have been saying things in which there is no truth at all.
  Mr. Swingler: The Foreign Secretary's answer to Question No. 29 was "No". Are we to take it that there is truth in the Press reports that military conversations have taken place in Washington between United States and British representatives? There have been widespread reports in the British Press that conversations have taken place. Whether he likes it or not, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people are recalling the military build-up and manoeuvres that preceded the Government's decision to intervene and make war in Egypt and are apprehensive because they recall the losses that this country sustained as a result of intervention, and that——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary question is rather too long.
  Mr. Swingler: May I have an answer?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Speaker: The House cannot compel Ministers to answer. It is unfair to other hon. Members to hold up Questions indefinitely.
  Mr. Lloyd: As to the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he asked whether he could take it as a fact that certain things were discussed. He should not take it as a fact.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in mind that there were exactly the same sort of cheers and jeers from this side of the House preceding the resignation of the late Prime Minister?
  Mr. Lloyd: I hope there will be a rather more constructive attitude on this occasion from the Opposition.

  BRITISH AND ITALIAN SOMALILANDS (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have been made by the United Kingdom Government during the recent talks between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, Italy and the United States of America on the future of the British and Italian Somalilands.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Discussions about the future of the Horn of Africa are continuing through diplomatic channels. These discussions, however, are confidential.
  Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Ethiopian Ministers in Addis Ababa have said that they will accept the union of British and Italian Somaliland if the Ogaden is not included in the final settlement? Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that he will do nothing in this matter which will further disillusion the Somalis who have been very loyal in these difficult times?
  Mr. Lloyd: As to the future of the Protectorate of British Somaliland, it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to answer. I think I have answered the Question which the hon. Member put on the Paper.
  Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that though supporters of that friend of the Opposition, Colonel Nasser, are making progress in Somalia, there is still in that country a great good will towards Britain? Will he undertake to study the whole question of economic aid to both Somalia and British Somaliland, together with the possibility of setting up a Greater Somalia?
  Mr. Lloyd: Those matters are certainly under consideration.
  Mr. Bevan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the observation of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was not only offensive but intended to be offensive? Is the hon. Member acting in accordance with the conventions of this House when he refers to Members on this side of the House as being friends of Colonel Nasser?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the hon. Member to confine the circle of
  416
  Colonel Nasser's friends, as he called them, to any particular part of the House. I thought he used the expression meaning those who support Colonel Nasser in the Middle East and other places. It may have been offensive, but it was not out of order.

  BRUSSELS EXHIBITION (BRITISH PAVILION)
  Miss Burtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many people have visited the Government pavilion and the industrial section, respectively, at the Brussels Exhibition; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Up to and including Sunday, 22nd June, the total number of visitors passing through the turnstiles at the United Kingdom Government Pavilion, the approach to which forms the main entrance to the United Kingdom site at the Brussels Exhibition, was 1,228,561. Most of them subsequently visited the Industry Pavilion, but no similar check is made on visitors to the Industry Pavilion and no detailed figures are available.
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the Exhibition has earned most favourable comment on its originality of conception and quality of execution. It is a fine example of co-operation between Government and industry, to whose generous and effective support I should like to pay tribute.
  Miss Burton: I am very glad to hear what the Foreign Secretary has said, but is he aware that, perhaps inadvertently, the Press of this country has not given a good impression of what has been done over there and that it is very disappointing for our people who work there, especially when British visitors say that it is a great deal better than they have been led to expect? Secondly, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we are losing a first-class opportunity in public relations by charging for some of our pamphlets? Is there time for him to look at this again, and could he not arrange for them to be issued free, as many other countries do?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for what she said in the first part of her supplementary. I think that

  417
  what she has said, together with her original Question and my answer to her, will do something to correct the wrong impression which she says exists. As regards the second matter to which she referred, I will certainly look at it urgently.
  Mr. Bevan: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that those of us who have had an opportunity to visit the British Pavilion were very favourably impressed indeed by it, but we share my hon. Friend's regret that there are feelings among officials there that they have not had fair play in the British Press?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Lodging Allowances
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a further statement concerning the lodging allowances scheme for workers compelled to leave their normal areas because of redundancy.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): As I promised the hon. Member in my Answer on 30th April on this subject, I have kept this matter under review, but I have no further proposals to make.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that we in Coventry and, I imagine, others elsewhere are sorry that he has no further statement to make as yet? Does he hope that, perhaps in the distant future, he may still be able to reduce this waiting period?
    Mr. Macleod: I certainly will not promise to abolish the waiting period. I think it is of importance so that one may have a check on the prospects of employment in the home area. I am, however, frankly disappointed at the use made of the temporary transfer scheme. I will, however, keep the waiting period in particular under review.

    Apprenticeship Council
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the constitution and scope of the proposed national apprenticeship council.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): The British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress and the Boards of the Nationalised Industries have decided to establish a council whose functions will include those suggested in paragraphs 84–86 of the report "Training for Skill". I am not in a position to make any further statement at present, but discussions are continuing and it is expected that the council will be set up in about a month's time.
    Mr. Moss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give great satisfaction to those who are interested in the training of our young people? Further, does he recollect that the Carr Committee said that the national apprenticeship council should receive full co-operation from the Ministries of Labour and Education, and can he say how this co-operation between the Ministries and the national apprenticeship council has been brought about? Finally, has he considered whether it would be advisable to have someone on the council from technical education?
    Mr. Wood: The question of whom the council eventually invites to join it in its deliberations and work is, obviously, a matter for the council to decide, and I cannot say more now; but I am quite certain that it will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said when making a decision.

    Retail Prices and Wages
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour what has been the percentage increase in the retail price index since August, 1951.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Nearly 32 per cent.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the comparative figure for 1945–51 was about 40 per cent?
    Mr. H. Hynd: How comes it that it has risen by 32 per cent. when the Conservatives promised to reduce the cost of living?
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour what has been the percentage increase in actual earnings since August, 1951.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Half-yearly inquiries covering manual wage earners in manufacturing industries generally and in a number of the principal non-manufacturing industries showed that in October, 1957, the average weekly earnings per worker had risen by 50½ per cent. since October, 1951. Figures for dates later than October, 1957, are not available.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the contrast between the two figures he has given will be very widely appreciated as showing the great increase in the standard of living under the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Macleod: It is, of course, common knowledge on both sides of the House that there has been an enormous increase in living standards under the Tory Government.
    Mr. Lee: Will the Minister not agree that this figure is quite misleading unless we have other details? How many more hours are being worked, for instance, to produce the increased earnings? Further, will he not say a word of congratulation to the workers for managing to increase their productivity despite all the efforts of the Government to keep it down?
    Mr. Macleod: Even if one takes rates of wages, the increase is 43·5 per cent., so the comparison still holds. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong from his point of view to describe this figure as misleading; it is merely inconvenient.

    Middlesbrough
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of workers registered in Middlesbrough as unemployed at the latest date for which he has information; and what increase this represents above the numbers so registered four weeks previously.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: One thousand nine hundred and forty at 16th June, an increase of 261 compared with 12th May.
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Labour how many workers formerly employed in the steel industry are registered at the Middlesbrough Employment Exchange as unemployed; and how many vacancies suitable for such workers are at present known to the employment exchange.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Three hundred and sixty-seven at 16th June. The number
    420
    of vacancies notified by employers in the steel melting industry to employment exchanges in Middlesbrough and remaining unfilled at 11th June was 28.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable misgiving on Tees-side and in Middlesbrough about this increase in unemployment among steel workers? Can he give a better assurance than his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power was able to give me recently when I asked whether the Government are ready with new projects to use steel constructional materials in case these numbers should increase?
    Mr. Macleod: It is true that the decrease, as I think my hon. Friend said in reply to the Question, is regarded, rightly, I hope, more as a fluctuation than as a permanent trend. We are trying, through such measures as the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill which we put recently before the House, to help in this sort of thing.
    Mr. Marquand: Do the Government still adhere to the policy contained in the White Paper on employment policy issued many years ago, and will the right hon. Gentleman move in quickly, if there is any substantial increase in these numbers, in order to increase steel consumption?
    Mr. Macleod: I cannot give a categorical undertaking on the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question because that, I think, is not exactly within the province of my Ministry. As regards the first part, of course, full employment remains perhaps the chief primary aim in the domestic policy of the Government.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Is the Minister aware that, while we look with anxiety at the position in Middlesbrough, the position there is now becoming common throughout the whole steel industry? Will he whisper a word into the ears of his Cabinet colleagues, before they discuss any further capacity, about having a policy which will make the existing capacity more fully employed than it is at the moment?

    Mr. Jerry Lee Lewis (Employment Permit)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds the United States singer Mr. Jerry Lee Lewis was

    421
    recently given a permit to enter this country for a six-week tour of theatres and music-halls.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: A permit was issued for this man under quota arrangements which have been agreed by my Department and with the Variety and Allied Entertainment Council of Great Britain for the employment of foreign variety artistes.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great offence was caused to many people by the arrival of this man, with his 13-year old bride, especially bearing in mind the difficulty that others have in obtaining permission to work here? Will he remember also that we have more than enough "rock-'n'-roll" entertainers of our own without importing them from overseas?
    Mr. Macleod: This was, of course, a thoroughly unpleasant case, which was ended by the cancellation of the contract and the disappearance of the man. But, at the time the matter was before my officers, it was purely a question of a permit for employment, and his case was treated under the ordinary arrangements which apply to anybody.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Exemptions
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Minister of Labour why deferment from National Service is not granted to
    422
    teachers who have passed the final examination for the Associateship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry in the same way as those who have taken a Third Class Degree at a university.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: An extension of this nature could not be limited to associateship of this Institute alone and would involve drawing distinctions between different professional and academic qualifications which I should be most reluctant to undertake. Moreover, any further extension of the scheme to men with other science and engineering qualifications would deprive the Services of many men with technical or scientific training whom they cannot afford to lose.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have taken technological courses of this sort feel that they are being somewhat slighted in that they do not receive the same sort of treatment as those with third class degrees receive, whom they regard as not their superiors, and, in many cases, as their inferiors?
    Mr. Macleod: I recognise that it is difficult to draw exact comparisons. In the precise case my hon. and learned Friend has in mind, I think that the award was one not regarded as equivalent to graduate level. If I were to accept the associateship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, I should have to accept also that of many other bodies such as physics, the mechanicals, the electricals, civil engineering, and so forth. I feel that it is impossible to enter upon that.

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

Clause 6.—(PROVISIONS AS TO SUCCESSION TO HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND.)
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, at the end to insert:
(a) the landlord giving the notice to quit is not a landlord who acquired his interest in the estate as the heir-at-law or the legatee of a former landlord and.
Subsection (3) provides that the security of tenure that has hitherto been enjoyed by a tenant who has succeeded to the tenancy will be removed and we are seeking to secure that it will not be removed if the action is taken by a landlord who, like the tenant, has acquired his interest in the estate as an heir-at-law or a legatee of his former landlord.
The Government have asserted that the tenant who is an heir-at-law or a legatee enjoys some security inasmuch as he has security for the residue of the lease, but, as I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will agree, this is of no help whatsoever to the vast majority of tenants in Scotland. If we are correctly informed, about 65 per cent. of them do not hold the tenancies on a lease at all, but hold them on what is called in Scotland tacit relocation. In those cases, if the tenant were to die now his successors would bear the full brunt of this Clause.
In a vast number of those cases the tenants have provided the fixed equipment. Certainly, for a number of years they have maintained and repaired it. They are the people who have built up the fertility of the farm in the belief that their families would enjoy the advantage and benefit of the work and enterprise that they have undertaken. These people have always taken the view that the security that they received under the provisions of the post-war legislation was most worth while and that has greatly contributed to the improvement of Scottish agriculture in recent years.
By the Amendment we wish to limit the category of person who can evict
424
the tenant who is a successor. It may be a widow of 70 years of age whose husband has just died, or it may be a son of 50 years of age who is an expert farmer. The landlord who is an heir-at-law and who has only acquired his interest in the estate as an heir-at-law might be a young man with no personal knowledge of the farm or estate. Indeed, he may have his residence and place of principal business here in London, or even not in this country at all. Therefore, it would be quite wrong of us to provide that a successor to a landlord with no interest in the locality or district and no knowledge of the farm should be able to evict the widow of 70 or the son of 50 who has succeeded to the tenancy, particularly if the landlord who has succeeded to the estate has not spent any money on it.
If the Government take the view that tenancy rights should not pass from husband to widow or from father to son, then their principles or prejudices should apply equally to the landowner. The landowners have plenty of scope for eviction under Clause 3 without increasing it under Clause 6. Even with our Amendment landlords will have the opportunity to evict tenants quite unjustifiably in many cases. However, we want to limit the effect of Clause 6, and that is what we are seeking to do. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the number of landlords who will be able to give tenants notice to quit. To that extent, it will relieve fears among the farming community in Scotland, which has deep anxieties about what is likely to happen when the Bill has been in operation a couple of years. It will also curb and limit the opportunities of the speculator who is looking forward with interest to what is likely to happen under the Bill and to the power that it will give to the landlord to dispossess the tenant and then have the opportunity to increase the rent.
If the Amendment is carried it will not abolish but will limit the opportunities of landlords to exercise what have been their rights for a number of years, but which have been limited by previous

425
legislation, to evict tenants and so secure the land for themselves, to do what they like and send up the cost of land. The speculators in land will not welcome the Amendment, but people who are interested in the future of the farming community and in the rights of tenants must look upon it as something which will go some way towards alleviating the hardship which will be undoubtedly caused by the Bill.
The Minister may say that the whole principle of hereditary ownership of land is at stake if the Amendment is carried. Of course, that is true. But why should a landlord who owns land, simply because he happens to be one of the 19 illegitimate children of King Robert II, have rights to give notice to a tenant who has done useful work in cultivating the land and making agriculture a success?
We know that the Ministers have a great affection for these kinds of landlord. We believe that these mediaeval customs and aspects of feudalism should go. However, the Government are trying to revive them in the Bill, and not only give them to the old nobility and landed gentry but hand them on to the new generation of land-owning speculators. It is our business to protect the farmer and agricultural worker against these possibilities. We can remove to a certain extent a little of the hardship likely to come on them by means of the Clause, if the Amendment is carried.
Sir James Duncan: This is a most equalitarian proposal. I have never seen such a stupid Amendment on the Notice Paper before. It proposes to restrict the number of landlords who can give notice to quit. Speculators are people who buy land. They are not the heirs-at-law, but people who come in new, perhaps from making chemicals or being employed in a co-operative wholesale organisation, and who retire and buy a farm. They are left out of the Opposition Amendment, while the worthy ones are left in. The Amendment also leaves out limited companies.
Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity last night of bringing limited companies into the Clause, but he voted against our Amendment which dealt with limited companies.
Sir J. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman tried without success to bring limited companies within the ambit of the Clause. Today, he has left them out. The people left in cannot be heirs-at-law or legatees, and will be able to give notice to quit. The people who would be caught by the Amendment—if it happened to be carried, which is extremely unlikely—are the genuine heirs.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: By robbery.
Sir J. Duncan: They are what I would call the best landlords in Scotland, the very people who ought to be encouraged. Those who have fostered the traditional friendship in Scotland between landlord and tenant, owner and occupier, on landed estates ought to be encouraged to look after their land. They have had a rough time, one way and another, over the last few years. They are the best, and they ought to be encouraged to make the best use of their estates, now that there will be a chance under the Bill. I hope that my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will ask the House to reject the Amendment.
Mr. E. G. Willis: We have heard a very eloquent plea on behalf of landowners from the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). It would have been more to the point if we had heard a plea on behalf of tenant farmers, who can be evicted, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well.
The Bill will create an immense amount of hardship to a large number of tenant farmers. My hon. Friends tried last night to include limited companies in a similar position, but, having failed, are now trying to save what is left. The Amendment appears to be rather strange. No one denies that, but the tenant farmer who is likely to be protected as the result of the Amendment does not care two hoots whether the Amendment looks strange or not. It seeks to protect tenant farmers who obtained their land as the result of the death of a parent, and so on. They are not concerned whether we put a strange Amendment into the Bill, but with whether we have done something to protect them. They will consider whether the Amendment saves something from the wreckage and gives security to people who are at present living in insecurity.

427
The Amendment would do these things, in spite of it appearing rather strange. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say that he is prepared to consider the matter.
3.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) truly pointed out to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) the exact limitations of the Amendment. Looked at even from the erroneous but understandable point of view of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, the Amendment would confine the operation of subsection (3) to cases where the landlord giving notice was not a legatee or heir-at-law, but had acquired ownership of the farm by purchase.
That, I should have thought, was just as much against the spirit of what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire professes to want as it could possibly be. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite will be voting for if they go into the Lobby on it. There can be no argument about that.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not the noble Lord agree that the Amendment would limit the number of farmers liable to receive notice to quit?
Lord John Hope: It might do that, but what about the unfortunate ones who are at the mercy of the speculators and purchasers whom the hon. Gentleman does not like? That is the point.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) started his speech by reference to the 65 per cent. of tenant farmers who are on tacit relocation. He said that it was their successors who would bear the full brunt of the subsection. Let us see exactly what the full brunt will be, should it fall. That is a very material qualification.
For seven years from the time the Bill becomes law the successor to the remainder of the lease will have, after the lease has run out, a minimum of two years—it will very often be more than that—before he or she goes. That is part of the brunt. The other part of the brunt is that the successor to the remainder of the tenancy is to get full compensation if the Bill becomes law. Therefore, whatever may be thought of the policy which Clause 6 represents,
428
nobody, looking at the matter fairly, can possibly say that the terms which will be carried out are in any way oppressive.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that the successor to the remainder of the lease might be an expert farmer. He mentioned that, obviously, as part of his argument against what he maintains to be the unfairness of that possibly very expert farmer not being offered another lease. What, in fact, is likely to happen? What is likely to happen is that if that Man is an expert farmer he will be offered another lease by the landlord. That is exactly what will happen.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Not necessarily.
Lord John Hope: Not necessarily, but we are dealing with what is likely to happen.
Mr. Willis: Anything is likely to happen.
Lord John Hope: That is where the hon. Member is in error.
The Landowners' Federation is only too anxious for the maintenance of continuity, and that long leases should come back; and so, of course, are the Government. The former I regard as the more important lead in this matter, because it is in their hands. What will happen is that in the great majority of cases there will be new leases offered to the sons, certainly if they are expert farmers. Apart from an exceptional case where, for a particular reason, it is required to have the farm in hand, I cannot think of any case in which another lease would not be offered.
It really is an absurd exaggeration to talk about a burden and the brunt falling on the successors to the present tenants. It is worth remembering that there is no question of eviction from something to which they have a right.
Mr. T. Fraser: They have a right.
Lord John Hope: Let me finish what I am saying. There is no question of eviction from a tenancy under a contract to which they are a party. They know that nothing can stop them enjoying the remainder of the contract until the end of the contract. It is absurd to talk of eviction from what one is not yet in. Yet that was the impression the hon. Member was trying to give when he was talking of evictions from tenancies not yet offered.

429
The hon. Member also said—I paraphrase his words—that if the Government think that rights should not pass from father to son automatically, that is, if they are tenants, then they ought to say the same about landlords.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?
Lord John Hope: I do not know why the hon. Member said this. I should like to know. But he did, if I am paraphrasing the hon. Member correctly.
There was one thing in this connection which interested me. I think it was significant. It was common to both the hon. Member for Hamilton and to his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. Neither of them so much as mentioned the fact that the landlord inherits obligations as well as rights. The words "inherited obligations" did not fall from the lips of either of the hon. Members. The fact is, as the hon. Member knows very well, that a landlord, whether he be young or old—and the hon. Member talked of young landlords knowing nothing about it—inherits these obligations from which he cannot escape.
Therefore, it is not a one-sided affair, that he should inherit the rights which are his due. He comes into what is his by law. Whether he wants to or not he thereby inherits obligations, and it is surely not unreasonable that he should inherit the reasonable rights of ownership which go with those obligations.
So much for the principle behind the Amendment. The Amendment would not necessarily achieve its object even if it were passed, for this reason, that an owner who had inherited a farm could perfectly well go through the motions of selling it quickly to a member of his family, to his wife, for example, who would then be in a position to give the necessary notice to quit.
Sir J. Duncan: Or could form a company.
Lord John Hope: Or could form a company. Therefore, it would be unwise in the extreme to accept this Amendment, which is unfair on its merits, and which, even if it were passed, would not work in the way in which it is intended to work.
Mr. T. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State has talked the most awful nonsense in reply to this debate. [Interruption.] He thought it was rather good? I am not surprised that he thought it was rather good. Everybody else thinks that it was a very silly speech. He talked of obligations inherited by landlords. Are not obligations inherited by tenants at the present time?
Mr. John Mackie: On a point of order. Has the hon. Member asked the leave of the House to address the House again on this matter, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Fraser: I think that I am entitled to say a word at the end of the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite entitled to speak a second time on this Amendment. The Bill was considered in Standing Committee.
Mr. Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary called our attention to the fact that landlords do not inherit rights only, but also obligations. He said that I had omitted to mention this. I did not talk about obligations at all. He obviously and with deliberation omitted to mention the obligations of the tenants. Tenants, like landlords, have obligations in law. Tenants have obligations to farm their farms in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and landlords have obligations to manage their estates in accordance with the rules of good estate management. By the Bill, I mention only in passing, the Government are deliberately easing the responsibilities of landlords for good estate management without easing the responsibilities of tenants for good husbandry.
The Joint Under-Secretary made his case against the Amendment by showing that, in his view, there is no need to give any security in law to tenants at all beyond the security given to them in a lease. If he does not know that he made that case I hope that he will read his speech carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because that was the case he made, that they should go back to the old system of long leases, go back to the old system which operated before the 1948 Act. Does the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) say that I opposed long leases? I did not oppose long leases.
Sir James Henderson-Stewart: Will the hon. Member tell the House whether he is in favour of long leases?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am in favour of long leases, but I am not prepared to rest entirely on the leases which have been granted by the owners. That is why, with the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Fife, East, about ten years ago we gave security of tenure to the tenant farmers of Scotland.
I repeat what I said earlier, that the tenant farmers believe that to be the most worthwhile provision which was written into the post-war legislation. Now the hon. Baronet, who was so enthusiastic ten years ago for the reforms which were then being made, is doing his utmost to whittle away those advantages which were given to the tenant farmers of Scotland, and to lessen the security of tenure which was then given.
4.0 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that we cannot take something away from a tenant if he has not already got it, that if he has no lease or tenancy we cannot take it away and, therefore, we are dealing with his successors. But the whole point of the Clause is to take away from tenants and their families something which they have had in law and not something written into a lease. It is the security given to them deliberately, not by mistake, ten years ago. Parliament then gave them a measure of security which they have never had before, and now the Joint Under-Secretary is taking it away from them, and he says that we cannot take something away from them which they do not have at present.
The noble Lord also says that we on this side of the House do not seem to fully realise the limitations of the Amendment. Of course we do. The immediately preceding Amendment, in
line 27, sought to take out subsections (3), (4) and (5) but you, Mr. Speaker, decided not to call it. We should like to see those subsections taken out of the Bill altogether. I cannot argue that now, but I do not want the Joint Under-Secretary to leave the impression that we are quite willing to let these subsections remain in the Bill with this small Amendment. Not at all, we want them all to go.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that the Amendment says nothing about companies, but you Mr. Speaker, would not have permitted me to resurrect this afternoon the Amendment which the hon. Member voted down last night. I wanted to provide that companies should not be able to give notice to quit at all under the subsection, but the hon. Member said that they should, and now he complains that they will be the only people able to give notice to quit if the Amendment is accepted.
If the Clause is to stand we cannot protect 100 per cent. of the people affected by it. What we put forward in the Amendment will be protection for 90 per cent. and the Joint Under-Secretary asks, "If you cannot save 100 per cent., why save 90 per cent.?" Let us have the Amendment and save 90 per cent., and let the noble Lord and his noble Friends save the other 10 per cent. when the Bill goes to another place. In all the circumstances, it seems to us on this side of the House that it is worth saving the 90 per cent., and if the Clause looks quite silly when it goes to another place, let the noble Lord take out subsections (3) (4) and (5) altogether.
I hope that my hon. Friends will go in to the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 238.

Division No. 175.]

AYES

[4.3 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Albu, A. H.

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Blyton, W. R.

Burke, W. A.

Allen, Scholefield (Grewe)

Boardman, H.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Awbery, S. S.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Callaghan, L. J.

Balfour, A.

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

Carmichael, J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Champion, A. J.

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

Bowles, F. G.

Chetwynd, G. R.

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

Boyd, T. C.

Clunie, J.

Benson, Sir George

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Beswick, Frank

Brockway, A. F.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Cove, W. G.

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

Probert, A. R.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Proctor, W. T.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

Randall, H. E.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Rankin, John

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Reid, William

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rhodes, H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Kenyon, C.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Deer, G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

de Freitas Geoffrey

King, Dr. H. M.

Royle, C.

Delargy, H. J.

Lawson, G. M.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dodds, N. N.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Donnelly, D. L.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lewis, Arthur

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lindgren, G. S.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Logan, D. G.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Snow, J. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

McGovern, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

McLeavy, Frank

Spriggs, Leslie

Fernyhough, E.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Steele, T.

Finch, H. J.

Mahon, Simon

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Fitch, E. A.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Stones, W. (Consett)

Foot, D. M.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Forman, J. C.

Mason, Roy

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Messer, Sir F.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Mikardo, Ian

Swingler, S. T.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Monslow, W.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Grey, C. F.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Grimond, J.

Mort, D. L.

Tomney, F.

Hale, Leslie

Moss, R.

Wade, D. W.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Moyle, A.

Warbey, W. N.

Hamilton, W. W.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Watkins, T. E.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hastings, S.

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

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Healey, Denis

Oliver, G. H.

West, D. G.

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

Oram, A. E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Herbison, Miss M.

Orbach, M.

Willey, Frederick

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Oswald, T.

Williams, David (Neath)

Holman, P.

Owen, W. J.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Holt, A. F.

Padley, W. E.

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Paget, R. T.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Hubbard, T. F.

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

Winterbottom, Richard

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Woof, R. E.

Hunter, A. E.

Paton, John

Zilliacus, K.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Pearson, A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Peart, T. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Pentland, N.

Mr. John Taylor and

Janner, B.

Popplewell, E.

Mr. Simmons.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

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

du Cann, E. D. L.

Aitken, W. T.

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Alport, C. J. M.

Braine, B. R.

Duncan, Sir James

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Duthie, W. S.

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Brooman-White, R. C.

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

Arbuthnot, John

Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Armstrong, C. W.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Erroll, F. J.

Ashton, H.

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

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Atkins, H. E.

Campbell, Sir David

Fell, A.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Carr, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Baldwin, A. E.

Cary, Sir Robert

Fort, R.

Balniel, Lord

Chichester-Clark, R.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Banks, Col. C.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Barber, Anthony

Cooke, Robert

Gammans, Lady

Barlow, Sir John

Cooper, A. E.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Batsford, Brian

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Godber, J. B.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Cunningham, Knox

Goodhart, Philip

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Gough, C. F. H.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Dance, J. C. G.

Gower, H. R.

Bidgood, J. C.

Davidson, Viscountess

Graham, Sir Fergus

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Deedes, W. F.

Green, A.

Bishop, F. P.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Gresham Cooke, R.

Black, C. W.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Body, R. F.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Drayson, G. B.

Gurden, Harold

434

435

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Profumo, J. D.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Rawlinson, Peter

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

Redmayne, M.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Renton, D. L. M.

Hay, John

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Robertson, Sir David

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

McAdden, S. J.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

McKibbin, Alan

Russell, R. S.

Hesketh, R. F.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Sharples, R. C.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Shepherd, William

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Hirst, Geoffrey.

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

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

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

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Speir, R. M.

Hope, Lord John

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Hornby, R. P.

Maddan, Martin

Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Horobin, Sir Ian

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

Storey, S.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Teeling, W.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Temple, John M.

Hurd, A. R.

Marshall, Douglas

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

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

Mathew, R.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Mawby, R. L.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Hyde, Montgomery

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

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Neave, Airey

Vane, W. M. F.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Nicholls, Harmar

Vaughan Morgan, J. K.

Joseph, Sir Keith

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

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Kaberry, D.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Keegan, D.

Oakshott, H. D.

Wall, Patrick

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Osborne, C.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Kershaw, J. A.

Page, R. G.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Kimball, M.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Kirk, P. M.

Partridge, E.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Lambton, Viscount

Peel, W. J.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Wood, Hon. R.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Woollam, John Victor

Leburn, W. G.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

Pitman, I. J.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Powell, J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Edward Wakefield and

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Mr. Bryan.

Clause 7.—(AMENDMENT OF 11 & 12 GEO. 5, c. 48, AS TO INJURIOUS WEEDS.)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out "to other land".
Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the previous Amendment in my name had been selected, namely, in page 8, line 5, to leave out from the first to "to" the end of line and to insert "destroy the weeds".
Mr. Speaker: I did not intend to call that Amendment, but the hon. and learned Gentleman can discuss the point of it on this one.
Mr. Hare: The Amendment I have moved is designed to remove doubt. It
436
makes it clear that we can require an occupier to prevent weeds from spreading even on his own land and that we need not, therefore, wait until there is a risk of weeds spreading on to somebody else's land. It was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who, during the Committee stage, was worried lest the words "other land" meant land in the occupation of some other person. This was not what we intended and this is the means by which I hope we can clear away the doubts in his mind.
Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment. The old Corn Production Act has provided for about thirty years that there is a duty to one's own land and that a man has not got the right to neglect his land and allow it to become infested with weeds. It seemed to me to be a

437
marked retrogression to return to the proposition that a man might abuse his own land to any extent so long as his weeds did not spread on to the land of a neighbour.
4.15 p.m.
That has been corrected in a measure, but I still prefer the words of my Amendment to those used by the Government. As far as I can see, the words used by the Government seem to give a kind of squatter's right to existing weeds. Apparently, the pre-notice weeds are all right and one can leave them as long as one likes; it is only the post-notice weeds which are involved and one has to deal with the situation that the weeds do not spread further.
I cannot see that the words I suggest are not sufficient. I suggest that instead of using the words "to prevent the weeds from spreading to other land", we should insert "destroy the weeds". I cannot see that my words are weaker, because I cannot think of any method by which one can destroy weeds without preventing them from spreading. Certainly, my words are inclusive of the words used by the Government. I would have thought they were more simple, that they deal with the existing weeds, and that they do not provide the comic situation of squatter's rights for weeds.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will look at the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. The Minister would not have had an opportunity of considering it when he put down his own, and the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is certainly more offensive to the weeds.
Mr. Hare: This is rather a question of dialectics. It is a very complicated subject. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) realises, I had considerable sympathy with the two points he raised in Committee. This is not quite as easy as he suggests. If I comment on what he said, it may be helpful to the House.
In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the Clause should give power to require the destruction of weeds, apparently because he regarded this as more drastic than the power to require weeds to be prevented from
438
spreading. That is really the purpose of his Amendment which has not been called. I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that some weeds, when they reach the seed bearing stage, can still spread their seed even if they have been destroyed by being cut down. In short, killing the weed does not necessarily prevent it from spreading. Therefore, I believe that my words are stronger in our common aim than are his.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Willey: I beg to to move, in page 8, line 19, to leave out "fifty" and to insert seventy-five".
It will probably meet the convenience of the House if I say that the following Amendment to line 21, after "hundred". Insert "and fifty" is of a similar character. These Amendments deal with penalties. The matter was raised in Standing Committee when the Minister said that he had an open mind. We are now putting forward a compromise suggestion which I hope will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. T. FraserI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is quite right in saying that we had a useful discussion on this subject in Committee. We were all rather open-minded in that we realised that it was extremely difficult to decide what should be the fair level for penalties of this kind. I gather that the hon. Member has done some thinking. I have done a little thinking, too, and I do not see why we should not agree. I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Willey: I am so dumbfounded by the fact that the Government have at last accepted an Opposition Amendment that I cannot adequately express my gratitude.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 21, after "hundred", insert "and fifty".—[Mr. Willey.]

Clause 9.—(INTERPRETATION.)
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, at the end to insert:
"landlord" and "tenant", as respects England and Wales, have the meanings

439
assigned to them by section ninety-four of the Act of 1948, and as respects Scotland have the meanings assigned to them by section ninety-three of the Scottish Act of 1949.
This is largely a drafting Amendment. I realise that it will incur the displeasure of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who feels strongly about doing these things by reference. I think he will agree that in this case it is logical that we should have the definition in this form, because the reference to "landlord" and "tenant" can be found in various places in the Bill where it is inevitable that it is by reference to these Acts. I think that it will simplify the position if we stick to the normal form in this way.
Mr. Paget: Why cannot we add, after these words, "which is"—and then give the definition?
Mr. Godber: I expected some protest from the hon. and learned Gentleman. Most of the reference to both landlord and tenant occurs in paragraphs which will be substituted for existing paragraphs in these Acts. The hon. and learned Member will agree that there is no need to put in the definition in those cases. There are one or two other references which do not occur in those sections. It would be wrong to have two different definitions, and it seems to me to be unnecessary and perhaps unwieldy to rewrite the definitions into the Bill, as some of them have to be by reference to the 1948 and 1949 Acts. I think that the hon. and learned Member's protest is not as strong as in some other cases, because here the position is simplified by using the reference in this way.
Mr. Paget: Here we have a paragraph of definition. I agree that we cannot repeat the definition whenever it is used, but why is it necessary to refer us to another Act without telling us what the other Act provides by way of definition? All we have to say is that these words
"as respects England and Wales, have the meanings assigned to them by section ninety-four of the Act of 1948, which is"—
It is a line or two more, but it will save many people a lot of trouble. I wish we could get into the habit of doing it.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, at the end to insert:
"save that paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the said section shall be repealed."
440
This is no more than a drafting Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I, not anticipating the success which we have had on a previous Amendment, thought that if we devised such an Amendment as this we should compel the Government to accept both.
Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Godber: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for the brevity with which he has moved the Amendment, but I am sorry that I must dash his hopes. The position is not quite as simple as he says and the Amendment is not just drafting.
I have a good deal of sympathy with his point of view in that the reference is to supervision orders under Part II, particularly paragraph (c). The paragraph reads:
"as to any other matters as to which directions may be given to an occupier of an agricultural unit where a supervision order under Part II of this Act is in force for the supervision of his farming of the unit."
The main powers of Section 95, which we agreed in Committee should be retained, are provided in paragraphs (a) and (b), but in (c) there are residual powers to cover any other points not covered by (a) or (b). If we ever have to use the powers in Section 95 it is important that there should be no dispute that we have the full powers. We hope that it will never be necessary to use them, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite hope so, too, but if we do use them we must be quite clear about them.
I am advised that the reference to Part II is not invalidated by the fact that Part II is being revoked. It is purely descriptive. Such powers as would be used if the supervision order were still available are such powers as we could use in relation to Section 95. It is descriptive to that extent.
I have looked at the matter very carefully, because when I first saw the Amendment I thought that the hon. Member had seized on a good point. Initially, I intended to congratulate him, but I am sorry that I cannot now accept the Amendment. I am assured that to do so could give rise to difficulties later. It is only for that reason that I cannot accept it.
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his reply and I am comforted by the fact that he has a more tender regard for Part II than he appeared to have throughout our proceedings on the Bill. The subsection refers to directions which may be given where a supervision order under Part II of the Act is in force. Accepting the purpose of the provision as explained by the hon. Member, it still seems somewhat ambiguous. I will not press the matter further at this stage, but in view of the points which have been raised I am sure that he will concede that ambiguity might be caused. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider clarifying this when the Bill reaches another place.
Mr. Godber: I looked at the position very carefully and I should gladly have done something to clarify it had I thought it could be done. The important words here are
"as to which directions may be given".
It is purely descriptive in this case. I do not think that it will lead to misunderstanding. The directions which could have been given under Part II are well known and well defined, and it is probably better to leave the position as it is. I will take note of what the hon. Member said, but I cannot give him an undertaking.
Mr. Willey: In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 22 to 27.
This matter covered by this Amendment was discussed in Standing Committee. We are dealing with a provision of the 1947 Act which affects smallholdings. If I may summarise the Minister's argument against our proposal to take out this paragraph, he suggested that we had already wide powers under Section 57 and for that reason he was satisfied that he need not rely on Section 53.
I will briefly state to him the main points made by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Standing Committee. The first is that this deals with good estate management. In the different responsibilities of smallholdings, it seems
442
that this specific provision imposing duties of good estate management should remain.
4.30 p.m.
The other point, which is rather different, and it is for the right hon. Gentleman himself to judge, is that if, by way of a paragraph in this Schedule, the right hon. Gentleman divests himself of this power, it might be interpreted as a lessening of his interest in smallholdings This was a point which some of my hon. Friends made in Committee. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might well have discussions with the local authorities about this, and we raise the matter again now because we were not altogether satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply in Committee, and because we would much rather that Section 53 remained.
Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Hare: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) straight away that if I refuse to accept his Amendment it does not in any way mean that my interest in smallholdings is lessened. That is far from being a reflection of my feelings on this matter.
This Amendment would retain my power to direct smallholdings authorities to observe the rules of good estate management in managing their smallholdings land. At present, it is quite correct, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that Section 53 of the 1947 Act exempts smallholdings authorities from the provisions of Part II in regard to supervision orders, directions and dispossession. It puts in their place a special power of direction to carry out work to remedy bad management, and so forth, and if the authority disregards the direction there is power to enter, do the work and recover the cost.
There are sound reasons for not accepting the Amendment. First, I have made inquiries since we had the discussion during the Committee stage, when I said that this power had, in fact, never been used, and I find that not only has it never been used but that none of my predecessors in office since the passing of the Act have even contemplated using it. Therefore, this is a rather academic matter. I know the dislike of the hon. Gentleman

443
opposite to the disappearance of the disciplinary side of Part II, but it is somewhat illogical to treat local authorities which are smallholdings authorities in a particular way, when the disciplinary powers have gone where owner-occupiers and others are concerned.
It is true that under Section 57 of the 1947 Act the Ministry will continue to have the power, where a smallholdings authority is not performing its functions satisfactorily, to direct it to exercise the functions in a required manner, or to take over those functions itself. It is the normal type of reserve power which is exercised with local authorities, and the repeal of Part II does not affect these reserve powers.
I have taken legal advice, and, though I understand that there may be some doubt whether we should be able to give a direction in respect of estate management after the repeal of Section 53, I am advised that if we cannot do that, the reserve powers under the second limb of Section 57 are, in fact, unimpaired, so that we could still take over any functions of a smallholding authority, including estate management matters. Therefore, we would still have the power, after the repeal of Section 53, to deal with smallholdings authorities which have defaulted in respect of these responsibilities for good estate management.
May I now summarise what I have said? It is a pity to single out this type of authority in a particular way when we are doing away with the disciplinary powers of Part II over other members of the farming community. Secondly, I think that it is a fairly academic matter, in that not only have the powers under Section 53 never been used, but neither the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) nor any of my predecessors have ever contemplated using them. For these reasons, I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. Paget: I am a little intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's logic. I should have thought that one of the best justifications for having a birch rod is that one has never had occasion to use it. If we have a disciplinary power which is so effective that nobody has ever behaved badly enough for bringing it into being, I should have thought that that provided a full justification for that
444
disciplinary power. There might be a case against bringing a new power into existence, but when we have this power in reserve, and when the end product, as they say in "Any Questions", is a smallholding authority that gives entire satisfaction to everybody, why should one go monkeying about with it? Why not leave it alone? That is all we are asking.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 13, line 42, at the end to insert:
Provided that membership of a county agricultural executive committee shall not disqualify a farmer or an owner of agricultural land from being included in such panels.
This Amendment deals with a matter which we regard as of considerable importance. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I made an inquiry in Committee, and my right hon, and hon. Friends were surprised at the response we received from the hon. Gentleman. I say at once that by way of this Amendment we are raising the general principle, and I accept straight away that, if this Amendment is accepted, there would have to be certain consequential Amendments.
The principle which we are raising is simple, and I should have thought a most acceptable one. At present, the members of the county committees are debarred from sitting on or being eligible to sit on the tribunals because they exercise judicial functions, but one of the major purposes of the Bill—and one has only to look at the present Schedule to see with what thoroughness the Government have pursued their intentions—is to divest the county committees of all their judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In this new situation, it seems to us wrong to continue to debar members of the county committees from being eligible for membership of the panels from which the members of the tribunal are collected. We raise this matter again on two counts.
The first one, which is surely very relevant, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably agree, is that at present these people are exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. They have all the experience that ought to be made available to the tribunals, which, as a result of the Bill, are taking over the work from these committees. Surely, in view of their experience, these people ought to be specially eligible to serve in this capacity.

445
The second reason, and it is not unimportant, is also a point which I have emphasised throughout our discussions on the Bill. If the Government insist on their present attitude, this is an explicit vote of no confidence in these committees, which is not justified in the light of the Franks Committee's Report. Unless the Government accept the Amendment, they will be saying that we should debar the very people who have been exercising this function from exercising it in future. Their action could not be construed as otherwise than as a vote of no confidence in the activities of those people so far.
We must regard the Amendment as an expression of confidence in and a tribute to the work of the members of the committees. If the Government do not accept the Amendment they will be robbing the tribunals of people specially qualified to serve on them, and saying not only that those people should not undertake the functions which they now exercise, but that they have been exercising them in an unsatisfactory manner hitherto.
Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Hare: I have some sympathy with the Amendment, but, having given this matter a great deal of consideration and having considered the argument for both sides, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot accept it.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), correctly pointed out that under existing legislation members of C.A.E.C.s are rightly debarred from being members of the tribunals. The hon. Member explained the logic behind that decision which was incorporated in the 1947 Act. It is true that that argument will disappear when the Bill becomes law and that instead of going through the county agricultural executive committees cases will go straight to the tribunals. However, it is also true that members of C.A.E.C.s are rightly known to be agents of the Minister of Agriculture in the counties in which they serve, and experience has shown that people may doubt a system in which, on the one hand, a man is acting as part of the Government in one part of his duties, and, on the other, part of his duties con-
446
sists of acting as a member of the judiciary.
As the House knows, in accordance with the Franks Committee's recommendations, I am giving to the Lord Chancellor and to the tribunals my place in these judicial matters, and, having done that, it would be inconsistent to allow my own agents to serve on the tribunals when the principle of the Bill is that the tribunals should be completely independent of Ministers.
Mr. Paget: Do we take it from that that it is the Government's intention to ban magistrates from taking any part in the public service?
Mr. Hare: That is a somewhat irrelevant interruption to the objective argument which I am trying to make.
I see the force of the practical consideration which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned, that a number of suitable people who are willing to serve on C.A.E.C.s would also be suitable to serve on the tribunals. In many ways, it might even make things easier if I could have accepted the Amendment. Having gone along with the hon. Member some way in this argument, I cannot accept his contention that to reject the Amendment is to express a vote of no confidence in county agricultural executive committee members.
As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, that is very far from the truth. I have paid genuine tribute in the past—and I repeat it now—to members of county agricultural executive committees for the way they have carried out their duties, some of which duties they have found to be unpleasant. They have always undertaken them with restraint, good judgment and skill, and it is in no way a criticism of them that I must now refuse to accept the Amendment. I must refuse to accept it because the whole principle of the tribunals is that they should be entirely separate from the Ministry.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Williams: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should reject the Amendment, for I have thought that it was one which he could have welcomed. It would not cost him anything and it would be a

447
gesture to his county executive committees, who are now to be deprived of so many of their normal functions.
The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) did not say that this was a direct criticism of the standard of county agricultural executive committees. He said that it was an implied criticism. It is implied that there is some weakness and that, but for that, the Government would have accepted the Amendment.
What functions have been taken from the C.A.E.C.s? They had the right to deal with notices to quit, certificates of bad husbandry and questions of estate management. Those are the three types of case which are to go to land tribunals. Some members of these committees have served on them for as long as nine years and they have an enormous experience of the type of case with which the tribunals will now have to deal. No one is more capable of bringing to bear sensible judgment on cases of notices to quit, certificates of bad husbandry and questions of estate management than a member of one of these committees.
Since the men who will be finally chosen are originally to be chosen by the National Farmers' Union—at either London or county level—and a number of names are to be sent to form a panel, is it not clear that the type of person will be similar to that appointed to the executive committees? If there is one person more than another capable of serving on the tribunals, it is a person who has served for years on a county executive committee.
If the Minister's attitude is not a direct criticism, it is an implied criticism that there is some inferiority between members of county executive committees and estate owners or farmers who are to sit on the land tribunals. We are not attempting to make party politics out of this matter, but it would be a compliment to county executive committee members if, now that they are to be released from their judicial or executive functions, they were given the opportunity of sitting on the land tribunals.
This is a very small matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot change his mind—and he has not changed his mind very often in the last three months—that
448
will show a lack of resilience and I hope that my hon. Friends will pay their compliment to members of county executive committees, who have rendered such valuable service to the State, by going into the Division Lobby.
Sir Archer Baldwin: I hesitate to make any suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment. The number of good, qualified men in the country is limited, and it is the best of those men who are appointed to the county agricultural executive committees. In the same way, we want to have the best men on the land tribunals, and if my right hon. Friend could give this matter a little more consideration between now and the Bill's progress through another place, perhaps he might find some way of getting over the difficulty.
Mr. Paget: I am disappointed not only in the refusal, but in the grounds for the refusal. They were not only doctrinaire grounds, but such un-English doctrinaire ideas. This Montesquieu idea of the separation of power was adopted by the Americans, and I do not see why we should surrender our principle of government to American principles of government which are much worse, and have always worked much worse than ours. We have never had separation of powers right through our history of government. Judicial and executive functions have been mingled, and have been operated by the same people. When we crown our Queen, we give her the Sword of Justice and the Orb of Temporal Power. Those are the executive and the judicial functions exercised alike by the Queen as the fountain head of our government.
The administration of our counties has been done by the magistrates since the fourteenth century, exercising a number of executive and a number of judicial functions. All through our political system, and right through our history, there has been this intermingling of these functions, and to reject something which the Minister himself agrees would be convenient and useful, which is urged upon him by his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), not because it would not be convenient, not because

449
it would not be useful but upon a purely doctrinaire ground—and that doctrine utterly alien to our tradition—seems an odd way of dealing with the situation.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment, although it would be a good thing if he could widen the selection of persons for this panel. I am sure that he is not motivated in any way by lack of appreciation of the excellent work that the county agricultural executive committees have done in many spheres, but I do not share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the Minister's approach to this matter is doctrinaire. It is based on a very sound principle.
I believe that the agricultural land tribunals have earned for themselves a very excellent reputation. It is important that they should keep it, and it is very important that there should not be the remotest suspicion, even though it is, in fact, ungrounded, that the members of the tribunals are in any way linked with Ministry action in this respect. To avoid any such suggestion, the Minister should resist the Amendment.
Mr. Hare: As there have been a number of short speeches, I feel that it is courteous to the House to say that it is only with considerable regret that I must
ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment, for the very reasons put forward so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). This is no criticism of members of C.A.E.C.s but, as the hon. and learned Member has just said, there is the very important principle that there must be absolutely no shadow of doubt that these excellent people, who are, however, connected with the Executive—being my agents—are connected with the judiciary. That is an important principle. I have certainly nothing but the greatest praise for members of county agricultural executive committees but, in spite of my sympathy, I must, with considerable regret, ask my hon. Friends to vote against this Amendment.
Mr. Ede: We can only adapt the words of Burke to this curious situation. I support the old Tories like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin), against the new Tories represented by the Minister and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen).
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 249.

Division No. 176.]

AYES

[4.55 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Chapman, W. D.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Albu, A. H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Clunie, J.

Grey, C. F.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Collins, V. J. (Shoredith & Finsbury)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Awbery, S. S.

Cove, W. G.

Hale, Leslie

Bacon, Miss Alice

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Balfour, A.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hamilton, W. W.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hannan, W.

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

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hastings, S.

Benson, Sir George

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hayman, F. H.

Beswick, Frank

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Healey, Denis

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Deer, G.

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

Blackburn, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Herbison, Miss M.

Blenkinsop, A.

Delargy, H. J.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Blyton, W. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Holman, P.

Boardman, H.

Donnelly, D. L.

Houghton, Douglas

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hubbard, T. F.

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Boyd, T. C.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hunter, A. E.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Brockway, A. F.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Fernyhough, E.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Finch, H. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Burke, W. A.

Fitch, E. A.

Janner, B.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fletcher, Eric

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

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Foot, D. M.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Callaghan, L. J.

Forman, J. C.

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

Carmichael, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Champion, A. J.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

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

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Oliver, G. H.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Oram, A. E.

Sparks, J. A.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Orbach, M.

Spriggs, Leslie

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Oswald, T.

Steele, T.

Kenyon, C.

Owen, W. J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Padley, W. E.

Stones, W. (Consett)

King, Dr. H. M.

Paget, R. T.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Lawson, G. M.

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

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Swingler, S. T.

Lewis, Arthur

Paton, John

Sylvester, G. O.

Lindgren, G. S.

Pearson, A.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Lipton, Marcus

Peart, T. F.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Logan, D. G.

Pentland, N.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Mabon, Dr, J. Dickson

Popplewell, E.

Tomney, F.

McCann, J.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Viant, S. P.

MacDermot, Niall

Probert, A. R.

McGovern, J.

Proctor, W. T.

Warbey, W. N.

McInnes, J.

Pursey, cmdr. H.

Watkins, T. E.

McLeavy, Frank

Randall, H. E.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Rankin, John

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Mahon, Simon

Redhead, E. C.

West, D. G.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Reid, William

Wheeldon, W. E.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Reynolds, G. W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mason, Roy

Rhodes, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

Messer, Sir F.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Willey, Frederick

Mikardo, Ian

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Williams, David (Neath)

Mitchison, G. R.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Monslow, W.

Royle, C.

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

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Winterbottom, Richard

Mort, D. L.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Moss, R.

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

Woof, R. E.

Moyle, A.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Zilliacus, K.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Snow, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Sorensen, R. W.

Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Cooper, A. E.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Aitken, W. T.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Alport, C. J. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Arbuthnot, John

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Armstrong, C. W.

Cunningham, Knox

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Atkins, H. E.

Currie, G. B. H.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Dance, J. C. G.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Balniel, Lord

Davidson, Viscountess

Hay, John

Barber, Anthony

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Barlow, Sir John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

Batsford, Brian

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Drayson, G. B.

Hesketh, R. F.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

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

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Duncan, Sir James

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Duthie, W. S.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Bidgood, J. C.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

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

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

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Bishop, F. P.

Erroll, F. J.

Holt, A. F.

Black, C. W.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hope, Lord John

Body, R. F.

Finlay, Graeme

Hornby, R. P.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Fort, R.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'combe & Lonsdale)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gammans, Lady

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Braine, B. R.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Hurd, A. R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

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

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Glover, D.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Hyde, Montgomery

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Godber, J. B.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Bryan, P.

Goodhart, Philip

Iremonger, T. L.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Gough, C. F. H.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

Gower, H. R.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Campbell, Sir David

Graham, Sir Fergus

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Carr, Robert

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Cary, Sir Robert

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Green, A.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Grimond, J.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Cooke, Robert

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

452

453

Kaberry, D.

Mawby, R. L.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Keegan, D.

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

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Speir, R. M.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Moore, Sir Thomas

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Kershaw, J. A.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Kimball, M.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Kirk, P. M.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Storey, S.

Lambton, Viscount

Nairn, D. L. S.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Neave, Airey

Studholme, Sir Henry

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Nicholls, Harmar

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Leavey, J. A.

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

Teeling, W.

Leburn, W. G.

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Temple, John M.

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

Nugent, G. R. H.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Oakshott, H. D.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Osborne, C.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Page, R. G.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

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

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Partridge, E.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Peel, W. J.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Peyton, J. W. W.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

McAdden, S. J.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Vane, W. M. F.

MoKibbin, Alan

Pitman, I. J.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Powell, J. Enoch

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wade, D. W.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Profumo, J. D.

Wall, Patrick

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Rawlinson, Peter

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

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Redmayne, M.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Renton, D. L. M.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Maddan, Martin

Robertson, Sir David

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Woollam, John Victor

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Russell, R. S.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Sharples, R. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Marshall, Douglas

Shepherd, William

Sir Gerald Wills and

Mathew R.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Mr. Edward Wakefield.

5.0 p.m.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 16 to 25.
This and the preceding Amendment, in page 14, line 32, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 15 on page 15, which you have not selected, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, go together. In Standing Committee we discussed the preceding Amendment. However, they both deal with a similar point.
This provision which we seek to amend deals with Sections 10 and 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. It divests the Minister of certain powers which he has at present and transfers those powers to an arbitrator. The powers are those of determining the acreage of permanent pasture, and, in the specific case of this Amendment, of giving or refusing to a landlord a certificate so that he can obtain an injunction to restrain a tenant, where the tenant is exercising his rights of cropping arable land, so that his holding is injured.
This does not affect the powers of the Minister. It is no comfort to hon. Members opposite, for the Minister is not divesting himself of any powers. He is
454
transferring those powers from himself to an arbitrator. For all practical purposes, the operation of these powers has been taken from the county committees and placed upon the shoulders of an arbitrator.
The right hon. Gentleman has already indicated in Standing Committee that he regards these powers as quasi-judicial. We do not take that view at all. It is obvious from the reference that I have made to the powers with which we are concerned that these are matters of agricultural policy. They cannot be decided distinct from policy questions. The Minister ought to remain responsible for policy, for it is unfair to place this responsibility on an arbitrator. Quite apart from that, we regard this as an abdication of the responsibility which the Minister holds, and again by necessary implication it is a reflection upon the county committees.
In Standing Committee I challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce any evidence that there was any dissatisfaction or cause of dissatisfaction at the way in which the powers had been exercised by the county committees. It is

455
unfortunate that we should find the Government taking unnecessary action, unnecessarily reflecting upon the county committees and also causing the impression that the Government are endeavouring as far as they dare to lessen their responsibility for this industry.
Mr. Godber: As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, we discussed a similar Amendment in Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend said that we look on these as quasi-judicial functions and as coming within the general orbit of the recommendations of the Franks Committee. It is for that reason that we are seeking to transfer these powers from the Minister to an independent person—in this case a qualified arbitrator.
We have debated this point on a number of different occasions and I recognise that there is a difference between the two sides of the House. But we feel that in the light of the Government's acceptance of the Franks Committee recommendations, there is no reason why these arbitrators should not be able to carry out this function just as competently. I do not accept that there is any question of a slight on the members of the Committees. I am sure that the members of the committees do not look at it in that way. As I have said, this provision is
purely for the purpose of implementing the general implications of the Franks Report.
The hon. Member said that these were questions of policy. I do not agree. This and the previous Amendment relate to Sections 10 and 11 of the 1948 Act. This Amendment is concerned with Section 11, the purpose of which, in the closing words of subsection (1), is
"to protect the holding from injury or deterioration."
If it is a question of policy, it should be one of enduring policy whichever party is in power in this House. Surely, we all want to see that our farms are left in as good a condition when we leave them as when we take them over. Anybody who is concerned with agriculture should always accept that as a basic principle. I could not accept that it is a matter which should be subject to changes of policy.
This is a matter which, we think, comes within the orbit of the Franks Committee's recommendations. It is for this reason only that we ask the House to agree to the transfer of these duties. Therefore, we could not recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 203.

Division No. 177.]

AYES

[5.11 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Aitken, W. T.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Erroll, F. J.

Alport, C. J. M.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Bryan, P.

Finlay, Graeme

Arbuthnot, John

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Armstrong, C. W.

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

Fort, R.

Ashton, H.

Campbell, Sir David

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Atkins, H. E.

Carr, Robert

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Gammans, Lady

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Chichester-Clark, R.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Balniel, Lord

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Barber, Anthony

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Glover, D.

Batsford, Brian

Cooke, Robert

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Godber, J. B.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

Goodhart, Philip

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Gough, G. F. H.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Cunningham, Knox

Gower, H. R.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Currie, G. B. H.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Bidgood, J. C.

Dance, J. C. G.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Davidson, Viscountess

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr, R. (Nantwich)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Green, A.

Bishop, F. P.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Gresham Cooke. R.

Black, C. W.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Grimond, J.

Body, R. F.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Bonham Carter, Mark

Drayson, G. B.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

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

Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

Duncan, Sir James

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Duthie, W. S.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Braine, B. R.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Hay, John

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

Rawlinson, peter

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Redmayne, M.

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Renton, D. L. M.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

McAdden, S. J.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Hesketh, R. F.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Robertson, Sir David

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

McKibbin, Alan

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Russell, R. S.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Hirst, Geoffrey

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Sharples, R. C.

Hobson, John (Warwick & L'm'gt'n)

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

Shepherd, William

Holland-Martin, C. J.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Holt, A. F.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Spier, R. M.

Hope, Lord John

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hornby, R. P.

Maddan, Martin

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Horobin, Sir Ian

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Storey, S.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Marshall, Douglas

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Hurd, A. R.

Mathew, R.

Teeling, W.

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

Mawfey, R. L.

Temple, John M.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hyde, Montgomery

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Moore, Sir Thomas

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Iremonger, T. L.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Neave, Airey

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Nicholls, Harmar

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Vane, W. M. F.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Nugent, G. R. H.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Kaberry, D.

Oakshott, H. D.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Keegan, D.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Osborne, C.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Page, R. G.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Kershaw, J. A.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Wall, Patrick

Kimball, M.

Partridge, E.

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

Kirk, P. M.

Peel, W. J.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Lambton, Viscount

Peyton, J. W. W.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Leavey, J. A.

Pilkington, capt. R. A.

Wood, Hon. R.

Leburn, W. G.

Pitman, I. J.

Woollam, John Victor

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

Pott, H. P.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Powell, J. Enoch

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Sir Gerald Wills and

Llewellyn, D. T.

Profumo, J. D.

Colonel J. H. Harrison.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Fitch, E. A.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Carmichael, J.

Fletcher, Eric

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Champion, A. J.

Foot, D. M.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Chapman, W. D.

Forman, J. C.

Awbery, S. S.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Clunie, J.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Balfour, A.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

Cove, W. G.

Grey, C. F.

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

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Benson, Sir George

Crossman, R. H. S.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Beswick, Frank

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hale, Leslie

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Blackburn, F.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Blenkinsop, A.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hamilton, W. W.

Blyton, W. R.

Deer, G.

Hannan, W.

Boardman, H.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Delargy, H. J.

Hastings, S.

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

Dodds, N. N.

Hayman, F. H.

Bowles, F. G.

Donnelly, D. L.

Healey, Denis

Boyd, T. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

Braddock, Mrs Elizabeth

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Herbison, Miss M.

Brockway, A. F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Holman, P.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Houghton, Douglas

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Burke, W. A.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hubbard, T. F.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fernyhough, E.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Finch, H. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

458

459

Hunter, A. E.

Monslow, W.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

Snow, J. W.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Mort, D. L.

Sorensen, R. W.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Moss, R.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Moyle, A.

Sparks, J. A.

Janner, B.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Spriggs, Leslie

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

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Steele, T.

Jeger, George (Goole)

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

Stones, W. (Consett)

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

Oliver, G. H.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Oram, A. E.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

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

Orbach, M.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Oswald, T.

Swingler, S. T.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Owen, W. J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Padley, W. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Kenyon, C.

Paget, R. T.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Tomney, F.

Lawson, G. M.

Paton, John

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Pearson, A.

Viant, S. P.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Peart, T. F.

Warbey, W. N.

Lewis, Arthur

Pentland, N.

Watkins, T. E.

Lindgren, G. S.

Popplewell, E.

Wells, Peroy (Faversham)

Lipton, Marcus

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Logan, D. G.

Probert, A. R.

West, D. G.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Proctor, W. T.

Wheeldon, W. E.

McCann, J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

MacDermot, Niall

Randall, H. E.

Wilkins, W. A.

McGovern, J.

Rankin, John

Willey, Frederick

McInnes, J.

Redhead, E. C.

Williams, David (Neath)

McLeavy, Frank

Reid, William

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Reynolds, G. W.

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

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Rhodes, H.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Mahon, Simon

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Winterbottom, Richard

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Royle, C.

Woof, R. E.

Mason, Roy

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Mikardo, Ian

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Mitchison, G. R.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rodgers.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end to insert:
(2) The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (2):—
"Provided that in the case of any such application notice thereof was given to the tenant at the time of the application".
This matter is one of planning. Although this is rather complicated, the point I am endeavouring to raise in this Amendment is quite simple. When planning permission for the use of land other than agricultural land has been obtained, the tenant cannot counter notice. Planning permission has overriding effect. We accept that as reasonable and are not quarrelling about it, but at present there is no obligation on the landlord to notify the tenant that he is applying for planning permission.
What we seek to do by this Amendment is to place an obligation on the landlord to see that the tenant is notified of application for planning permission. I concede at once that it is unlikely that planning permission would be obtained without the tenant having the opportunity to be heard, but I am sure everyone will agree that this is of the greatest importance to the tenant who is using the land. Although it is unlikely that
460
consent would be obtained without the tenant's being aware of it, I am informed that that has in fact happened on some occasions. I have been told that there have been one or two occasions recently. For that reason, I move the Amendment and hope that the Government, whether they accept it or not, will at any rate be able to accept the principle and to provide that a tenant should in all cases be notified that an application for planning permission has been sought.
Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Godber: On this occasion I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has moved. I appreciate the particular force of the arguments he has advanced, and which can be advanced, in favour of it. This is a, matter on which the Franks Committee recommended that the tenant should be informed of planning application and allowed to state his views. The Committee pointed out that this was particularly desirable in the case of agricultural holdings since the grant of planning permission removes such statutory protection

461
as the tenant otherwise enjoys against a notice to quit.
I certainly do not disagree with that approach at all, but I am afraid that the working out of the Franks Committee recommendation would not be quite as simple a matter as might appear. The recommendation was not limited to agricultural tenants; indeed, it was not confined to tenants at all, but covered everyone with a direct interest in the land. Where, for example, a third person, who was neither the owner nor the occupier, applied for planning permission, the Franks Committee considered that both the landlord and the tenant should be informed and allowed to state their views. It is clear that the problem is a general one which ought to be considered in the context of general planning legislation—that is the difficulty with which we are faced—perhaps leading to amendment of the Town and Country Planning Acts.
I am afraid it is not a suitable matter for incorporation in this Bill. I would stress that the Bill does not affect the law on this point. We are not changing the law as set out in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for which hon. Members opposite were responsible. This matter is difficult and I am afraid I cannot accept an Amendment at this stage. All I can say it that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is at present giving very close attention to it. I hope he will be able to bring forward legislation in the wider and broader context, which would also cover this matter.
It is for that reason that I am unable to accept this Amendment. I feel that the matter covers a broader aspect. Although the hon. Member pointed out that agricultural land is the centre and core of the Amendment, there are matters here affecting the wider interests. We feel this is one of the matters which should be considered and brought forward in further legislation, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will bring forward at a later stage. Although I have sympathy with the intent, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, which would involve very sweeping and definite changes in this respect. For that reason only, with regret, I have to advise the House that I
462
could not agree to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. On previous occasions I have argued that we ought not to refrain from doing a particular good because of inability to do a general good. I appreciate that this is not a Departmental responsibility of the hon. Gentleman, but falls within the Departmental responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I wonder, however, whether between now and when the Bill is considered in another place the Minister might have consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether it is possible to take any action within the scope of this Bill.
I say at once that I am not very optimistic about that, but I feel the right hon. Gentleman should pursue that course and see if that is possible, because everyone is agreed that the Franks Committee recommendation on this matter should be accepted and it is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that this matter is within Government policy. If it has to await general amending legislation, we shall have to await that legislation, but if policy is agreed and it is possible to do something about the Agricultural Holdings Act in this Bill when it is considered in another place. I hope the opportunity will be taken by the Government. Meanwhile, I am content to rest upon the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 16, line 10, after "provision", to insert:
"for ensuring that a sub-tenant shall receive a copy of any notice to quit affecting the holding of which he is sub-tenant given under the said section twenty-four and".
We are now considering provision for the protection of sub-tenants. In Standing Committee I raised the point that I believed there is a loophole in the present provisions. A landlord might have a head tenant, possibly a nominee company, with whom he could make an arrangement that the head tenant would not contest a notice under Section 24. By that collusion the sub-tenant would lose all his rights. The Parliamentary Secretary replied that this was a somewhat involved matter, but at any rate

463
we were agreed in our objectives, and, if there were such a loophole, steps ought to be taken to close it.
I do not suggest that this Amendment would necessarily close that loophole, but it would improve the position of the sub-tenant. I also agree that without the Amendment the Lord Chancellor could take action which might be effective, but this matter, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has looked into again, is one with which we ought to deal if possible. Whether the present Amendment would be wholly effective or not, it would strengthen the provision as at present drafted.
Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman reminded us that in Committee I said that this was an involvedm atter. I did not realise how involved it was until I looked into it, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of looking into it. Perhaps I could briefly set it out as I see it for the benefit of the House.
As I see it, the position of sub-tenants under the 1948 Act is certainly complicated because there are here four types of cases involving notice. First, if the sub-tenant's immediate landlord serves notice on him, the sub-tenant is fully protected under existing legislation because he can contest a notice to quit and will be able to make representations to the agricultural land tribunal. Therefor his case is already covered.
Secondly, if the sub-tenant's immediate landlord decides to leave the holding on his own initiative and serves notice on the head landlord to that effect, then the sub-tenant automatically becomes the tenant of the head landlord with full security, so that in that respect he is also safeguarded.
Thirdly, if the head landlord serves notice on the intermediate landlord or on the intermediate tenant, whichever way one likes to put it, and he in turn serves a counter notice on the head landlord—I hope that the House is with me in this because it is a little involved—then, again, the position of the subtenant is also covered because under subparagraph (3) of paragraph 9 of Statutory
464
Instrument No. 190, 1948—that is the Notice to Quit Regulations—the subtenant then has the right to make representations. Therefore, in all those cases the sub-tenant is covered.
Now we come to the fourth case, which is the only one in which he is not covered. This is where the intermediate landlord or intermediate tenant on receiving a notice to quit does not serve a counter notice, but himself serves notice to quit on his sub-tenant. In that case, his notice on his sub-tenant is automatically effective, and under the terms of the Regulations under Section 26 (1, e) of the 1948 Act the sub-tenant cannot make representations against him. This is a very restricted class of case and we can find no evidence of abuse resulting from such a case. But, even if abuse arose, there is power to deal with it by means of an Order under the Section to which I have just referred. Under existing legislation power is given to the Minister, but under the Bill power to make an Order is given to the Lord Chancellor. He can make an Order to give the sub-tenant the right where the head tenant quits to hold from the landlord on the same terms as he held from the head tenant.
This power has never been used either by the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he was in power or by my right hon. Friend, because it has not been found necessary. If it were, then certainly we should not hesitate to use it. I say to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that while the number of these cases is very few indeed—we can find practically no particulars of them—we have power under existing legislation and the Lord Chancellor will have the power, to make an Order. That being so, I do not think there is any need to attempt to write into the Bill such words as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
This is a very complicated subject dealing with a very small number of cases. None the less, I agree that it is important. In view of what I have said, having looked into the point, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is covered by existing legislation and that therefore there is no need for the Amendment.
Mr. Paget: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the position is that where a sub-tenant finds that he is losing his farm and goes to a solicitor for advice,

465
that solicitor is supposed to advise him that the Lord Chancellor has power to make an Order under a certain Section which has been in being for a number of years, but which has not been used, and that, if he is quick enough and if the Lord Chancellor is in the mood and there is a Parliament before which it can be laid and a draftsman available, an Order might be made which will save him his home?
This seems comic to us, but it is not comic to the man whose home is being lost. Why wait to prevent the accident until someone is killed? We see a perfectly good example of the danger, and we also see an opportunity to spot it before it happens. Why wait until after it happens and imagine that it will be spotted even then unless somebody is ingenious enough to think of the Lord Chancellor and his power to make an Order? The Parliamentary Secretary's answer does not seem really satisfactory.
Mr. Godber: The point is that had there been a need for this either in the time of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or since the present Government have been in power then surely someone would have pressed for it. It is significant that nobody has pressed the need for such an Order. The power exists. There is certainly no need to put it into the Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is the duty of the Government to introduce such an Order then he may have a case, but I am saying that neither this Government nor preceding Governments have done so, presumably because no need had to their knowledge arisen. I am not disputing that there may be a case for doing it, but there is no point in writing it into the Bill when the necessary power exists in existing legislation.
Mr. Paget: If the Minister would be prepared to say to us that he will ask his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to make the appropriate Order and to put the tackle in order before the accident happens, I think that my hon. Friend would be satisfied.
Mr. Godber: I am quite prepared to bring the matter to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I tried to make the case that it seems to me that, had there been need for it, pressure would have been exerted in this direction long before now.
Mr. George Jeger: Surely the Minister will make himself clear? If the hon. Gentleman says the test is that there has been no need expressed for it by anyone then that is the test of the Bill itself. No need has been expressed by anyone for a Bill of this character. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is to apply his mind logically to the Amendment, surely he should extend it to the whole Bill at this stage and agree to withdraw it?
Mr. Ede: While the Parliamentary Secretary was giving his explanation he was continually apologising to us for the complicated nature of the transaction with which he had to deal. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that when the farmer mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) goes to his solicitor, a country solicitor in some town or village in the provinces, that solicitor will have in the books that he consults a reference to this power exercised by the Lord Chancellor?
Mr. Godber: I have the greatest respect for members of the legal profession and I would certainly not cast any slur on them by saying that they would not have that knowledge in their possession. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), I would only say that my knowledge of the matter is that there is a very big demand for the Bill, as has been evidenced in the country.
Mr. Willey: I do not want to be drawn. I would merely say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). I am greatly obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his researches, and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on following them. I propose to wait until tomorrow morning in order to study them more carefully. I am equally satisfied, with my hon. and learned Friend, that the powers being there they ought to be exercised. I say that for the reason that I think it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain evidence of such cases as these. I think that more often than not the subtenant does not even bother to consult a solicitor, but when he does, the solicitor conscientiously carries out his work and informs him that he has no remedy.

467
I suggest, therefore, that the best course would probably be to consult the organisations within the agricultural industry about this matter, and then to refer it to the Lord Chancellor, hoping that in due course we shall have regulations which will safeguard the sub-tenant, even in the remote likelihood of the landlord acting in this way. I think that we should safeguard him completely if we have the powers so to do. With these observations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, at the end to insert:
14. In section thirty-three after "severed", there shall be inserted the words "so as to provide that the rent of the residue of the holding shall be a rent properly payable in respect of such residue".
This, again, is a matter of considerable complexity, but the point we are endeavouring to raise is quite a simple one. We are dealing now with Section 33 and we are concerned with an agricultural holding, part of which has been severed as a result of notice to quit under Section 31.
The arbitrator reduces the rent proportionately, that is, in accordance with the reduction of the acreage. The point which we are trying to raise by the Amendment is that there ought to be wider powers, and we ought to be able to pay regard to the residual holding as it emerges and look also at the notional rent that such a holding would get on vacant possession. Obviously if we cut a farm in half it does not mean that half the rental should necessarily and fairly be paid for the half of the farm remaining. In fact, far less rent might be proper because the whole holding may be unbalanced. It is with these objectives in view that I beg to move the Amendment.
Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Godber: This is an involved matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his explanation of the Amendment.
I understand that he is seeking to give greater security to the tenant in this way. In fact, I am advised that the Amendment would do the reverse. It would give the tenant less security in relation
468
to his rent. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to provide in the words of the Amendment is
"… after 'severed', there shall be inserted the words 'so as to provide that the rent of the residue of the holding shall be a rent properly payable in respect of such residue'."
The present position is that when a landlord resumes possession of part of the holding, the tenant shall pay a rent based on the proportionate reduction and also on any further reduction of the value of the remainder to the tenant caused by the severance and by the use to be made of the part resumed by the landlord.
If that is so, a reduction in rent proportionate to the part that has been taken and for loss of value of the remainder of the holding to the tenant seems a very substantial safeguard to the tenant, because the loss of value to the sitting tenant could well be greater than the difference in value of the original holding and the value of the reduced holding to someone else coming in, which would be the rent properly payable under the new definition.
5.45 p.m.
If one is thinking under the new definition of a new tenant coming in, it would not take account necessarily of loss of value to the sitting tenant, which would be taken into account at present. The effect could well be to the disadvantage of the tenant if this were done. I think that the House would not wish that effect to be brought about. In fact, I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, does not wish it to be brought about. Having looked into this matter, I am advised that that is the position. If, in fact, the tenant loses part of his holding it could have a more injurious effect on him, particularly in view of the way he is farming it at the time, than on a new tenant coming into that portion of the farm. If the Amendment were passed, the rent properly payable under the new definition could be a higher rent than it is worth to the present tenant—particularly while he is having to change his method of farming.
Under the existing legislation, the position is more adequately covered from the point of view of the tenant than it would be in the light of the Amendment. It is for that reason that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Willey: I am not going to the stake for the draftsmanship of this Amendment. I anticipated the point which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made, and that is why, in drafting the Amendment, we tried to make this an additional consideration.
I agree that there may be some criticism of the words
"… so as to provide",
but we are trying to take into consideration a new factor. We are not trying to take out of consideration the factors which are at present there. I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the second factor already in the Section is advantageous to the tenant, and it is put there to help the tenant. I should not like the Amendment to make the position of the tenant any worse. It is not designed for that purpose; it is designed to bring into consideration a review of what the residual holding is really worth.
I agree that in some circumstances—and I appreciated this in drafting the Amendment—the effect of the Amendment might possibly increase the rental, but I think that in the majority of cases it would work the other way. I think that this would, in general, help the tenant.
As I say, I am not wedded to the wording of the Amendment, but I am anxious that the Government should consider this approach. It is a matter which, I understand, has been considered by the Government in another context in regard to opencast coal mining, where a similar problem arises. I would have hoped that, at any rate, the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to assure the House that between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place—I am not asking the Government to commit themselves—he would see if it is possible to improve Section 33 along those lines.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that we felt circumscribed in drafting the Amendment, because we tried to bring it into accord with the present provisions. We are anxious that it should be clearly brought before the arbitrator that, among other things, he should consider this as a new holding and try to reach a realistic rent upon that basis, and not merely regard it as a pro-
470
portionate part of the holding which has been destroyed.
It is for these reasons that I move the Amendment, and if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give me the assurance that his right hon. Friend and he will consider the problem and see whether it is possible to do anything not to make the position of the tenant worse, because none of us wants to make the position of the tenant worse, I am sure that my hon. Friends would be satisfied.
Mr. Godber: In response to that appeal, I will give an assurance that we will look at this matter again to see if there is anything that we can do. I am glad to learn from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that his idea was to provide an additional reason rather than an alternative one. I feel certain that as an alternative it would be wrong and to the detriment of the tenant. In the light of what he has said, I will look at the matter again. I think that at the present time the tenant is fairly well protected, but if there is any way in which we can improve his position I should like to look into it.
Mr. Willey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper:
In page 17, leave out lines 18 to 29.
Mr. Willey: This Amendment and the following Amendment, in page 17, to leave out lines 33 to 40, deal with similar points in respect of Sections 50 and 68 of the 1948 Act, which, in turn, deal with long-term improvements and the treating of a holding as a market garden for certain purposes. The provisions to which we object take away powers from the Minister and transfer them to the agricultural land tribunal. We have already made it plain that we are opposed to this course, and we have persistently opposed the action of the Government throughout our discussions in Committee.
The position on both sides is so abundantly clear that, having said what our purpose is, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper:
In page 19, leave out lines 7 to 14.
Mr. Willey: This Amendment refers to a similar point. We shall shortly reach the Third Reading of the Bill, when we can once again express our views, and for that reason I do not seek to move this Amendment.
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, at the end to insert:
(2) So long as a condition under section twenty-six of this Act is in force there shall be no limit to the number of times that an application to the Land Court on behalf of the Crown may be made under the foregoing subsection.
The Amendment deals with a matter which I mentioned during the Committee stage, when the noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary said that he had some sympathy with it and that there was some substance in my point. Section 30 of the 1948 Act is being redrawn. Under existing legislation, if the owner who got possession—that is, who made an application and asked for consent to a notice to quit, offering certain justification for consent being given, and consent was given with a condition attached—was in breach of the condition after a period the Secretary of State for the Minister took possession of the farm and saw that the condition was fulfilled.
In the redrafting of Section 30, the Government now provide that the Land Court, on the application of the Crown that an owner is in breach of the condition, may impose a fine—the word "fine" is not used, but it is, in fact, a fine—not exceeding two years' rent, the fine to be paid into the Exchequer. The tenant who was got out under false pretences has no further remedy; he is out, and presumably he has no further interest in the farm.
I was interested to ascertain whether, an application having been made to the Land Court on behalf of the Crown and the Land Court having decided that the landlord was in breach and having imposed the payment or fine of not more than two years' rent, that was an end of the matter. I was not sure about it. I believe the Joint Under-Secretary was not very sure about it. I waited in vain for the Joint Under-Secretary to table an Amendment in order to make sure that an application could be made on behalf of the Crown at any time so long as the condition was in force. The Joint Under-Secretary may say that an Amendment is unnecessary, that an application may be
472
made at any time and that there is no limit to the number of applications that may be made to the Land Court on behalf of the Crown.
I appreciate that after a time it might well be that the Land Court would not think it fit and proper to continue to keep in force a condition which had been attached. There might be many reasons why the condition should be varied or discontinued. I wondered whether I ought to table an Amendment to cover that point, but I believe it is covered in existing legislation.
I do not want to be unfair to the landlord. On the other hand, I do not wish to make it possible for the landlord to buy a good tenant out of his holding by undertaking the fulfilment of a condition which he is later seen to be unwilling to fulfil in the knowledge that he can be fined no more than two years' rent. If it were to be so, all security to the tenant farmer would virtually disappear.
I hope that in the circumstances the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to give use an assurance that as things stand there is no limit to the number of applications which can be made on behalf of the Crown so long as the condition is in force, or that he will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that this Amendment provides an opportunity for the Joint Under-Secretary to give one of his convincing explanations to the House.
Lord John Hope: I shall do my best to convince the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the reasonableness of my answer to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). After we have all been together for so many weeks discussing so many Amendments, I wish, if only for "Auld Lang Syne", that I could have given way on this Amendment.
Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——
Lord John Hope: It is all right; it is Burns.
I undertook to look into the matter. There is substance in the point which the hon. Member has raised. When I gave my undertaking, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)

473
reinforced what his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton had said by expressing the hope that I would look at the matter seriously. I certainly have done so, and at length.
The hon. Member for Hamilton during the Committee stage went straight to the point of the recurring penalty. That is the real point. I hoped very much that it would be possible to meet him, because in equity one felt instinctively that this would be the fair way to deal with the matter. I will tell him what transpired as soon as I looked into the matter.
If it were always open to a landlord to remedy a breach, there would certainly be something to be said for a recurring fine, for example, a fine for every day that the breach remained unremedied. Then one was faced with the case where the breach consisted of the sale of a farm of which the landlord had persuaded the Land Court to give him possession on the ground that he himself would farm it.
Then, let us suppose, the landlord sells the farm in breach of the conditions imposed upon him, and the buyer comes in. Unless we have a monetary penalty on a once-and-for-all basis, it seems that the blow will fall on the purchaser, because the farm is not being farmed as the Land Court—in England it would be the lands tribunal—said it was to be farmed. Therefore, strictly speaking, the then owner himself would be in breach. That is the difficulty.
6.0 p.m.
Another rather interesting fact emerged at this point. I realised that that flaw in the position obtains in the Act, as it has been on the Statute Book for all these years.
Mr. Willis: That does not make it any better.
Lord John Hope: Of course it does not make it any better, but the penalty of two years' rent which is now to be imposed as a fine improves the position, because it can be handled without any injustice to a succeeding purchaser or another tenant. It is an awkward complex of circumstances, but there is no way round it, and all other things being equal this would seem the right way to proceed. Whether a penalty of two years' rent is severe enough is a matter of argument, but the Amendment
474
is not concerned with that point. I think that the penalty probably is severe enough; it is quite a heavy one.
It is fair to mention that up to the present there has not been a single case in which the Secretary of State has had to take possession in these circumstances, and there is no reason to suppose that there will be a case of a landlord behaving this way in future. I realise that that is not a logical answer, but it is not an entirely unsatisfactory reflection on the state of affairs. That being so, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to agree that we could not recommend the acceptance of the Amendment, because it would not work, and it would be unfair to the successors.
Mr. T. Williams: I feel that we ought to divide on this issue, because the answer which the Joint Under-Secretary has given is not conclusive. However, if the noble Lord will undertake that between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will reconsider the matter in the light that I shall try to set out, my hon. Friends may think again about dividing the House.
I am concerned about the situation for two reasons. First, the original tenant who is given notice has to go; he must either find other land or an alternative occupation. The landlord who gave him notice to quit has had certain conditions imposed upon him by the Land Court before he gave the tenant notice to quit, and if he defaults, for one reason or another, under the Clause as it now stands the Land Court can fine the landlord up to a maximum of two years' rent. That is almost equivalent to the situation that existed in 1923. Worse still, the money goes to the Treasury, and the tenant who has been dispossessed does not get three farthings. That does not seem to be very equitable for the tenant
Secondly—and even worse, perhaps—a landowner may, with ingenious arguments, deliberately conspire to obtain a decision which is favourable to him, even though he knows that he is never going to fulfil the conditions which the Land Court imposes upon him, because he would rather pay the fine so long as he can get possession. That does not seem to be rational, and that is why I ask the noble Lord to try to find a means of preventing a landlord being so ready to

475
serve a notice to quit in order to obtain possession, while the tenant does not even receive compensation for having to go.
I cannot believe that this is an impossible problem for the Lord Chancellor and the legal luminaries of Scotland to solve if they make up their minds to solve it. We do not want to vote for the Amendment simply for the sake of doing so, and if the noble Lord can give us an assurance that between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will reconsider the situation, we may be persuaded not to divide. At the moment, however, it would seem that we shall be returning exactly to the conditions which applied in 1923, when no tenant could feel that he had any security of tenure. Our request is a reasonable one, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to respond to it.
Sir J. Duncan: I am rather impressed by the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I do not like the idea of a landlord getting hold of his land by deceit—because that is what it amounts to. But I do not think that the Amendment can be accepted as it is. Although I am not a lawyer and I do not know the Scottish law, I would have thought that if a land court allows a landlord to take possession in certain conditions, and after the landlord has obtained possession he fails to fulfil those conditions, he is in breach of an order of the court. That being so, cannot he be made to come under the ordinary law and be prosecuted by the sheriff for being in breach of an order of the court?
There are different circumstances, of course. It may well be that it is only after the landlord has obtained possession that he finds he cannot fulfil the necessary conditions. In that case I can see that many difficulties might arise, although I should have thought the right thing to do would be for the landlord to go back to the Land Court and ask to be let off his obligations, on the ground that they could not be fulfilled. Where it is clear that the landlord has obtained possession by deceit, however, I should have thought that it was possible for the ordinary course of law to come into operation, and for the fiscal or sheriff, or even quarter sessions, to deal with him. I believe that the English expression is "contempt of court",
476
although I do not think that the same expression is used in Scotland.
If that point could be taken into consideration by my noble Friend I feel that it would improve the situation and do justice in cases where the landlord obtained possession by a trick. I hope that my noble Friend will do his best to see if the procedure that I have referred to can be put into operation, or provided for when the Bill reaches another place.
Mr. Paget: This matter obviously needs looking at again. What surprised me was the assumption which hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to have made that under the Bill as it stands only one prosecution can be brought. I am very glad to see that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is here, because under the terms of the Clause, I should have thought that each time the landlord came before the court in respect of a continuing offence the appropriate matters could be proved, and a further penalty imposed. I cannot see anything to stop anyone having to go to court a second time under the Clause—but doubtless that is an aspect which will be considered when the Government look into the situation again.
Lord John Hope: Obviously, I cannot commit myself about what will be done in another place. But I can say that the debate on this Amendment has underlined the fact that we all recognise the situation is not per se satisfactory. I doubt whether it can be improved on, but having said that, may I add that there is no harm in having a further investigation to see whether it is possible to improve it. I have no doubt that such further consideration will be given, but I cannot give any sort of commitment.
Mr. T. Fraser: I had hoped that the Joint Under-Secretary would go just a little further. May I take the House back to what the hon. Gentleman said in the first place? He said that in the last ten years there had not been any cases where owners had failed to keep faith with the conditions imposed on them when they got possession of a tenancy. The hon. Gentleman will agree that during that period there has hardly been any opportunity for the Land Court to attach conditions. But in future such opportunities will be many. The Land Court will consider applications for consent to notices to quit and will attach conditions. That is the whole point of Clause 3.

477
In the past, most applications for consent to notices to quit came to executive committees and most of them were refused at that stage and never went to the Land Court. Now the Government have deliberately provided that there will be greater opportunities for obtaining consent to the possession by the owner of a farm which has been let to a tenant. Under Clause 3 the owner will not have to go to an executive committee. He will go straight to the Land Court.
There are many different conditions which may be attached to such possession. The Joint Under-Secretary dealt with only one, that the owner would farm the land himself. The hon. Gentleman said it might be a breach of the condition that, having got possession, the owner did not farm the land but sold the farm and that, in those circumstances, surely he could not be prosecuted more than once. I thought that not a good example. It may well be that the rent of a particular farm is low, it may be that it is £2 an acre, when anyone would realise that the market rent should be £4, £5 or even £6 an acre. The owner might consider that the farm was an attractive property to put on the market. He might not wish merely to raise the rent and get £4 or £5 or even £6 an acre. He might take the view that if he could get the tenant out, he could obtain a good price for the farm by putting it on the market with vacant possession.
The Joint Under-Secretary has suggested that it would be adequate to impose a fine upon an owner, who had obtained possession of a farm by decision of the Land Court on condition that he farmed it himself. Should the owner breach the condition imposed by the Land Court, he would be guilty of deliberate deceit, as was said by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). The maximum fine which could be imposed upon him would be an amount equal to two years' rent at the hopelessly inadequate figure at which the rent of the farm stood.
But there are so many other conditions which could be breached. The owner might wish to change the nature of the agricultural activity carried out on the farm. That might be possible only after a change of tenancy. But having secured a change, or having got the previous
478
tenant evicted so that he himself might carry on with some new farming activity in the national interest, the owner might ignore the condition, until the Crown made application to the Land Court that he was in breach of condition. Then, presumably, he would be fined not more than two years' rent at the figure obtaining when the previous tenant occupied the farm, because by that time there would be no current rental figure.
6.15 p.m.
That might prove a small price for the owner to pay to get possession of his land, and it would be unfair to allow such a position to obtain. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary, in response to pleas by hon. Members from both sides of the House, should go a bit further than he has. It may be that this is not the way in which the Schedule, and, therefore, Section 30 of the Act, can be amended. It may be that we should make quite clear, abundantly clear—I should be most willing to do this—that at any time, if a condition had been attached to a consent to a notice to quit, the owner could come back to the Land Court and say that such condition was no longer appropriate and should not be enforced; that the condition should either be withdrawn altogether, or varied or modified, so that there would be no possibility of any punitive repetition of application to the Land Court against the owner.
If the Joint Under-Secretary would say that he is most willing to see in what way the abuse, which is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, could be avoided, we should not persist with this Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman must go a little further than he has gone as yet. Let him say that he is determined with his right hon. Friend to stop this abuse, and then we shall not proceed with this Amendment. This is not a party matter and we do not want to persist with the Amendment, but it would not be possible for me to withdraw it, in the light of what has been said, without a further undertaking from the Joint Under-Secretary.
Lord John Hope: I do not think that I can go so far as to say that I will see in what way this abuse will be stopped. What I meant to say before—I will say

479
it now—is that I will see whether there is any way in which it can be stopped. I do not think that the hon. Member can, in fairness, expect me to do more. Until I have looked into this matter again I cannot do more. It had been thrashed out with the greatest care long before the last investigation was made by myself. But there is nothing like going on trying. I do not think I can do more. I cannot say that I will find a way in which this abuse can be stopped.
Mr. T. Fraser: As I do not wish to close the door by having a vote on it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
6.18 p.m.
Mr. John Hare: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Since the Second Reading debate last March we have spent over 70 hours discussing the Bill in Committee and on Report. I have no complaint to make about that. Long as our discussions may have been, acute as our differences of opinion may be, I think that throughout we have conducted our proceedings with good temper and restraint. Undoubtedly, the Bill has been improved by the discussions upon it, but basically it is the same as when it was presented to the House. I make no apology for that. I was convinced last March, and I am still more convinced today, that what we are doing by the Bill is in the interests of British farming. I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have opposed the main provisions with great vehemence. In my opinion—it is only my opinion—they have been raising bogeys in which there was very little substance.
We have argued at great length over Clause 1, the repeal of State powers to dispossess and supervise farmers and landowners. I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite are somewhat cautious as to how they would use these powers if they, by some unfortunate mischance, were returned to office. They imply that they would bring the powers back. I think that they are far too coy really to say that they would make the extensive
480
use of these powers which was originally intended, and I very much doubt whether, in practice, they would use them in the circumstances of today. It has been suggested that, even so, the mere existence of the powers acts as a spur to efficient farming. I do not believe that. One cannot make an incompetent farmer into a good one by threats or fear or compulsion.
Mr. T. Williams: Or persuasion.
Mr. Hare: One may be able to do so by advice and assistance, and there I disagree with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in his interruption.
These powers are, in my opinion, unusuable in present-day conditions. Throughout all our proceedings hon. Gentlemen opposite failed to show how these powers of State supervision and dispossession are of direct value to farming. Therefore, since they have failed to do that, they have had to fall back on a constant repetition of the theme that the Bill is a first step in the abolition of the guaranteed prices for farmers. In this assertion there is not the slightest shadow of truth whatever.
In defending his speech yesterday, the right hon. Member for Don Valley said that repetition was the law of propaganda. I am afraid that is just what his speeches and those of his hon. Friends are—party propaganda. If farmers and landowners were afraid that the price supports would be knocked from under them, we should have heard about it in no uncertain terms.
Mr. T. Williams: The Minister certainly has.
Mr. Hare: I am not referring to our discussions in Committee. There would have been a clamour outside the House against the Bill. There has, in fact, been nothing of the sort. The attempt by hon. Gentlemen opposite to create alarm and despondency in the farming community has failed.
The price guarantees to farmers are widely recognised now as a proper safeguard on social and economic grounds and as the equivalent of assistance which other industries of national importance receive, each in its own way. The guarantees to farmers are set out on a permanent basis in clear and unmistakable terms in the Agriculture Act

481
introduced by my predecessor last year. That is the charter for British agriculture—that, and, I am glad to say, the very much better understanding which now exists between town and country. They are not affected in the slightest by the repeal of what I can only describe as useless and outmoded State controls.
The other Clauses of the Bill represent, in the main, a constructive reappraisal of the operation of the tenancy system under the important Acts of 1947 and 1948. As I said on Second Reading, the landlord-tenant partnership in this country is, I believe, the envy of the world. We on this side are determined to maintain that partnership on a healthy basis. This means a fair sharing of rewards and responsibilities. Clauses 2 to 6 are, therefore, not a landlord's charter, but, rather, are designed to keep the landlord-tenant partnership on a really sound and workable basis.
The provisions regarding security of tenure and the provision of capital equipment necessary to comply with statutory regulations were in principle agreed by farmers and landowners and have not had very much opposition in our discussions. The weight of our discussions has fallen on the Clause dealing with rental arbitration. Here, again, it seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite have, perhaps deliberately, set out to raise unnecessary fears about how the Clause would operate. The Clause provides that if a rent is to be settled by arbitration the arbitrator shall fix a rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord to a willing tenant. I honestly believe that most people accept the principle lying behind that.
It seems to us that it was very much this principle which was intended when the 1947 and 1948 Acts were passed. I have already reminded the right hon. Member for Don Valley that it was he who said in Standing Committee in 1947:
"We think that the right figure is the actual rent that a landlord can get on the open market from a willing tenant who is about to become the occupier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 13th March, 1947; c. 518.]
Surely the existing tenant of a farm can reasonably be asked to pay the rent which a new tenant coming into the farm would pay. The existing tenant rightly enjoys security of tenure, but most people will
482
agree, I think, that security should not mean the right to farm at a rent below the market value.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to create the anxiety that arbitrators will be compelled under the Clause to adopt as their standard the highest bids put in when a tenancy is offered on the open market. I suggest that this really cannot be read into the Clause as it stands. There is no doubt that a landlord faced with a number of offers from potential tenants will accept the best offer, but the point I am making is that the best offer is a very different thing from the highest bid. The House will realise, I hope, that there is an important difference between sales of farms and lettings. A seller is disposing of his interest in the farm and, if he is sure that the purchaser has the money, he will accept the highest bid. But the landowner retains a close and vital interest in the property. Every arbitrator knows perfectly well the reluctance of landlords to let to inexperienced or bad tenants even if they offer—perhaps particularly if they offer—a very high rent. The interpretation of the Clause will be in the hands of men who professionally are daily advising landowners on this kind of thing. A similar Section has of course, operated for several years in relation to business premises quite satisfactorily.
Other points have been raised on this formula, points which seem to arise perhaps from a failure to treat the formula in its full context. We are, in effect, writing this new formula into Section 8 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. The provisions of that Section remain in full force. Therefore, arbitrators in assessing rents are required to leave out of account the value of improvements carried out by the tenant. They leave out of account also the value of any grants towards improvements made by the landlord. This does not seem to have been appreciated by everybody who has spoken and written about the Bill.
I feel, therefore, that the provision about rent, if we consider it carefully and dispassionately, is clear and fair. The rent fixed by arbitration will be an open market rent for the farm, and that does not mean a freak or fancy rent such as, I suppose, very occasionally may be offered and accepted. It means the

483
normal open market rent which would be offered and accepted by sensible farmers and sensible landowners.
I would emphasise that we are dealing here only with rents where agreement cannot be reached between the tenant and the landlord. It may well be that some landlords are prepared to agree rents with their tenants which are less than the lettings in the open market. That is a matter for them. But I really cannot see the reason why any landlord should be compelled to accept less than the open market rent, and, on the whole, I think that the tenant farmers will recognise the justice of that.
Equally, I can assure farmers that they need not in any way be scared in negotiations by stories that arbitrators will be forced to fix rents greater than the normal run of open market lettings. Hon. Members opposite have tried to play up this point into the supposition that this would be a major change in farm rents. It is nothing of the sort. Of course, everybody knows that there is not and never has been rent control in agriculture. The Bill is concerned only with rental arbitration. It introduces no new principle. It merely restates clearly the original intention of present legislation. In my opinion, it does so with complete fairness to both landlord and tenant, and there is nothing in it which should disturb the farming community.
I have spoken at some length about the rent Clause because of the obvious misunderstanding about what it is intended to do and what in the opinion of the Government and its Law Officers the Clause in fact does. The other Clauses are, however, I think, of very considerable importance. The new Clause on security of tenure will, I think, be an immense improvement when it is brought into practice. I should like to take this opportunity once more to pay a very special tribute to the statesmanship of the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. in reaching agreement on what is obviously a very tricky subject. It shows better than anything else that I have said earlier what a fine partnership exists between landowners and tenant farmers.
The extension of tenants' rights in Clause 4 against unsatisfactory landlords will, I hope, also be important in deal-
484
ing with perhaps a limited number of difficult cases. Finally, the transfer of functions from the Minister of Agriculture and his county agricultural committees to the Lord Chancellor and the agricultural land tribunals will mean that the procedure for handling landlord and tenant relations will conform with the important principles laid down in the Franks Report.
This is an important and valuable Bill. It is not intended to make sweeping changes in our farming legislation. But taken together with the 1957 Act, the Bill adapts to changing conditions the provisions of the 1947 and 1948 Acts. Our approach has been practical. We have examined carefully how these things are working out in practice. We found that the powers of supervision and dispossession could not be used in present-day conditions and could never be used without major changes in procedure. The sensible course was to get rid of them. The provisions on rents set out in the 1948 Act have not, in practice, proved sufficiently clear to achieve the intentions of the Act. We have, therefore, clarified them. The provisions for security of tenure have proved in practice to give too much protection to the bad farmer, too little opportunity to keen young farmers and too little encouragement to the landowner to make the best use of his land. In short, the partnership between farmer and landowner was working under strain. We are trying to put that right.
Now that the Bill has reached its final stages in the House. I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree, whether or not they like it, that doctrinally it is a sensible and practical Measure which is much needed for the good of farming today.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. T. Williams: After two days on Second Reading, twenty meetings of the Committee and a day and a half on Report, I find it extremely difficult to produce something new to say on Third Reading. However, I have one consolation. I think that I replied yesterday to the Minister's speech of today, so I need not worry about that. Nor do I think it necessary to find additional arguments to those that we have already advanced against giving the Bill a Third Reading. From the beginning we have maintained that it is based on doctrinaire prejudices

485
rather than justifiable reasons that drag the industry into the cockpit of politics, that it has created doubt and apprehension in the minds of many farmers, and, finally, that it could militate against the best interests of both the industry and the nation.
The Minister has been good enough on several occasions to give us credit for the sincerity of our beliefs, and, not unnaturally, he claims the same credit for the sincerity of his own beliefs. But when one searches the records for the right hon. Gentleman's arguments and reasons in favour of the Bill, they seem to me to be excessively weak and unconvincing. Firstly, we are told that the disciplinary powers are out of date and ineffective; secondly, that the use of them sometimes causes serious hardship; thirdly, that they are more difficult to administer today than several years ago; and, finally, that the Franks Committee's recommendations, which the Government readily accepted, forced the hand of the Government in producing the Bill.
I think that there is a ready answer to all those submissions of the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. If the disciplinary powers were ineffective over past years, it was not because it was difficult to administer them; it was because their use had been discouraged by various Ministers. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told us in his famous reply to a Parliamentary Question, his right hon. Friend's advice was that county agricultural executive committees were to deal only with very bad cases. So it was not a case of it being more difficult, but a case of ministerial discouragement of the use of the powers given to county agricultural executive committees.
I recall that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer some three years ago in this House stated that we had reached a time when we ought, more or less, to rely on persuasion rather than on disciplinary powers, which satisfied me, at all events, that disciplinary powers were on the way out at the first suitable opportunity. My prophetic instinct was not very far wrong either. Therefore, that ineffective horse does not run at all.
Secondly, it is said that serious hardship was caused in certain cases. I do not doubt that that was the case. But that could only happen where a tenant
486
or estate owner failed to fulfil the reasonable conditions of husbandry or estate ownership, despite all the help, advice, guidance and encouragement given by county executive agricultural committees and advisory officers.
Thirdly, if it was more difficult to administer these powers than heretofore, that was more or less because of ministerial interference with county agricultural executive committees.
Fourthly, the Franks Committee never suggested that Part II of the 1947 Act should be repealed. Of course, many of the recommendations of the Franks Committee need not have been accepted by the Government at all, except that they provided a reasonable excuse to the Government to remove the lot. However sincere the Minister might be, his reasons and his arguments are wholly unconvincing for the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act. I believe that the Government have never liked the idea of Part II at all, and they have taken the first opportunity that came their way to get rid of it.
The Minister suggested that we were now in a prosperous age. I do not know what he means by "prosperous", but I suppose he means that we are now in an age of plenty. He thinks that the need for the gentle pressure towards efficiency no longer exists. He seems to forget that the 1947 Act, with all its implications, was not passed merely to meet a period of shortage or emergency. It was a long-term plan, a policy, to provide stability and continuity and to allow the industry to play its full part in the national economy. All sections of the industry accepted their share of responsibility just as readily as they accepted the financial assistance provided by the taxpayer.
We all know that if the disciplinary powers had been used unfairly or unreasonably the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association would have protested violently. So far as I can recall, they did not protest during my term of office, of which there were four or five years. I do not know that they have protested since. We know that these powers were not abused, but that they were used, just as we hoped in 1947 they would be, fairly, helpfully and reasonably. There can be no doubt that this latent but gently used power helped enormously to improve efficiency all over the country and that the Treasury, as the

487
right hon. Gentleman knows, is very pleased to benefit to the extent of £25 million a year because of it.
Why, then, except for doctrinaire reasons, introduce this jarring note? Why are the Government disturbing a system which has proved successful to the industry and to the nation? On these benches we are no more anxious to dispossess a tenant farmer or a landowner than are Government supporters. We prefer—and I imagine that this applies also to Government supporters—to see farmers, landowners and estate owners happy and contented, using their skill and knowledge and making the best possible use of the limited acres of this country, free from the wildly fluctuating cycles and uncertainties that were the bane of their lives in the inter-war years.
It is the Government, with this Bill, who have crossed the wires. It is the Government who have created doubts and disturbed confidence in the future. I made a reference yesterday to the Government's attitude towards output. I thought I detected a note of anger in the Minister's voice. I would remind him, although perhaps I am not old enough to give him advice, of advice which was given to me many years ago. It was, "Never lose your temper, my boy. It's worth more to you than to anybody else." I would advise the Minister to read the speeches of his colleagues during the Second Reading of the 1947 Bill, and his own recent speeches and those of his predecessor. He will then probably begin to realise the reason for the confusion in the countryside and why so many farmers interpret the Bill differently from the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday, replying to one of our Amendments, "All's quiet on the farming front", except for the disaffection that we on these benches were trying to promote. The hon. Gentleman knew then, as he knows now, that that was just plain nonsense. When the National Farmers' Union consulted its county branches, of the first 48 answers it received, 47 counties were utterly opposed to the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act. He said that somebody had been trying to promote fear in their minds that if Part II goes Part I may go.
488
So far as I recollect, I did not go to a farmers' meeting between the time when the National Farmers' Union consulted its county branches and the sending in by those branches of their decisions. I do not think I influenced one person or one vote. Why did 47 out of 48 branches vote against the right hon. Gentleman and his Bill if they did not fear that there was something lurking behind it that might not be too pleasant?
Hon. Members on these benches have not been trying to influence the county branches of the National Farmers' Union, but we know of hon. Members on Government benches who have tried to influence those branches. While they are members of the National Farmers' Union, if they feel disposed to try to influence their branches there is no reason why they should not do so.
Mr. Godber: The point I was making was not quite that. The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood what I said, which was that subsequent to the Second Reading debate in this House, all misgivings, except that coming from the benches opposite, had died away. The whole campaign had died down.
Mr. Williams: I can only say that that is not my recollection. Rightly or wrongly—and I do not argue the point—the farmers felt that they were under an obligation to fulfil the conditions of Part II of the 1947 Act if they were to get the benefits of Part I. With their recollections of 1921 I do not wonder that there were doubts and anxieties in their minds. Certainly they feared that if Part II went Part I might follow. If I had been a farmer I should probably have been feeling the same way.
Indeed, it would have been very remarkable if the farmers had not reacted just as they did upon the introduction of the Bill. After all, they were partners in the scheme. They helped to build it up and to make it work. Why should they not protest against the dismantling of a part of it by the Government without even entering into discussion with the National Farmers' Union? That is exactly what is happening. I would not expect the farmers to mass in Trafalgar Square or parade down Whitehall in order to enter their protest; nor would I deny that there are farmers who remain

489
unmoved by the repeal of Part II. They are the "take all but put nothing" variety of farmers. I am convinced that the vast majority of farmers would prefer not only to fulfil their obligations, their part of the bargain, but that society should know that they were doing so. Society will never know now whether the farmers are fulfilling their part of the bargain or not.
We cannot hope to convince the Minister. His mind was made up before he became Minister of Agriculture. It was made up for him by his predecessor and by the Cabinet of which he forms a part. His mind has been locked, bolted and barred ever since by the Cabinet. That does not apply only to Clause 1 but to every part of the Bill. For example, the right hon. Gentleman said quite a good deal about Clause 2 today. I do not intend to follow him, but only to say that Clause 2 is a highly contentious Clause. Two important parties are involved in it, the landowners and the tenants. This was produced without the approval of or very much discussion with the National Farmers' Union.
There was plenty of room, I think, for some sort of compromise to remove the doubts and fears of farmers, but the right hon. Gentleman made no approach to it. When it was made clear by those who know the law much better than I can hope to know it that no two lawyers were of the same opinion on the interpretation of Clause 2, and it was felt that widely divergent decisions might be given in different parts of the country, the right hon. Gentleman did not help.
Not that I—I at least can speak for myself on this occasion—have tried to whip up fear in the minds and hearts of farmers that rents will rise steeply. They may. I do not know. In any case, we are as much concerned to see that the landowner gets a square deal as that the tenant farmer does, but we want to see the tenant farmer get a square deal, too. I am advised that Clause 2 goes beyond what even the Country Landowners' Association has generally asked for, but the Minister stands pat, as he stood pat through the twenty sittings of the Standing Committee. He reminds me of the two bottles of milk on the doorstep. The label on
490
one said "Grade A. Attested. Feeling fine and fresh". The label on the second said, "What a pity I am sterilised." It almost looks as though the right hon. Gentleman was sterilised before he had a chance to give vent to what may have been his own feelings.
Mr. Hare: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not been sterilised.
Mr. Williams: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so.
I would not dare to make a prophecy, but if rents do here and there rise steeply we shall have a repetition of what happened to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We shall have the Minister of Agriculture coming here to amend his own Measure to avoid a riot in the countryside.
I am not going to touch on the other Clauses. We have stated our case against the Bill because we feel that we are right, and we feel it keenly. We regard this as a wrecking Bill unwanted by anybody but the Conservative Government. The efficiency of tenant farmers in future will be determined by a series of lawyers most of whom know nothing about farming at all. Estate owners and owner-occupiers will do as much or as little as they like. Where confidence has reigned for a long time there is doubt and anxiety. We seem to be proceeding from stability to instability. One more push of this kind and we shall be back into the glorious 'twenties and 'thirties. If one part of one Act can be repealed, there is no reason why another part of the same Act or another Act cannot be repealed later.
We hope for the sake of the industry and the country that we are all wrong. We feel that we are right, but we hope that we are all wrong. But who can trust the present Government with their record? We shall lose in the Division Lobby—there is no doubt about that—but when we get the chance we shall win in the country.
6.54 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that after 20 sittings of the Standing Committee it is not very easy to find something new to say about the Bill, but I have the advantage over him in one respect in that I was absent most of yesterday. It is natural that the right

491
hon. Gentleman should view the passing of this disciplinary power of the old Part II with a certain nostalgia because he built that structure into the 1947 Act and to that extent it is his baby. The trouble is that he does not realise that the circumstances with which those disciplinary provisions were designed to deal in 1947 are absent today, so that the provisions are totally inapplicable.
A great deal has happened since then. It is eleven years later, and there is not a world food shortage. The circumstances are absolutely different from what they were then. To an increasing degree the situation has got easier. As production increased, as efficiency was increased and as the world food shortage decreased the disciplinary powers of which the right hon. Gentleman is so proud became neither more nor less than window dressing and there was nothing whatever behind them.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we have alleged that the powers were being abused. That is not so. I do not think that any of us on these benches have alleged that the powers were abused. That would have been very unfair and quite untrue. They were not being abused. They were just not being used. They were falling into disuse.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: For the simple reason, as has been said many times, that you cannot get members of the county agricultural executive committees, in normal peace time, to use such a sanction as dispossession against their neighbours. That is why.
The party opposite has never been able to make up its mind whether the disciplinary power should be regarded as a carrot or a stick. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have oscillated between the carrot and the stick during our discussions on the Bill. They really cannot have it both ways. Nor have they ever answered the vital question, if they wish to retain the disciplinary powers—never mind for the moment about what the Franks Report said—do they wish them to be enforced? In other words, do they want more dispossession orders?
By whom are those dispossession orders to be enforced? They will not be enforced by members of the county agricultural
492
executive committees in any part of the country.
Mr. T. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that we want to see farmers dispossessed for the sake of seeing them dispossessed? The case for our Measure was not that we wanted to see the tenant farmers dispossessed, but that we wanted them to increase their efficiency and to become really first-class farmers. Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the policy has succeeded?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not know. It depends upon the point of view.
Is it now suggested that the supervision order, which was the forerunner of the dispossession order, was intended to help or succeeded in helping the farmer to make more profit than he otherwise would make? The supervision order was a stigma not only on the individual farmer but also on the land he occupied. The Parliamentary Secretary yesterday dealt with the argument very fully.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) became Minister of Agriculture after the right hon. Member for Don Valley had gone out of office he really tried to enforce the disciplinary measures and to persuade the county agricultural executive committees to be a little more ruthless, to be stricter in their issuing of supervision orders. I am not talking of disposession, but of supervision. The figures tell their own story. There were 774 supervision orders in 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Minister. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, became Minister and tried hard to get the county committees to enforce the discipline, and at the end of a year the figures had been bumped up, to 998 in 1952. Then they dropped progressively, to 543 in 1953, dwindling to 236 in 1954.
Does the right hon. Gentleman want to retain all these disciplinary powers for 236 supervision orders? The C.A.E.C.s, of course, were not anxious to be more ruthless in the issue of supervision orders because, as I have stated before and state again—and I am not prepared to be challenged in any quarter of the House on this—a supervision order is a stigma. It is not an assistance at all.
On Clause 2, the right hon. Gentleman did his best to arouse all sorts of

493
apprehensions and fears about the new instructions or directions given to arbitrators resulting in the possibility of increased rents. [An HON. MEMBER: "When and where?"] I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech just now, and I heard many of his speeches in Committee. Two things are to be said about Clause 2. The first is that very few rents are fixed by arbitration. I do not know how many million rents are paid half-yearly in England, Wales and Scotland. It must be a very large number, but very few of them are fixed by arbitration. I meant to look up the figures before this debate, but I forgot. I have a figure in my mind which, I think, was given by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. It was that the number last year was 139, but I am open to correction. It is, however, an infinitely small proportion.
Secondly, rents fixed by arbitration are a great deal lower than rents fixed either by agreement or at open-market letting. The difference between rents fixed by arbitration and rents fixed by open-market letting is about 40 per cent. Thirdly, there is a wide disparity and lack of uniformity in the way in which arbitrators at present apply the rules. Some arbitrators give what might be called a discount to a sitting tenant and others do not.
Another point is that between 1923 and 1947 the open market was the criteria, for the simple reason that before 1947 There was not the kind of security of tenure that we know now. Therefore, the open-market figure was the yardstick. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) knows that quite well. Is it suggested that between those years, 1923 and 1947, the arbitrators awarded rents at absurdly high levels? I have never heard that suggested. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, security of tenure is designed to enable farmers to farm efficiently and not to enable them to pay a rent which is well below the economic rent, and farmers would not wish to do that.
The kind of progressive tenant that one finds today, with probably an agricultural degree, a good deal of practical experience and knowledge of all the scientific aids now happily available, can well afford to pay a very good rent. It is only fair that the landlord, for his part, by reason of the rent, should be able to
494
afford to equip the holding at a standard which would enable the tenant to make the best use of the land, and, incidentally, make very good profits, too.
The correspondence on this subject in The Times recently has been very interesting. The job of the arbitrator, as pointed out in a letter in Tire Tunes, either today or yesterday, is to know the market value and not to fix the rent at a level which he thinks a certain individual tenant can pay. His job is to fix the market letting value of any given farm. A great deal has been said in Committee and on Report about the hobby farmer, that mysterious figure the stockbroker-farmer, who offers an absurdly high rent. It is suggested that an arbitrator, when asked to arbitrate on the rent of a farm, names the sort of figure that a hobby farmer would offer. I have never before heard such nonsense. To make that sort of suggestion is quite unnecessary. It is a disgraceful and unfair comment on the intelligence and integrity of arbitrators who are a very able body of men.
Mr. Frederick Peart: They are being given instructions.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Hobby farmers as a whole do not become tenants for two good reasons. The first is that the landlord is very unwilling to spend a great deal of capital on unnecessary frills to satisfy the whims of a hobby farmer. The other is——
Mr. Peart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Is he aware that the Attorney-General said in Committee that the purpose of the Bill was actually to give instructions to arbitrators and to restrict their judgment? That was a principle which the Attorney-General accepted, but now the hon. Member argues that arbitrators should be left to exercise their own free will.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am not arguing anything of the sort. I am saying that the phrase in the Bill—a rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let—does not cover the sort of absurd offer that a hobby farmer might make. It does not mean an unreasonable rent or a freak rent which might be offered in a particular case.
As to Clause 3, I welcome the slight loosening in the security of tenure. It is

495
wholly advantageous to the agricultural industry and to the general relationship betwen landlord and tenant. Whatever certain sections of the N.F.U. and hon. Members opposite may say, there is one section of the farming community which is absolutely delighted with Clause 3, and that is the young and go-ahead farmers. Up to now, with the security of tenure unaltered under the 1947 Act, the young progressive farmer who wants to get on has been invited to climb a ladder without rungs. There has been stagnation. It is precisely because of the difficulties and obstacles put in his way that we have the absurd disparity between the rent of a farm let with vacant possession and of a farm to be let in the open market.
Clause 4 gives a tenant a new and very important right which is perfectly fair and justified. Its actual impact is a good deal narrower than some sections of the agricultural community have thought on first impression. It is quite right to compel a landlord to carry out repairs and improvements to enable a tenant to comply with statutory regulations. Indeed, if he does not, a tenant might well get into trouble by contravening those regulations, for example, the milk and dairy regulations. But it was never meant to compel a landlord to spend money either on an uneconomic holding, or on one the future of which would be so uncertain that the prudent landlord as defined in the Farm Improvement Scheme, would be unwilling to spend money on it.
It is quite right that the Bill has been amended in Committee and on Report in such a way as to make the economic factor an extremely important safeguard, Under the 1957 Act improvement grants are not given for uneconomic holdings. Indeed their amalgamation is encouraged. It would be absurd therefore if the Government, by this Bill, compelled the landlord to spend money on fixed equipment for a holding which was uneconomic or whose future was uncertain.
I support the Bill because I believe that it will bring benefit to the agricultural industry. I believe that it will do something which has been needed for some time, it will bring agricultural legislation up to date with the requirements of 1958, instead of harking back to the requirements of 1947.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), in a speech in which he repeated arguments expressed cogently in Committee, repeated the argument that the Bill allows the arbitrator to have free discretion. That was why I intervened in his speech. The Attorney-General argued this, but within the principles of the Bill, when he said in Committee, on the discussion of Clause 2:
"By giving him these signposts or criteria, one will facilitate him in the discharge of his task."
But why have signposts for a skilled professional man? He knows his job better than the people who framed Clause 2.
Then, again, the Attorney-General argued that the Government were wishing to achieve uniformity in the country, when he said:
"If what I have suggested is the position, it is desirable that we should try to secure a greater degree of uniformity throughout the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1958; c. 342 and 341.]
We have always argued that skilled arbitrators should be able to interpret the law as it is, and that there has been no demand from any section of the profession to alter the law in this respect. Over and over again the Attorney-General, the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have inferred that responsible opinion in the profession has suggested an alteration, but we have repeatedly challenged the Attorney-General to give us any information about a professional body connected with arbitration pressing the Government to make an alteration in the law. Over and over again we have stressed this, and even at this late stage of the Bill no evidence has been produced. The fact is that arbitrators in the country have mat wished for this change. No responsible opinion has asked for it, and I am certain that the Government can give no evidence showing that they have been in consultation with the professional bodies concerned.
We argue that agriculture, and the issue of a dispute between a tenant and a landlord concerning the raising of rents, will vary from county to county. There can be no uniformity in this matter. For that reason we strongly oppose the principles contained in Clause 2.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: There is no question of actual uniformity because, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a vast difference between one county and another. We are arguing in favour of uniformity of principle in application, which is quite different.
Mr. Peart: Why give signposts? Why restrict the arbitrator? I do not want to quote another part of the speech of the Attorney-General; it was dreary enough in Committee. We are merely saying that the Government are, by their legislation, seeking to give guidance to the arbitrator, to give signposts, to restrict him to the principles contained in Clause 2. That was the argument of the Attorney-General. We are merely saying that arbitrators are skilled men in interpreting the law and that there has been no volume of opinion in the professional world which wishes to alter the law.
Therefore, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, we suspect that the Clause is weighting the law against the tenant farmer. My hon. Friends have called this a landlords' charter, and even when we are discussing the technical aspects of the Bill in relation to arbitration we feel that in this respect the Government are weighting the law through their instructions to the arbitrator, and are weighting opinion against the tenant farmer. Indeed, that is precisely why my hon. Friends over and over again during the Committee stage, by various Amendments, have sought to protect the tenant farmer. That is why we oppose the Bill.
We feel that Clause 2 is a bad Clause. Moreover, we are certain that it would be far better if the Government had waited until the survey on farm rents has been completed. We argued on Second Reading and again during the Committee stage that the Department of Estate Management at Cambridge is still conducting its survey. There should have been no rush in this matter, and the Government could easily have waited until that survey was completed.
It may well be that farm rents in many areas are too low, as was argued by the hon. Member for Windsor in Committee, but it would have been far better if the Government had waited. We feel they have rushed into this matter because they are doctrinaire. The hon.
498
Member for Windsor repeated the argument about ending powers. This view was stressed forcefully by the Minister. Hon Gentlemen opposite feel that the powers contained in the 1947 Act are now unworkable because there are changed circumstances and because we are not living in an age when we want to produce much more food because of world shortages.
Hon. Gentlemen did not argue this when the 1947 Act was going through the House of Commons. Neither have they done so in their political pamphlets or in their political statements. I would be out of order if I became too involved in talking about the 1947 Act, although this Bill is repealing part of the powers contained in that Act. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite never argued that they would only support the use of disciplinary powers because there was a world food shortage as a result of the war.
Indeed, the National Farmers' Union, in the charter which it produced early in that period, never argued this. It has always been argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of the 1947 Act that there must be a quid pro quo. Hon. Gentlemen have argued, and Ministers have made statements on this, that if the State is to give guarantees to the farmers in the form of assured markets and guaranteed prices, there must be arrangements whereby the State can exert a measure of responsibility. In this case it was expressed through the powers contained in the 1947 Act and also in the administrative arrangements to enforce that Act. Indeed, the very existence of county agricultural executive committees in the pattern of our post-war agricultural administration showed this.
So we have argued the principle that it is right that the State should exert its responsibility, representing the nation, the producers and the consumers, so that the farm land of this country should be farmed properly and estates managed efficiently. That is a principle which was accepted generally by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know there were exceptions, and I will refer to them. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin), for instance, always argued against this. He consistently stood by his point of view, and I admire him for it, but responsible opinion in the Conservative Party, even when that party

499
assumed political power, never accepted the point of view of the hon. Member for Leominster. It always argued that the State must have a measure of responsibility.
I believe that, despite the accumulation of surpluses, conditions in the world today have not changed. I believe that there is still a need to increase food production. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, has shown that if we increase the standard of living all over the world by improved nutrition, etc., there will still be a great demand for food, and that demand should continue.
There is not a lessening of the demand for food. Unfortunately, there is still a failure of world authorities to organise the distribution of food. In the past men like Lord Boyd-Orr have campaigned for the setting up of a world food organisation which would be able to distribute food. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am straying a little, but I am merely illustrating my argument that the Bill is unnecessary.
In present world circumstances we must still increase food production. More than that, we have a balance of payments problem, and it is right and proper that we should increase our own food production. Surely hon. Members opposite will not argue that we should not seek to stimulate food production.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Surely the hon. Member is not trying to claim that 236 supervision orders, or whatever the number is, are either enforcing discipline or improving efficiency.
Mr. Peart: What I am saying is that if supervision is carried out efficiently by county executive committees in a drive for increased food production, the supervision has an effect. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the Committee stage quoted figures about estate management in Wales where 300 supervision orders were made. It is true that in that instance only three estate owners were dispossessed, but I believe that the supervision action had an effect in Wales.
Mr. T. Williams: There was an improvement.
Mr. Peart: As my right hon. Friend says, there was an improvement. The
500
existence of supervision orders improved the position. I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who is supporting the Government in this matter, that supervision action had its effect in Wales. I am certain that tenant farmers who are anxious to have good estate management approve the administrative action of county committees in making supervision orders.
It is not true to say that because there are only a few cases of dispossession supervision has not worked. It is right that the State should have that sanction, though it should not be used indiscriminately. After all, the people who really decide to use the sanctions are farmers, landowners and the county committees which are acting as the agents of the Minister, not some powerful civil servant in Whitehall who wishes to act bureaucratically. The orders are really carried out by the industry itself. That is precisely our argument; by supporting the Bill hon. Members opposite are destroying the partnership in the industry.
Hon. Members opposite have not always taken their present view. They have been changing their view over the last three or four years, and not for the reason of the hon. Member for Leominster. They are doing it because sections in the Conservative Party are doctrinaire about agriculture and the running of our economic life. There is, for example, the argument about setting the people free. The charter for agriculture which was produced by the Tory Central Office has been turned down. Certain business interests are succeeding. I will not go into much detail, but hon. Members opposite are destroying a partnership, and that is a tragedy. We hold our point of view just as sincerely as hon. Members opposite do, just as the hon. Member for Windsor sincerely believes his point of view.
This Bill will work against the interests of the nation. We must continue to plan our agriculture. Conditions have not changed. Not only do we wish to make our contribution to food production, not only do we wish to challenge our balance of payment problem, but we wish to improve the fertility of our soil. We believe that we can do this only if we plan. That is why I am sorry that the partnership has been destroyed.

501
The county committees have done a good job. Over and over again in Committee we argued that the taking away in particular of the powers in Clause 1 would discourage them. In reply to that argument the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that there were many other functions for the committees, suggesting that they could be responsible for advisory services, and so on. More and more of those services are being taken over by skilled technicians in agriculture and by Civil Service administration.
I want to see an administrative organisation for agriculture where producers and landlords have equal responsibility. Such responsibility is being taken away, and in the end this action will discourage men and women serving on county committees. I hope I am wrong, because the committees have done a wonderful job, having supplied leadership in the countryside. There was a time, when the Labour Government was in power, when certain hon. Members opposite sniped at the committees and sought to discourage their work, but I believe that hon. Members opposite will now agree with me when I say that those who have served on the committees have done well.
The Bill is a wrecking Measure. The Minister has said that it is complementary to the 1957 Act. In that Act the Government legislated for declining farm incomes. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has never refuted the figures, and the simple fact is that farm incomes have declined since the Government came into power. The farming world interpreted the 1957 Act as legislating for a decline in incomes. Coupled with that Act, the Bill gives no security and inspires no confidence in the countryside.
My right hon. Friend has demonstrated over and over again that responsible farm opinion is opposed to the Bill. This is not because we have gone out to the countryside to make speeches and spread propaganda; the farmers genuinely believe that the Bill is wrong and that we have here a reversal of the policy contained in the 1947 Act. We oppose the Bill this evening because we believe it to be a bad one. We have been unable to improve it in any real way. The Government, who have resisted any attempt to improve the position of the tenant farmer, have introduced the Bill
502
for doctrinaire reasons and are destroying a partnership in agriculture which will, in the long run, have bad effects upon our food production.
7.28 p.m.
Sir A. Baldwin: The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said yesterday that repetition was the law of propaganda. I am afraid that I shall have to indulge in a certain amount of repetition because I want thoroughly to endorse what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. His was a realistic speech, and one that I think will meet with approval from the whole farming community.
We had about twenty sittings in Standing Committee and have spent four days in the House considering the Bill, and for a great deal of the time we have had to listen to very unrealistic speeches from the Opposition. What is the truth about the agitation of farmers against the removal of the disciplinary powers in Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947? When the Act first saw the light of day, there was fear, which was helped along by the Opposition, that the Conservative Government would follow the example set by the Coalition Government led by the late Earl Lloyd George in 1921. That Coalition Government did away with the Corn Production Act, and the fear was that the Conservative Government would do away with guaranteed prices.
I think that the actions taken by my right hon. Friend and the Government generally should disprove that. The fears of the farmers were aroused a month or two ago, and the leaders of the N.F.U. helped the various branches in their meeting to condemn this Bill, root and branch. What is the position today? I propose to repeat some of the things I said yesterday, and I suggest that farmers are becoming satisfied, or are almost entirely satisfied, with the fact that the disciplinary powers, which they never wanted and with which they never agreed, do not mean doing away with their guaranteed prices. Although I said that yesterday, I think it deserves repeating.
I was at a meeting last Friday with two of my colleagues, the hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr. Holland-Martin) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). That meeting had been called by the farmers

503
so that they might bombard their representatives with questions on all their problems. I have here the agenda. The Agriculture Bill was mentioned, as were the marketing boards, but the representatives of the farmers never said a single word about the repeal of Part II of the Act. Nor did they express the slightest anxiety that this step will lead to doing away with guaranteed prices.
The only matter that was mentioned was one which I certainly think does create a certain amount of doubt and fear in the mind of the farmers, and that concerns Clause 2, with which I will deal a little later. During the whole meeting, which lasted between two and three hours, not one word was said about Part II, on which we have spent so much time. The farmers raised other questions about milk, bacon, eggs, and so forth.
Last week, I also met representatives of a National Farmers' Union branch in the East of England, and spent some time talking to them about their problems. Not one single one of them wanted to see these disciplinary powers and the power of dispossession retained. It is quite wrong for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to give the impression in this House that the vast majority of farmers are against this Bill.
Supervision and dispossession never worked; and I am speaking as a member of a district committee during the war, before the Act was passed but when the same powers were in existence. I would say that if these supervisory powers had not been in existence, production would have increased. There were plenty of farmers who were on the margin, but who were afraid to go to their local agriculture advisory service to get assistance, because they were afraid that the report from the advisory committee's officers would be sent to the county executive committee and that they would be put under supervision. Therefore, I say that in actual fact the supervision orders were a detriment to production.
I am speaking as a member of a district committee in one area, while farming in another. I could quote many examples from within a few miles of my own farm. The position was absolutely ludicrous. There were farmers who were not producing 25 per cent. of
504
what they should have produced, but no action was taken against them. Not one was put under supervision, when, in a time of food scarcity like the period during the war, they should have been turned out and should have made way for more capable young farmers.
As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has said, I was against this provision when the 1947 Act was passed. I was against the over-security of tenure which was given to farmers, and I spoke at farmers' meetings for that purpose. I always put myself right with the meetings at the beginning by saying, "I know quite well that I shall not get support from the older Members sitting in front of me, but I know quite well that the young farmers at the back of the room will agree with me, because they will know that, if we get over-security of tenure, it will simply mean that they will never have the chance of putting their feet on the ladder and getting farms themselves." That has been proved to be perfectly correct. This over-security of tenure has done more to break up the landlord and tenant system than anything else of which I know.
We on this side of the House have been accused of weighting the balance in favour of the landlord and of endeavouring to break up the landlord and tenant system, but that is a system which we on this side of the House approve. We know that if we do not act fairly towards the landlords, we shall break up the landlord and tenant system completely. How many hon. Members opposite can get up and say in how many instances where farms have come into the market, either through death or for any other reason, the landlords have been prepared to re-let the farms, knowing full well that, under the security of tenure which at present exists, when they re-let them they will part with the freehold, and all they will be left to do will be to pay the bills for the repairs as they come along? The result of this has been that landlords have not re-let their farms; they either farm them themselves or have sold them.
With this Bill, there will certainly be more flexibility in this respect, and the young farmers will have the chance of getting into farms without having to buy them. I am quite certain that the effect of the Bill will be not only that the young farmers will get the chance of farms, but that it will stop these excessive rents

505
which are being offered when farms are offered for letting by tender. If there are more farms available, that will have the same effect as had the Landlord and Tenant Act. It will mean that there will be some farms open for renting by young farmers, and, therefore, the excessive prices, whether for the freehold or for renting, will be done away with.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) was very unrealistic in the attitude which he took in the course of his speech. He said that the Government were weighting the Bill in favour of the landlord. I entirely disagree with that. We want to keep the landlord and tenant system, and to do it without what the hon. Member suggested—control of agriculture. The hon. Member said that it was still right that agriculture should be kept under control. Will hon. Members opposite go to rural constituencies and tell the farmers there that their plan is to put them under more control? I do not think they will.
Mr. Peart: I am prepared to go to my constituency and say that I believe in the controls and guarantees of the 1947 Act.
Sir A. Baldwin: I do not think the hon. Gentleman will find much support.
Mr. Peart: Oh, yes, I shall.
Sir A. Baldwin: I am quite sure that this Bill will help the landlord and tenant system to a very large extent.
Now I come to the Clause which has created a certain amount of fear in the minds of farmers, and that concerns the question of what have been called the instructions to arbitrators. If I may declare an interest, may I say that I was at one time an arbitrator? I can assure the House that we had only the 1923 Act to go on, and that we did not take the slightest bit of notice of what the legal definition might be. We used our practical common sense, which we felt we had, or otherwise we should never have been appointed as arbitrators; and that will be what will happen now. It is completely erroneous to suppose that immediately the Bill becomes law, there will be numerous calls on arbitrators for fresh rents to be assessed. That has not happened before, and it will not happen in future. In most cases, the landlord and tenant, or agent and tenant, have agreed what the rent should be, and I
506
am sure that that arrangement will continue.
The hon. Member for Workington said that there had been no complaints from arbitrators. There was a meeting of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers in London last week, and it was agreed that Clause 2 would help valuers to decide what is meant by "an open market rent". Previously, decisions about what constituted an open market rent have varied from arbitrator to arbitrator. One has thought that it would be what a farm would realise in the open market, and another has decided that it was the rent in the open market, but taking into account the fact that there was a sitting tenant. The Clause has cleared the ground and has given arbitrators an indication of the meaning of "open market rent".
I expect that all hon. Members have received the latest memorandum from the National Farmers' Union in which the union expresses its fears about this matter. It is the wording of the Clause which I do not like and which farmers do not like, and I still hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter so that in another place steps can be taken not to tell arbitrators what to do, but to clear the doubts of tenant farmers on the meaning of these words.
I know that the Law Officers have said that there is no definition for certain words which some of us wanted to include in the Clause. However, that does not matter. What we want to do is to remove the fear that farmers will have to pay rents assessed at ridiculous figures decided by what a hobby farmer would pay, or what would result from an open tender. The union has said in the memorandum:
"… we hope the Government will make it perfectly plain not merely to arbitrators, but to landowners, agents and tenant farmers that the clause is intended to produce a full fair rent justified by the agricultural value of the land: no more, no less. We are confident that arbitrators as a whole will award rents they consider fair and sensible, but we are anxious lest many working farmers, unversed in the niceties of legal language, may be hustled into accepting rent demands they cannot afford. …"
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give this matter some consideration and see that some simple words are used to make farmers appreciate that their fears are groundless. I have not the slightest

507
doubt that freak rents will not have the slightest effect on the decision of arbitrators.
We have to consider the land from an economic point of view. We have to satisfy the people that if a farm or land is purchased, it will be possible for it to be let at an economic figure. At present, there is much land which does not return the landowner a net 1 per cent. We want to encourage people to put their money into the land and to keep the landlord-tenant system going, not to force owners to sell land at fictitious prices in the open market.
It has been said that the Bill will result in reduced production because of the removal of disciplinary powers and supervision. We have had no disciplinary powers for two years—and, anyway, they never worked—but, in spite of that, production has risen 20 per cent. above what it was when we took office in 1951. At present, it is standing at 61 per cent. over the pre-war figure and the estimate for the current year is 63 per cent. It is ridiculous for hon. and right hon. Members to say that the Government's action will result in decreased production.
Let us remember that that increased production is coming from a smaller acreage. Much land has been taken for building, industry and other purposes. The hon. Member for Workington referred to the profitability of the industry, but the profitability in the last twelve months has increased by £30 million, and profitability is now greater than ever before. That is the answer to those who say that production and profitability are to be reduced.
These are not propaganda figures issued from the Conservative Central Office, but are figures agreed by the economists of the National Farmers' Union and Treasury representatives before the Price Review takes place. They are not figures brought out of the air, but figures agreed by both sides of the industry, and that fact should be noted.
In the Second Schedule, reference is made to the extent of repeals and so forth and more than ten Acts of Parliament are mentioned. The Bill is so shaped that it is impossible for the ordinary valuer, arbitrator or agent to give advice about it. In order to be sure of what he is doing, he has to search through numerous
508
Acts which have been emasculated. As soon as possible, we should have a Consolidation Bill to tidy up these bits and pieces so that we can have one major Act which we can all readily understand.
In my time as an arbitrator, I acted under the 1923 Act, which was a Consolidation Act, and which we all knew—and if we did not understand it, we could see the explanatory books which the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) produced and which gave guidance as a result of which we felt we could give advice with safety. As it is at present I should be very nervous about giving advice to anyone who asked me for it.
I recommend the Bill to the House. It is an excellent Bill, which will satisfy most farmers that their interests will still be looked after, in spite of what hon. Members opposite have done to try to make them uneasy. I can only hope that having done all they can to stop the Bill reaching the Statute Book, and having lost the battle, hon. Members opposite will now help the farming industry to get on with its job.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: I approach the Bill at this stage and in its present state with very mixed feelings. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) called it a wrecking Bill. I would not call it that, but it is a "curate's egg" of a Bill. Some of it is to be commended and some is still a source of considerable anxiety. It could have been improved immensely in Committee if the Minister had not been so intransigent. It has come to us substantially unaltered, and that is most unfortunate in some respects.
I am in substantial agreement with the contentions of Clauses 1, 4, 5 and 7, but I am far from happy about Clauses 2, 3 and 6. I agree almost entirely with everything said in regard to Clause 1 by the Minister. I welcome this step by the Government to repeal Part II of the 1947 Act. In so far as that repeal will have any practical effect—I do not think that it will have very much—it will help to produce a much more healthy atmosphere in the industry. Even the limited operation which Part II has had in recent years has been carried out with a feeling of loathing on the part of those who

509
have had to implement it. It has certainly been regarded as a distinct stigma by those who have been subjected to it.
I do not share the enthusiasm of the official Opposition for the existence of these powers, or their wish for a more extended exercise of them. Once the industry feels fully assured that the maintenance of Part I of the Act in no way depends upon the continuance of Part II it will feel relieved that these punitive powers of the State upon it—and it is the only industry in this country which is subjected to such powers—have been removed.
One hon. Member talked about a partnership between the farmer and the State. There is such a partnership, but it does not depend upon the existence of powers of punishment by one member of the partnership upon the other. It depends upon qualities far greater than that, which have nothing to do with punitive powers.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the fact that the Franks Committee had not recommended the repeal of Part II of the Agriculture Act of 1947. That is true; neither did the Committee suggest that the powers should continue—for the reason that any such recommendation would have been completely outside its terms of reference. What the Committee did say was that if the powers were to be continued those who would be subjected to the disciplinary action envisaged in Part II were entitled to elementary rights, just as is anyone else who has disciplinary action exercised against him. I welcome the fact that, rather than implement the recommendation of the Franks Committee to produce that elementary justice in the operation of Part II, the Government have gone further and decided to wipe it out altogether. The national advisory services will be able to operate in a much more healthy and wholesome way than they have done up to now.
Clause 4 gives tenants welcome rights, and I have no complaint about it, and I welcome the transference, under Clause 5, of a number of the Minister's functions to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the placing of greater responsibilities, in a wider sphere of operation, upon land tribunals. I have had some professional experience of these tribunals, and in my
510
opinion they have carried out their work in a thoroughly commendable way ever since the 1947 Act came into operation. The right hon. Member for Don Valley suggested that this extension of the function of the tribunals was something in the nature of a lawyers' paradise. He forgets that a tribunal consists of three people—a legal chairman, with two other members who are essentially of the farming community.
I now turn to two of the three Clauses which cause me considerable anxiety—Clauses 2 and 3. The first lays down the formula for rents and the other deals with notices to quit. I commend the courage of the Government in attempting to deal with these two subjects. I do not suggest in any way that they did not require attention, and I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) had to say about the need for greater fluidity. One of the tragic features of modern agriculture is the difficulty experienced by the young farmer and farm worker in climbing the agricultural ladder.
I believe it was the Minister who referred to the partnership between landlord and tenant. I agree with the sentiments he expressed, but if it is to be a true partnership it must depend upon fair and equitable arrangements between the partners. Once we have a bias in favour of either the partnership is endangered. That is the test which I apply to Clauses 2 and 3.
Clause 2 could have been improved immensely during the Committee stage if Amendments—not necessarily in the precise form in which they were proposed, but upon the same lines—had been accepted by the Government. I believe that the formula laid down in the Bill may—I do not put it any higher—lead to an unfair bias in favour of the landlord and against the tenant when rents are fixed. The hon. Member for Leominster talked about what he used to do, how he used his practical common sense, and I am sure that he did. But, after all, the Minister is laying down a formula for arbitrators and they are bound by it. They would not be bound to exercise their practical common sense within the framework of the formula, but they cannot go outside it. They cannot pray in aid what the Minister has said about the formula. They will be bound by the specific wording of it as legally interpreted.

511
Looking at the formula, it is quite clear that it will not exclude freak rents. The reference to an open market makes that inevitable. So we shall have the arbitrator bound by the formula, having to take account of freak and abnormal rents which bear no relationship to particular agricultural values or to values in the district generally.
Sir A. Baldwin: An arbitrator is appointed and makes his decision. He does not have to tell anybody of the facts on which he has based that decision. There is no appeal against his decision, unless he has misconducted himself, and, therefore, we shall find that the arbitrator is not bound by the terms of that formula.
Mr. Bowen: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "unless he has misconducted himself". It is clear, for example, that if an arbitrator acted contrary to the formula laid down in Clause 2, he would have misconducted himself. He might be cagey enough to avoid disclosing that he had done so, but the plain fact is that arguments based on the formula might be advanced to the arbitrator which, if he acted honestly, he could not reject just because he did not agree with the formula. He is bound by it. In this respect I should prefer things to be left as they are; that the arbitrator be allowed to arbitrate on the rent properly payable, and to give full weight to the practical common sense of the hon. Member for Leominster.
It seems to me there is a danger that, by reason of going to arbitration, tenants may have to pay inflated rents which do not bear a true relationship to the agricultural value of the land concerned or the agricultural values in the area as a whole. I make no complaint about the phrase of the hon. Member for Leominster, "a full fair rent justified by the agricultural value of the land." Why could not a phrase of that kind be incorporated in the formula? That would have avoided all the apprehensions expressed about Clause 2 during the Committee stage discussions.
It has been said that very few rents are fixed by arbitration, that most are fixed by agreement, and I agree. But one of the factors—it is only one of a number—to be considered in determining what rent a tenant is prepared to pay and a landlord is willing to accept, is the
512
formula which would be applied if they failed to agree and had to go to arbitration. So this formula will not only affect cases which go to arbitration; it will influence the whole basis of voluntary agreement between landlord and tenant. Therefore, it will have a significance outside the actual arbitration hearings.
Clause 3 could have been improved substantially during the Committee stage, but it has been left materially unchanged. I concede that it contains safeguards affecting certain aspects, but in this Clause there are still matters which give cause for anxiety. The one to which I wish particularly to refer is in paragraph (b) in the subsection which it is proposed to substitute for Section 25 (1) of the 1948 Act. Although there has been an Amendment to this paragraph, the fact remains that the landlord, under the terms of the Bill as drafted, can invoke it for the purpose of carrying out a compulsory amalgamation of two holdings, both of which are being farmed without complaint.
I listened with alarm to the speech about this matter made last night by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It is clear that although a farmer may be farming his land in a perfectly sound way, if it is in the interests of the management of a larger estate that his farm and other farms should be amalgamated, the landlord, by the provisions of this Clause, is enabled to serve a notice to quit upon that farmer, and none of the saving provisos in the Clause will prevent such a notice from operating. It would be far more equitable had the landlord to establish that such an amalgamation was in the interests of sound management of the land being farmed by the person affected by a notice to quit.
There are other matters in the Bill about which I am critical. I believe that the Minister has lost an admirable opportunity to produce what could have been a really good Measure by refusing to accept Amendments, particularly to Clauses 2 and 3, which would have placed the landlord and tenant relationship on a fair basis. Clauses 2 and 3 do not provide such a fair basis. Although I wholeheartedly welcome the abolition of Part II of the 1947 Act, and despite the fact that in some other respects the Bill contains some necessary and desirable provisions, my disquiet about other parts of it, particularly Clauses 2, 3 and 6, are such that I do not consider that it deserves the blessing of this House.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. William Whitelaw: I am sorry that, having steered a careful middle way for some time, the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) eventually appeared to fall down on what I considered to be the wrong side of the fence. Nevertheless, his support on the important issue of principle in Clause 1 is valuable, coming from one for whom I have considerable respect. I hope that during my few remarks I may be able to show the hon. and learned Member why I do not share his fears about Clauses 2, 3 and 6.
During what might be described as our somewhat lengthy discussions on the Bill, I have constantly heard it said that the Bill was unnecessary and that we should remain where we were with the 1947 Act, which, somehow or other, should be sacrosanct for all time. On the other hand, of course, it is widely accepted that the agricultural industry has made great progress in recent years. I would have thought, therefore, that it is desirable that we should bring our agricultural legislation into line with the present-day requirements of the industry. I welcome the Bill, because, in my view, that is exactly what it does.
Having been subjected to the full weight of the barrage of arguments against Clause 1, I remain quite unimpressed by them. I simply do not believe that the land will be well farmed only if farmers are constantly threatened with a big stick. Indeed, any such suggestion would be quite properly resented in our countryside. On the contrary, I believe that advice and persuasion are far more likely to achieve results than threats and coercion.
It is encouraging today to note the keenness with which the vast majority of farmers seek knowledge on new developments. As a result, the advisory services, the agricultural colleges and the county farm schools have all achieved considerable success in encouraging the use of new and improved methods. Nor, in this respect, should one forget the valuable influence amongst the younger generation of the young farmers' clubs.
The root problem, however, remains. It is simply that the same small minority of farmers who would benefit most from such advice are just those whom it is
514
most difficult for anyone to reach. Equally, they are the same farmers who were likely to be affected by disciplinary powers. I have no doubt that the fear of supervision and dispossession has deterred them hitherto from approaching the advisory services. I am quite sure, therefore, that as a result of the Bill, the advisory services will find it far easier to gain the confidence of such farmers and to help them, once the threat of these punitive measures has been removed. Consequently, I would say to those who are anxious, as we all are, to ensure the efficient farming of our land, that such methods of persuasion and assistance are far more likely to achieve the result they want than threats, coercion and a big stick.
Then, it is suggested by some that if the supervision and dispossession powers in Part II of the 1947 Act are removed, a future Government might be encouraged to sweep away the whole price guarantee system in Part I. I simply cannot see any foundation whatever for that fear, certainly not as far as the present Government are concerned.
Mr. T. Fraser: What about 1921?
Mr. Whitelaw: In 1958 I am not really concerned with 1921.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member was not born then.
Mr. Whitelaw: I was born, but was not interested in agriculture to any great extent. I do not think that the vast majority of farmers are interested in 1921, either. They are interested in what goes on in 1958.
Anybody who suggests that this Government should want to sweep away Part I of the 1947 Act has to answer the question why, not so long ago, the Government strengthened it by the introduction of the 1957 Act. I know that it is suggested on the benches opposite that the 1957 Act has no value and that it was merely a charter for what people say is a declining industry. Nevertheless, it was very much welcomed by the industry at the time that it was introduced. Nobody can deny that it introduced guarantees which were not present in the 1947 Act. Furthermore, many farmers are beginning to appreciate the 1957 Act at this time, when world prices are falling. I can think of many of our industries

515
which would welcome a 1957 Act, or something like it at this moment. There is not an hon. Member who can deny that.
I turn now to the relationship between landlord and tenant. This is fundamental to our agricultural industry, unless, of course, it is sought to nationalise the land. I understand, however, that that proposal is less popular than it was. Indeed, we must do everything we can to foster the landlord and tenant system and ensure, as the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan rightly said, that it is conducted on a basis which is absolutely fair to both parties.
In that respect, everyone will welcome the agreement on security of tenure, which is what it was, between the C.L.A. and the N.F.U. which resulted in Clause 3.
Mr. T. Fraser: What nonsense.
Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the hon. Member speaks for Scotland and I know that in Scotland they did not agree. Equally, however, I understand that there was agreement between the English N.F.U. and the English C.L.A.
Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the Minister has admitted from the Dispatch Box that the English N.F.U. had these discussions with the C.L.A. under duress? The C.L.A. was told that there had to be a Clause 3. It did not want one, but if there had to be such a Clause the Association was willing to play its part in determining its terms.
Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend never said that it was under duress. That is too strong a term.
Mr. Fraser: What is the hon. Gentleman's word for it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not concerned with the exact basis on which such agreement was reached. I do not want to put it too highly, or make a major point of it, but the fact is that when they got together on an important matter it is satisfactory to the agricultural industry that the two major partners in it should find it possible to reach an agreement, which they did. It shows that the two bodies, who inevitably approach the problem of security of tenure from very different points of view, as they are
516
bound to do, are ready, in spite of that, to work together for the good of the industry as a whole. Only the most blind or prejudiced would deny that this spirit is widespread among the individual members of both organisations. We would do well to remember this in considering Clause 2.
Inevitably, in framing legislation one has to concentrate on the very small minority of cases where the landlord and tenant cannot settle the rent by mutual agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) said, however, it is a very small minority indeed. The rents which are fixed by agreement are also a great deal higher than those which have been awarded under arbitration. Those are two important points which put the whole question of Clause 2 into proper perspective.
As there is so much agreement, it is all the more important that when the arbitrator is called in his award should be manifestly fair to both sides. It has been clear for some time that the guidance previously given to arbitrators was not sufficiently specific. The words used—"the rent properly payable"—led to a situation where quite different rents were often awarded for precisely similar holdings in the same part of the country. I cannot see that that is fair either to the owner or to the tenant.
I am glad that an effort has been made in Clause 2 to make that guidance clear. I am sorry that those who are learned in the law, like the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan, do not feel that is so. I should have thought that the word "reasonably" which appears in the Clause would, in fact, eliminate any idea of freak rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has dealt with the issue of the hobby farmer and exposed it for the shallow little thing it is. I should have thought that by the mention of the words
"might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord to a willing tenant,"
the freak rent was excluded.
I also welcome Clause 4, as I think every hon. Member does, because it gives the tenant a proper right in regard to statutory requirements.
On the whole, it seems to me that the Bill fulfils its purpose of bringing

517
our agricultural legislation into line with the present-day requirements of the industry. I have not been persuaded that there is any valid reason for retaining punitive powers merely as a show when nobody wants to use them. I am quite sure that advice and persuasion will accomplish far more than a big stick, which was supposed to be wielded and, in fact, never was.
I support the Bill wholeheartedly as a Measure which I am quite sure will, with the 1957 Act, prove to be in the best interests of a sound and progressive agriculture.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: I am very sorry that the Minister is not now on the Front Bench because I want to begin by saying one nice thing about his speech. I found that he was most urbane and good humoured, but that is the only nice thing I can find to say about his speech. He had good cause to be good humoured because, at the end of seventy hours in Committee upstairs, and a day and a half here, he had come to the end of a long journey.
During his speech the right hon. Gentleman said, and we must of course think he is sincere—he spent a long time telling us—that he thought the Bill was in the best interests of the farming community. We do not think it is and we shall oppose its Third Reading later this evening. The Minister went on to raise bogies. We met this before the war somewhere else. It is a bit unworthy of a man who thinks he has a good case to attempt to distract the attention of his hearers by raising a false issue. The false issue was that hon. Members of this party had gone about the countryside and by their "propaganda" had attempted to whip up a completely false and phoney opposition to the Bill. The Minister knows that is not so. He knows it quite well. No hon. Members on these benches have gone to N.F.U. meetings and whipped up opposition. In the beginning and still now, it was and is genuine, spontaneous, solid, sincere opposition to the provisions of the Bill.
I turn to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He is constantly telling us about N.F.U. branches. At the beginning he admitted that something like 47 or 48 county branches were against the
518
Bill. Then he gave the number as 45 to 43, after a month or two of sittings of the Committee upstairs. I challenge him. He said in the debate yesterday that the opposition now was negligible and that farmers as such were now on the side of the Government. Is that so? Has there been a Gallup Poll? How does the hon. Gentleman know? The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) spoke on the same theme.
One speaks as one finds in this matter. I do not know where the Parliamentary Secretary gets to. He tells me that he gets to many markets in the country. I should like him to say later, or even now if he will, what his figures are now in the matter of support for his party and the Government on this controversial Bill. It was at least controversial some weeks and months ago. I hope he will take my word for this. I assure him that when I speak to farmers in Warwickshire they are as adamant against it as they were. They get about. They go to markets in Northampton, Leicester and all over the Midlands and they still oppose the Bill.
Mr. Godber: The hon. Member deliberately challenged me. I do not say that counties have now passed resolutions supporting the Bill. I have never said that but I do say that opposition has died down. I would call in aid of that the fact that a number of hon. Members, including myself, received a memorandum from the N.F.U. yesterday or the day before in relation to this Bill. It is very significant that, although it made certain constructive points on other parts of the Bill, it did not even bother to mention Clause 1. If there is still sharp opposition to the Bill, it was not shown in that memorandum.
Mr. Johnson: This is like the story of the famous German philosopher who ceased knocking his head against the wall because of the pleasure it gave him to cease knocking his head against the wall. We are coming to the end of a long journey now and that is the way people feel about it. The Minister said, as the Parliamentary Secretary said a few seconds ago, that there is not now a campaign going on against the Bill. That is not to say that there are not still fears in the countryside. As we understand it, there are, but it is difficult to wage a campaign against a hypothetical future.

519
Our case is that if Part II of the 1947 Act is abolished, as it is by this Bill, slowly but surely Part I will also go. That is what the farmers feel, but since at the moment they still have guarantees and supports, they find it difficult to wage a campaign against what will happen in the future. They fear that will happen and they are very scared. We feel that it will inevitably follow on the liquidation of Part II of the 1947 Act. Make no mistake about it, those fears are there. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey my good wishes to the Minister and my comments on the Bill. The Minister said that he had no fears about it. Of course he has no fears. His future is not hypothetical; he will not be on the Government Front Bench in two years' time. He is wishing this baby on to our doorstep when we come back to power in 12 or 18 months' time. It is a little irresponsible to pass a Bill of this nature against the wishes of the countryside and to say to the Opposition, "This is your baby; handle this in 18 months' or two years' time when you come back."
This is a most undemocratic measure. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen constantly tell us that we are the doctrinaire side and they point, for example, to steel and say, "Here is this Labour Party. If it gets into power, it intends to nationalise steel once more". Thousands of pounds are spent on propaganda in the newspapers and elsewhere against what can happen if, or when, we return to power. Yet let us consider what the Tories are doing to the farmers. They allege that we shall force Measures upon an unwilling electorate, but this is exactly what they are, in fact, now doing. They have no support for this Measure, and they have had none since they first told the countryside about it. It is amusing that hon. Members of the party opposite, who are always trying, as it were, to whitewash themselves and point the finger at us, should go ahead like a steamroller to push this Measure through and make sure that, with the Whips on at ten o'clock it will be passed.
The Tories constantly say that they object to controls. Are these controls? Are these the "big stick" they talk about? Who is administering these alleged controls? Is it not self-discipline
520
in a closed community, among farmers living among themselves in their own villages'? Is it not self-government? Is it not almost syndicalism, in the old-fashioned text-book language, where an industry governs itself? The figures that the Minister gave earlier about the number of dispossession orders bears out what I say.
This is a genuine deterrent in the sense that the peers among farmers talk to their own colleagues and say, "This farm is not being looked after. If you continue like this something will happen." The deterrent is there. The atmosphere is there. It is nothing to do with a "big stick" used to evict poor, helpless, homeless people from their farms. If the Minister would turn his attention to the eviction of farm workers from farm cottages, that would be a much more useful task.
I know my constituents, tenant farmers, small farmers. They are exceedingly jealous in the task on which they are engaged—tending the soil. They are not like employees in factories. It is a calling different altogether from work in an urban setting in a big factory. Farmers jealously safeguard the land they tend. They have their standards. They feel that they are looking after a national heritage. The good feeling between the urban population and the countryside is important and it is something we must encourage; but Bills of this sort will not help in any way whatever.
I speak as I find. I know from what my constituents tell me that farmers fear that, if Part II goes, we shall once more have a campaign against them such as we had some years ago, which was typified, "sloganised", and best expressed in the word "featherbedding". They feel that, once invigilation of their work in looking after this national asset, the soil, goes, once accountability goes, then people will say, "Why do we subsidise and help these people if we cannot determine that the money is wisely spent?" Not many farmers waste or just dissipate the money given them. Of course not. There is a small hard core of bad farmers. That is all it is. The farmers themselves know that very well. They realise that, in their midst, there are some black sheep, so to speak, people who do not pull their weight.

521
There is no demand among farmers as such for the Measures now being pushed through by the Government. Farmers generally, like any other section of society, admit that there are some bad ones, some who are lazy or careless and who do not pull their weight, and therefore they are prepared to put up with these so-called controls. There has been no demand by genuine farmers for what the Government now intend to put upon the Statute Book. It is nothing more than doctrinaire policy on the part of the Government. They come along with their slogan, "Take away controls". The control may be a good one, as in this case it has been, but they want to take it away, not caring whether it is good or bad, merely because it is a control.
We oppose the Bill, and I honestly believe that I can speak for many hundreds of my constituents when I say that the farming community is opposed to it.
8.34 p.m.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: My right hon. Friend in moving the Third Reading made an exceedingly good speech. I quarrel with only one part of it. He attributed what I thought was altogether too much importance to the propaganda efforts of the Opposition. Speaking for Scotland, I can tell the House that these propaganda efforts have proved an utter failure. I speak for the part of the country that I know. I took part in the recent by-election in Argyll from the north to the south. The result proved that as Scottish farmers have gradually come to appreciate what the Bill really does and does not do, they have realised more and more that the initial propaganda against it from the Opposition and from other quarters is entirely or mainly unjustified. Again I speak only for the part of the country that I know, but the truth is that there is no longer any broad opposition or uneasiness about the main tenor of the Bill. Propaganda against it has proved to be a complete failure.
We have reached the stage on Third Reading of reflecting, as it were, upon the general course of events. Two things are said by the Opposition today, as they have been said before, which can now be answered effectively. They were both
522
said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). One is that there is not and never has been any demand for this Measure, and, secondly, that there is no support for it. Neither is true.
Let me take them one at a time. Of course, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who has spoken a great deal upon the Scottish situation, naturally says that there is no demand for removing the disciplinary powers. That is the stock Labour view about every attempt to restore freedom. The Labour Party believes in controls. It cannot conceive it possible that any human being can dislike controls. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman says that there is no demand. He said that there was justification for it in 1947 and he reminded us that we all supported that point of view. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to read an eloquent speech of mine delivered ten years ago when I agreed with that. But the hon. Gentleman is a man who never forgets and never learns. He never forgets what I said, which is very kind of him, but he has not learnt that things move forward and conditions today are not as they were ten years ago. They have changed, and although the hon. Gentleman may regret it the country does not regret it. Time after time when the Government have undertaken and carried through substantial alleviations of control they have been opposed by the Labour Party and eventually acclaimed by the country and proved to be absolutely right.
Let us consider the building industry. We sought to free the builders. This was attacked as the most dastardly national action. But it has proved to be a triumphant success. So will be the case here and so it is regarded by the farming community. I think that there will be a broad, lasting welcome by the farming community at the removal of these necessary wartime and immediate post-war measures.
Mr. T. Fraser: Does the hon. Member not appreciate that in 1947 he complained that it had taken twenty years for the House of Commons to accept his advice that these controls were absolutely essential? He had been advocating this policy for twenty years before 1947. Therefore, he cannot say that he supported the controls in 1947 during the

523
immediate post-war period simply because it was the post-war period.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: The hon. Member correctly quoted my words in Committee. Now he has tried to recall what I said and he has got my words wrong.
Mr. Fraser: I do not think so.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Let the hon. Gentleman look for himself. I should like to proceed with a short speech; I do not want to take up too much time.
The next question is, is there and was there a demand for an alteration in the system of rents and in the system of security? Everybody admits—and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was most emphatic about it today—that this is an industry in which there is a two-partner system—landlord and tenant. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted fair play to both and that both were essential.
There is no doubt that the landlords have for years been appealing to us on the ground that the system of rent control and fixity of tenure was making it impossible for them to play their part in this partnership. That has been an insistent demand. An hon. Member may say, if he is a Socialist, "I do not listen to the landlord". All right. I understand that but that hon. Member cannot at the same time defend this dual partnership and disregard the continued demands of the landlords. It is an obvious demand. They have said, "How can you expect us to continue to invest our capital in property over which we have virtually no control whatever as to its income, ownership or possession?"
As to income, the right hon. Member for Don Valley admitted today that in many cases rents have been far below economic value, yet under the law it is not possible, save in exceptional cases, for the landlord to get a reasonable return. Because of that, are we asked to destroy the foundations of a prosperous agriculture? I have listened to the demands of owners of land. In my contacts, I have found the farmers in Fife very frank in their views. They have said to me, without any exceptions at all, that they recognise that the system of rents has not been fair to the landlords. That is the farmers' view and I challenge
524
anybody in the House tonight to give me the name of one reasonable farmer who does not take that view.
I come to the second matter upon which I claim there has been demand, security or fixity of tenure from the landlords. What is the problem there? The landlord has said to us, "How can you expect us to play our part in this dual system if we can never get possession of the land we own?" By circumstances which are quite fortuitous, the Scottish farm tenant has a fixity of tenure which was never intended and which is not enjoyed by tenants in England. I think I am right in saying that when the Labour Government discovered in 1947 this fixity of tenure, by a turn of the Scottish law which was unpremeditated, they would have been very glad to alter it, but it was too late.
Fortuitously, the Scottish tenant farmer has this fixity of tenure and the landlord says, How can I be expected to make my contribution to this partnership if I can never in any circumstances get possession of my land?" It is an unreasonable and impossible situation. Therefore, there has been a persistent demand for a readjustment of this matter of security. There again, I say, without fear of contradiction, that the reasonable farmer, be his farm large or small, recognises that a change in that situation is desirable and necessary in the interest of farming.
That being so, this is my conclusion. At the beginning members of the Farmers' Union were naturally anxious. The union was naturally critical. That, of course, is its function in life, whatever the Government. But I claim that as the weeks have passed and Amendments have been made to the Bill, some of them very important, particularly with regard to the Scottish situation, the effects of the Amendments have become apparent and the general tenor and purpose of the Bill have become better known. The anxieties which were natural at the beginning have gradually faded away.
I would not dream of saying that there are no anxieties, but as this Measure becomes law and as the arbitrators, in the few cases which they will handle, gradually proceed with their work, I am quite satisfied that farmers as well as landowners will regard this as a proper step forward in this age of growing freedom. That is the essence of it. The

525
Government are to be congratulated on that. I would offer, if I may, with the greatest respect, this modest piece of advice to Scottish Labour leaders, "You may write this off as a propaganda effort. It has been a complete failure and you had better forget it."
8.46 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) was recently decorating the Front Bench opposite. I do not know why he was sacked.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Baronet does not know either.
Mr. Hughes: I am now beginning to understand why, but the hon. Gentleman has had some compensation in becoming a Baronet and, after his speech today, I have no doubt that he has earned his seat in another place. I am rather surprised that he should have repeated on the Floor of the House some of the statements which he made in Committee, when the Press reached a stage when it was not reporting our discussions at all. But the hon. Baronet advances the argument now that opposition to the Bill is the result of propaganda. He repeated the charge made by the Minister that the Opposition was raising bogeys in which there was little substance.
How far is this true? I became aware of strong opposition in Scotland to the provisions of the Bill when we met a deputation from the National Farmers' Union. We did not instigate the National Farmers' Union to come to us to create propaganda in Committee or on the Floor of the House. The union came to instigate us, and all along in Scotland there has been the strongest, continuous and most persistent opposition from the people who have the right to speak for the organised farmers of Scotland.
The idea that the initiative in this came from the Opposition in order to stir up trouble which has been ably frustrated by the genius of the noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary who spoke for Scotland in Committee is a complete fantasy. The hon. Member for Fife, East challenged me to name a reasonable farmer who objected to the provisions of the Bill. I was immediately going to give him the name of the farmer
526
who is in trouble with the Minister who will speak for Scotland in another place. He is Mr. John Rennie of Pant, who is at present being arbitrated on against an unreasonable landlord who happens to be the Minister of State for the Scottish Office and who will support these provisions in the House of Lords. However, I do not wish to debate on individual personalities, except to say that I was promptly going to accept the challenge of the hon. Baronet. He knew that, and so he slipped off.
The idea that the National Farmers' Union has been manipulated by us is sheer nonsense. In fact, the National Farmers' Union came to us and put up its case, and there is not the slightest degree of relaxation of that opposition. Far from it being instigated by the Socialists, the most persistent critic of this Bill week after week in the Scottish Farmer has been the farmer who happens to be the Tory Vice-Chairman of the County Council of Ayrshire.
Week after week, Mr. William Young, both in the Scottish Farmer and in the Kilmarnock Standard has urged us to persist in our opposition to the Bill because it is the opposition called for by the farmers' organisations in Scotland. And although the hon. Baronet represents what he calls reasonable, intelligent, anonymous farmers, whose names we have not heard throughout the debate, and claims to express the point of view of the farming community, what we have to take into account is the organisation which represents the farmers of Scotland. There is not the slightest doubt that this organisation has issued its communiqués, has passed resolutions and has maintained persistent opposition.
The hon. Baronet referred to Argyll. In Argyll the combined vote of the Liberal and Labour candidates, who are opposed to the Bill, was in the majority. There was a majority against the Bill, and all I can say about Argyll is that as a result of the hon. Baronet's propaganda we hope the party opposite will send him round to every constituency in the country.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: The hon. Gentleman did not do very well, did he?
Mr. Hughes: I did not do very well because I was not there.

527
Let us turn to the Secretary of State for Scotland himself. He is under no delusion about the attitude of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. He went to to the National Farmers' Union Conference. He went, and he saw, and he did not conquer. It did not work. Of course, if the noble Lord had been sent, it might have worked, and if we ever get the proceedings of this House televised during the course of an Agriculture Bill, I hope that the noble Lord is put up.
Let us see what the Scottish farmers said. I have innumerable quotations from which to choose. This is a good one. It is a quotation from the Scottish Farmer the week after the Secretary of State went to try to appease the farms—the Neville Chamberlain—
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Let us get it clear from the beginning that I did not go to appease the farmers. I went to explain what the Bill was about, and I had an extraordinarily good and very kind reception.
Mr. Hughes: We will examine that. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, very plausible and a very good film star.
Mr. Mackie: Plausible?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, plausible. Surely there is nothing wrong in using the word "plausible". I could say much worse things than that. We must remember that we are in politics.
I was about to tell the House of the reception given to the Secretary of State by the Scottish farmers. If all the farmers were so much in favour of the Bill, why did the right hon. Gentleman want to go there and convince them? The right hon. Gentleman's words are different from the version given by the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Maclay: I think it wise to keep the story correct stage by stage. It is normal for the Secretary of State in some years to go to the annual meeting of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. I was not able to go the previous year, but I went this year. It happened to be the year of this Bill, and so the obvious thing for me to do was to explain what the Bill was about.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman said that he convinced the farmers.
Mr. Maclay: To whom did I say that?
Mr. Hughes: I am only at the beginning of this story.
Mr. Maclay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets it right.
Mr. Hughes: I have before me a report of the meeting. There was a good photograph of the right hon. Gentleman, too. If his speech had been as good as his photograph he would have won hands down. The Scottish Farmer says:
"The speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the annual meeting of the National Farmers' Union, persuasive and emphatic though it might be, obviously did not convert many of his audience to his point of view that the Bi1J is in the very best interests of Scottish agriculture! Nor did the speech alter by one wit the decision of the council—a decision taken after the most careful consideration and study—that the Bill must be opposed in the interests of Scottish agriculure."
This was not before but afterwards.
"Neither broad assurances, irritable insinuations that the Bill has been completely misunderstood … will change the farmer's belief for a moment that when it comes down to particular and individual cases his fears will be confirmed."
After there has been this persistent barrage of criticism of the Minister from the National Farmers' Union itself both on the issue of the agricultural committees and on the issue of Clause 6——
Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Member knows, I represent a constituency in a very important part of southern Scotland where we have some of the richest dairy ground in Britain and Europe, but I have had not one letter from a farmer or any representative of the Scottish National Farmers' Union about this matter.
Mr. Hughes: I can explain that. Any farmer reading HANSARD would conclude that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) had died in 1950.
Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member is making very heavy weather about the various branches of the National Farmers' Union being against the Bill, but how does he square that with the fact that I have not received one letter containing reference to the situation?
Mr. Hughes: I have given what I think is the genuine explanation. Evidently the farmers of Galloway think the hon. Member is actually dead. When they read today's HANSARD they will be pleased to

529
know that he has undergone a resurrection. I should like to illustrate how unfair this procedure has been to the hon. Member for Galloway. I have a great personal regard for him. I do not wish him to be dead; I am glad that he is here. If the hon. Gentleman had been on that Committee—he could not even get on the Committee——
Mr. Mackie: I was never invited.
Mr. Hughes: This is extraordinary. Here is an issue affecting the farmers of Scotland and about 70 constituencies, and how many of us were able to get on this Committee? Six. "Too many," says the Secretary of State.
Mr. Maclay: I did not.
Mr. Hughes: Well, somebody said "Too many."
This is the right hon. Gentleman who is supposed to protect the interests of Scotland. The farmers of Galloway must have known that the hon. Member for Galloway was not on the Committee. There were only six of us on the Committee, three from either side. When this Bill, which has now been amended, was before the Scottish Grand Committee, every Member from Scotland who represented farmers at all was able to put the farmers' point of view. Now they have so whittled down Scottish rights and representation that only six were on the Committee, and one was the noble lord——
Mr. Mackie: One was a miners' representative.
Mr. Hughes: Well, I represent both farmers and miners, and my constituents are not deaf and dumb.
Mr. Mackie: Who put the hon. Gentleman in?
Mr. Hughes: It is an open question who put me in, but the fact is that I got in. I want to put this as the background to what I think is a major injustice to Scotland as far as the procedure on this Bill is concerned. There were only six of us, and when the vital Clause 6, affecting the future of security of tenure in Scotland, was before the Committee, three voted against the Government and two voted for the Government, The other hon. Gentleman, I believe, was
530
away representing Scotland at the Trooping of the Colour.
Lord John Hope: To get the record right, though I speak subject to correction, I think the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was busy in Argyll when we voted on Clause 6, and did not, in fact, vote against it.
Mr. Hughes: Unfortunately, that does not affect the record. This is the record. In any case, even assuming that the mathematical calculations of the noble lord are better than his arguments about agriculture, let us assume that it is a question of twos and threes. This matter of the whole future of agriculture in Scotland was being dealt with by these methods. This was not a Bill which was before the whole Scottish Grand Committee, when all Scottish Members are entitled to be present, but one which was left to a small coterie of people, while the great majority of the people representing Scottish agriculture were not represented at all. They took very good care that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) was not on the Committee. They took very good care that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) was not on the Committee. They put on the Committee three tame stooges who did not represent the farming community at all.
I wish to stress only two points. The question of the abolition of the agricultural executive committees was a subject on which we were petitioned by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. They were of the opinion that these Committees should be continued. This is what they said, this was their representation to us and that was what they asked us to do. We did it to the best of our ability.
On the question of security of tenure, the National Farmers' Union urged us to oppose on every possible occasion the provisions of Clause 6. We did that. We represented our farming constituents who at every step urged, implored and begged us to oppose the Bill in the interests of the farmers and of agriculture. That is what we have done. The time will come when hon. Members opposite, who failed in their duty and who let down farmers and agriculture, will have to account to their constituents—and I know the answer which their constituents will give to them.
9.5 p.m.
Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emyrs Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow the line which he was adopting. I am anxious not to do so for two reasons, first, because I do not want to become involved in this internecine strife in Scotland and, secondly, because I did not understand what he was talking about. I want to make a few remarks on the subject matter of the debate.
I welcome the Bill. With many other hon. Members, I frequently spoke in the debates on the 1947 Measure. In view of the various remarks which have been made today, I must say that while we all considered that Measure to be a charter for agriculture, none of us at the time, or since, considered that it was an irrevocable code of law for agriculture, something like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which could never be altered, or something which had to stand for all time so that agriculture should not fail.
I say, with some deference in the presence of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who will recall these facts more vividly even than I, that we all thought that the 1947 Act enshrined the basic principles which we felt could be the foundation for a stable agriculture, but we were all prepared to envisage that, as times changed and as the status of the industry itself changed, it would be necessary to implement those principles by a variation of policy.
That is what we are now seeking to do. In those days, compulsion and the threat of compulsion was not only fashionable but almost habitual. We had become accustomed to it during the war and it was being continued. Today, we have reached the point, not only in agriculture but generally throughout the country, of embracing a new sense of freedom and of putting that sense of freedom into practice.
I cannot understand why anybody should feel that agriculture and especially farmers themselves should be the one section of the community which should not enjoy the benefits of that freedom. It is true that we recognise what was not recognised in 1947, that farming requires special support. That has been shown and established again in the legislation of 1957.
532
However, many other industries are also recognised to need special support and they get it in a variety of ways—tariffs, quotas, international agreements and so on. Yet, so far as I am aware, there is not one other industry which considers that its special support is a quid pro quo for the sanctions which are imposed on it.
It is a most extraordinary line of argument to say that agriculture is to be on a basis similar to that of other industries which are recognised to need special support, but shall forfeit or risk the forfeiture of that freedom. If it is to be on a basis similar to that of other industries, it should be relieved of the sanctions under which it at present suffers because of the 1947 Act.
I cannot see any reason why farmers should have any anxiety about the removal of these sanctions by Clause 1; in fact, in my area of Sussex I have had no experience of farmers having any anxiety about the matter. On the other hand, they are rather pleased to appreciate that at long last a Government have learned what they have been trying to teach us politically for years and years, namely, that farmers cannot be driven. The change should also result in certain economies, and I hope that some of the taxpayers' money will be saved. That factor does not seem to have been greatly appreciated during the course of the debate.
I want to refer briefly to a remark made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon which I thought was peculiarly happy and very apposite. He said that the relationship between the landlord and tenant in the agricultural industry was, to a great extent, the backbone of the industry. This is something which is unique in the world, in any industry. We do not find it in the agricultural industries of America or Europe—or anywhere else that I know of. It has grown up over the course of very many years, and has established itself in a very peculiar way and given a special strength to the industry. There is no doubt, however, that during the past seventeen years, when this relationship has been distorted by the effect of controls to which it has been subjected, it has become strained, and if the situation went on for very much longer the original happy feeling and balance between the landlord and

533
tenant might be lost for ever, to the disadvantage of the industry. This proposal will help to restore that balance and will be very much to the good of the industry.
The only anxiety that I have heard expressed in my constituency is about Clause 2. I believe that that anxiety is due solely to a misunderstanding, and probably to bad publicity on the part of the Government in failing to make clear what they were doing. It is a rather usual complaint, and it is probably true in this instance. The criticisms which have reached me, both verbally and in correspondence, are that the test which was being set was similar to that of a willing buyer and a willing seller, whereas the relationship of a willing landlord to a willing tenant is something completely different.
I cannot see how the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) can have arrived at his anxieties and fears that the formula contained in the Clause would give an arbitrator the opportunity of fixing a rental upon the basis of a freak offer. The Clause is quite clear. It says that the standard which shall be considered:
"shall be the rent … which … might reasonably be expected … in the open market by a willing landlord to a willing tenant …".
If ever I find an arbitrator who would reasonably expect the freak offer I shall have found someone who is a very peculiar person. I cannot feel that this basic argument of the Liberal Party holds any water.
This Clause will remove anomalies There are at present anomalies, not only between county and county, but between different areas—and in some cases even parishes—within the same county. Once we can get a recognised standard, such as that contained in this formula, there is no reason why it should not apply throughout the whole country. I agree that although technically it applies only for the purpose of arbitration—and the number of cases subjected to arbitration will probably be fewer than at present—the formula will serve as the basis upon which negotiations for a full and fair rent between willing landlord and willing tenant can reasonably be concluded.
534
Every industry has its troubles and one of the difficulties in the agriculture industry is lack of flexibility. There is insufficient movement within the industry. That state of affairs will be assisted by the removal of control which inevitably will lead to a greater flexibility and to the provision of greater opportunities for those up-and-coming members of the industry who wish to take chances. At present few opportunities are offered to those people who wish to move about and to obtain a bigger or a different type of holding or farm. Greater flexibility will help to create greater efficiency and progress in the development of the industry, especially on the technical side.
I believe this to be a progressive Measure and a further step towards good relations within the industry, particularly to a good partnership between landlord and tenant, which will lead to further substantial progress in agriculture.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. T. Fraser: As the debate proceeded I began to wonder whether I had imagined all the protests that we have received from the National Farmers' Union. Let me say to such hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies as are present on the benches opposite that if they have not received letters from local branches of the National Farmers' Union the secretaries of some of those branches must be very dishonest men; because they have taken the liberty of sending me copies of letters said to have been sent to Tory Members of Parliament.
I did not write to any branch secretary of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland, except to acknowledge the receipt of a letter. I did not do anything to encourage the Union to offer criticisms of the Bill. But I responded to the wishes of the leaders of the Union to listen to what they had to say about the Bill, and I imagine that other hon. Members on this side of the House did the same. Yet this evening we have had to listen to a series of speeches from hon. Members opposite, starting with the Minister, who would have people believe that the opposition to this Bill was purely a doctrinaire Socialist opposition—a controls-for-controls-sake opposition, to the Measure.
What absolute nonsense this is, and, if I may say so, what dishonesty for the

535
Government to pretend that the opposition to the Bill comes only from doctrinaire members of the Labour Party. Surely that is dishonest. They know full well that the opposition to the Bill came initially from the farmers themselves. Of course, hon. Members on this side of the House were unwilling that the structure created ten years ago in the agricultural industry should be dismantled, unless there was adequate justification for doing so. It would not have been unreasonable to expect that the Government would not take this action which they are now taking until they had got a measure of agreement within the industry as to its future and as to the machinery to be used to encourage improvement in production and techniques in the industry.
We have listened to platitudes about the good relations that exist between the landowners and the tenant farmers. Why could not the party opposite have waited until it could get the agreement of the landowners and the farmers to the dismantling of the 1947–48 structure in agriculture? They could not wait because of their doctrinaire attitude. If the Government are themselves guilty of putting forward the Bill for purely doctrinaire considerations, because the Lord Privy Seal has promised that as many as possible of the controls created since the war will be dismantled before the next General Election, one possible way of obscuring from the public gaze what they are doing is for them to attack the Opposition for adhering to a purely doctrinaire attitude.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynston-Hicks), who has just spoken, has left the Chamber hurriedly. He came in, incidentally, only just before he spoke. He was unable to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) because he had not understood him, which was not surprising because he had not heard him. The hon. Member went on to support some of his hon. Friends in talking about the advantages of the Bill that would give greater flexibility in the industry.
Why do the Tories not say what they mean? Surely, what the hon. Member meant was that there would be more evictions. Surely he meant that more landowners would be able to evict more tenants. We do not nowadays expect the Tories to be honest and say what they
536
mean. Instead of saying that there will be more evictions of good tenants, not on the ground of bad husbandry—it is possible to get rid of the bad tenants now on the ground of bad husbandry—what they should say is that we will have more evictions of good tenants, creating a better market for the landlords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, that is what is meant. Nobody can deny it. The whole point of this procedure is to make it easier to get rid of tenants, to get vacancies, to cash in on the market for farms and to get more money. If that is what is meant, why is it not said? Why talk in these ambiguous phrases about greater flexibility in the industry? A little bit of honesty from the Tory Party would not do any harm at this time.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) reminded us tonight, as he did in Committee, that the arbitrators—the arbiters, as we call them in Scotland—pay no attention whatever to any instructions given to them in a statute. The hon. Member is probably largely right. I should think that the arbitrators do not pay too close attention to the instructions given to them, for the simple reason that, as the hon. Member said, they are not obliged to justify the basis upon which they reach their decision in any case which is submitted to them.
Having said that, however, the hon. Member was anxious that the instructions should be clarified, even though attention will not be paid to them. He knows as well as we do that the whole point of the alteration which Clause 2 is making in the law is that the landlords will be able to squeeze bigger rents out of the tenants without going to arbitration. That is the point. The endeavour is to get higher rents, whether they are justified or not, and the instruction to the arbitrators has been altered to secure that the general level of rents will rise.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who also is an absentee, having made his speech, welcomed, for the Liberal Party, the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act, but he was most anxious that Part I should remain and said there was no reason to believe that it would not remain. He was anxious that this partnership between the State and the industry should continue. He managed very cleverly to back both sides on this Bill. Sometimes he was

537
backing the Government and sometimes he was backing this side of the House. He seemed to be riding two horses very successfully. Although I have heard it said that there is no point in being in a circus unless one can ride two horses at once, I have never seen—not even in the circus—anyone trying to ride two horses travelling in opposite directions. He finished his speech by saying that the Bill does not deserve the blessing of this House, but he did not say how he would vote.
I have not any doubt at all how the farmers of Torrington and Argyll would expect the Liberal Party to vote on this Measure. I was in Argyll during the by-election and, reading speeches of the Liberal candidate, I found he was supporting the Labour Party on this Bill and was quoting me. I do not know whether that did him any good or not, but what I do know is that, whereas the Tory candidate in Argyll in 1955 had a majority of 10,000 the new Tory Member for Argyll (Mr. M. Noble) is here on a minority vote.
Lord John Hope: How many votes did the Labour candidate lose?
Mr. Fraser: I have stated the facts, that in 1955 the Tory candidate in Argyll had a majority of 10,000 and, in consequence of the by-election which took place recently, the Labour candidate and Liberal candidate—who both opposed the Bill in perhaps the biggest agricultural constituency in Scotland—got substantially more votes than the Tory candidate received and the Tory Member is here on a minority vote. If the Tory Party likes to think of that as a great electoral victory, it is welcome to do so.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) addressed us this evening and again repeated the Tory parrot cry that the provisions of Part II of the 1947 Act and the 1948 Scottish Act were all right. He said that we all agreed with them in the difficult days after the war. I am not quoting him directly, but he said tonight that we all agreed with those powers in Part II of the two Acts in the difficult days of food shortage after the war and then supported the Bill. I would remind him of what he said when that Bill was going through the House, ten years ago. The hon. Baronet said:
538
"The basis of this Bill is a simple proposition. Every farmer or landowner who owns or occupies a piece of the precious land of this country must manage it work it and farm it in the most efficient way."
Does he still agree with that?
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Of course I do.
Mr. Fraser: The hon. Baronet went on to say:
"I accept that principle without any conditions at all. I think it is a sound principle which every sensible man must accept; but it is not a new principle. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman developing his theme, my mind went back to 1927 when Lloyd George produced in Scotland—I was the agent by which it was produced, and I wrote the report myself—a Scottish Liberal land policy. The whole crux of the matter was to introduce into the farming life of the country the principle that a man should only hold land if he managed it, worked it and farmed it well. Other parts of that policy were that there should be committees to see that all that was done. That policy was laughed out of court by all sides of the House, not least by the party opposite. It makes one a little sad to think that it has taken 20 years to bring that about. As one of the originators of that statement of policy, I must say that I am glad to see it accepted. I think it is absolutely sound."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 75.]
The hon. Gentleman thought today that he supported this policy ten years ago because of the food shortage following the war. Did he, or did he not?
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart Sir J. Henderson-Stewart indicated assent.
Mr. Fraser: Then the hon. Gentleman was being quite dishonest ten years ago. Ten years ago he said that he supported it because he believed in it in principle. He had been advocating it for twenty years. He wrote that statement of policy himself in 1927. That is what he said.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: The hon. Member is all mixed up, but I will let him carry on.
Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member himself is all mixed up. Ten years ago, he was speaking for his farmer constituents in East Fife. Today, he is speaking for his Tory masters. Ten years ago he was still pretending to be a Liberal. True enough, he still wears today his flag of convenience; he is a National Liberal, Liberal Unionist, or whatever it is, in an attempt to capture what Liberal vote there is in his constituency. But, of course, he was attracted into the Chamber tonight to

539
speak in the debate because it was known that he would pay off his debts to the Tory Government by giving them more loyal support than they could expect from any Tory Member of the House.
The hon. Member for Fife, East said that landlords had said to him, "How can you expect us to invest our money in property over which we have virtually no control?" He agrees now that they should have more control over their own property than they have had until now, so he supports the Bill. I say to him: how can he expect the nation to invest £300 million of taxpayers money in property over which the nation has no control? That is the question which is being increasingly asked.
The Minister spoke this afternoon about better relations existing between town and country. I suggest that the good relations which exist between town and country are a direct consequence of the legislation passed through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and of the work done by the post-war Labour Government.
It was the post-war Labour Government which took agriculture out of politics and which brought about this good relationship between town and country. It is the present Government who will destroy this good relationship.
Mr. John Hare Mr. John Hare indicated dissent.
Mr. Fraser: Of course it is. If the Minister does not understand it, he really is failing badly to appreciate the difficulties which he is creating.
I represent more urban electors than rural electors. I have lived in the countryside all my life, but I represent what is regarded as an industrial constituency. I have often defended the nation's support of agriculture in my part of the country and in many other industrial parts of the country. I have had criticisms made of the nation's support for agriculture by people who were not political supporters of mine. I have always felt on firm ground in defending the subsidies given to agriculture as an investment which we were making in the land of the country, an investment over which there was a measure of public control, which the Government were not seeking to administer through glossy-haired bureaucrats. It was a measure of
540
control which the Government were administering in agriculture by attracting into the committees men of good will who had an interest in estate management and an interest in husbandry, that is to say, farm workers and other persons who were knowledgeable about farming.
These were the people who were brought in to do the work of the executive committees. These were the people who had administered this control which the National Farmers' Union has described as the kindly control by the committees which it does not want to see disturbed. Why should it have been disturbed? Why should it all have been thrown away? I repeat, questions will be asked in the country for as long as there is price support for agriculture out of public funds about what steps the Government, whichever party is in power, are taking to secure that the money is not poured down the drain.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who is not in the Chamber, asked: what has 1921 got to do with it? It has only this much to do with it, which the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland can well understand. In December, 1920, the then Tory Government put on the Statute Book an Act which gave certain price guarantees to agriculture. Those price guarantees were accompanied by what was then described as cropping controls. By July, 1921, the Tory Government came to the House to say that cropping controls could no longer be continued, and that if we did not have cropping controls we could not possibly have price support at the expense of the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who has just come into the Chamber, to vote at 10 o'clock, wants to tell me that this was not a Tory Government but a National Government. But it was a National Government with a substantial Tory majority, and if the Tory majority at that time did not feel that they were in control of the Government, then something would have been done about it. It was obviously an attitude of mind, a policy determined by the Government of that day, that had the support of the then Tory Party.
If the Tory Party believed then, as it must have done, that we could not have price support at the taxpayers' expense, and if we did not have cropping controls,

541
it is understandable that the farmers, whether or not they are old enough to remember what happened in 1921, will have informed themselves of what happened. Perhaps that is why they have been telling hon. Members on both sides of the House about what happened after the great betrayal by the Tories after the First World War. They feel that there will be another betrayal by the Tories.
That is not surprising, because Clause 1 is the removal of a measure of control which is wanted by the industry. Why did not the Minister wait until he had the concurrence of the industry in the removal of the controls? The purpose of Clause 2 is to put up the rents. Someone has described Clause 3 as a security of tenure Clause. I would describe it as an insecurity of tenure Clause or the removal of security of tenure Clause.
Sir A. Baldwin: It was agreed by the N.F.U. and C.L.A.
Mr. Fraser: It was not agreed at all, as has been made abundantly clear.
I regard Clause 4, which is supposed to be of some help to the tenant farmers, as being hopelessly inadequate for the purpose for which it is supposedly intended. The Clause does not apply in Scotland, and it is so weak that I am not anxious that Scottish tenant farmers should have the benefit of it.
Clause 6 is completely unjustified. It has been vigorously opposed by the farmers of Scotland. There is not a Tory Member for a Scottish constituency but knows that and knows it well. The hon. Member for Fife, East is quite wrong in thinking that the puny, innocuous, ineffective Amendments that he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) got the Government to accept have done anything to allay the fears and apprehensions of the tenant farmers of Scotland.
Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
Mr. Fraser: I am not quite wrong. I happen to know the facts. I have put the hon. Baronet right tonight already by quoting from a speech that he has forgotten all about and was badly misinterpreting in the course of his speech.
The Bill is a bad let-down for farmers. This is the Rent Act in agriculture. Is
542
the Minister of Agriculture so ashamed of the Rent Act that he will not apply it in agriculture? The Rent Act, together with this Bill and many other Measures brought forward by the Government in recent times, are directly opposite to all the promises the Government made to the people at Election. That is why the vote went so heavily against the Government in the by-elections. [Laughter.] When I was at school my teacher used to tell me that I was fairly good at arithmetic. I thought that I had got my arithmetic right and that the by-elections had shown a very heavy swing against the Government. I thought that it was just possible that the swing against the Government was because of the way in which the Government were betraying their Election promises.
I would end by saying that it really is time that the Government were either heeding what they said to the electors when they sought their suffrages in 1955, or should go back to the electors and tell them what further damage the Government propose to do, in which case there can be no doubt of the electors' reply. When we go into the Division Lobby tonight there is not a shadow of doubt that we shall be casting votes for the majority of the electors of Britain.
9.43 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) almost persuaded me towards the end of his speech that he really believed that this was a bad Bill. If he searches his soul and conscience, I wonder whether he will claim that many of the things he said were really what he meant?
Did he mean to say that the object of Clause 2 was to get higher rents whether justified or not? If so, let him read Clause 2 carefully and see how the object of it can possibly be to get higher rents whether justified or not for the landlord. I prefer the remarks made at the end of the speech of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I admit that they were not entirely consistent with the early part of his speech when he said—I think I am quoting him almost correctly—just before he sat down, "I hope we are not fearing the worst about this Bill." I feel that that is right.

543
That is very different in tenor from the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton. I was certainly surprised at the right hon. Member for Don Valley saying that at the end of his speech, because he had sounded as though he were convinced that it was a bad Bill. The words at the end were indicative of the thinking of a great many people on the Opposition side of the House and of some people in the country whom hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quoting as violently opposed to the Bill. At the beginning, a lot of people were concerned about the farmers, and I know there are still some in Scotland today. I accept that. I know there are farmers who are worried, and some who were worried but are no longer worried. I believe that that applies to a great many more people than hon. Members opposite have realised. Hon. Members opposite thought that they were on a good thing at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, but they are not quite so certain now.
I am sure that the House will forgive me if, for a short time, I deal with some Scottish parts of the Bill, because I want to make absolutely certain that there is no misunderstanding of what has happened under Clause 6. I repeat that I know that at the outset there was a certain amount of misunderstanding and misapprehension in Scotland about the Clause, but I believe that there is better appreciation of what we are doing in that Clause now and why, but it would be wise to summarise once again as briefly and clearly as I can the present law on security of tenure and rights of inheritance and bequest in Scotland and how it has been amended by this amended Bill.
Prior to 1948 in Scotland the tenant of an agricultural holding could bequeath the unexpired portion of his lease to anyone and failing bequest his heir-at-law succeeded to that unexpired portion of the lease. I use the words, "unexpired portion" deliberately. That was the law before 1948. The heir did not succeed to the entire lease indefinitely but to the unexpired portion. When in 1948 the security of tenure provisions were superimposed on the existing provisions there became very little chance of a landlord being ever, and I repeat "ever", in a position to change his tenant, or to resume occupancy of his own farm
544
for the reason that once a legatee or an heir-at-law succeeded to the remainder of a lease he could—under the security of tenure provisions then introduced—continue to hold it indefinitely and in turn could pass it on to his successor. In other words, there came about a fixity of tenure which I repeat was not foreseen when the 1948 Act was under consideration.
That has been challenged today, and was challenged in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who quoted at that time, as evidence that it was foreseen—Section 20 of the 1949 Act, which said:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the tenant of an agricultural holding may, by will or other testamentary writing, bequeath his lease of the holding to any person".
Those words meant that he could bequeath the lease which had only a certain number of years to run, that is the unexpired portion of the lease. Having examined reports of the debates in 1948 and 1949 in the Scottish Committee I am quite satisfied that the full effect of a combination of the existing law plus the security of tenure provisions was not foreseen or, if foreseen, was certainly not explained to the Committee. I accept my share of responsibility as a member of the Committee at that time for not spotting it.
Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman look up the speeches of the late Lord William Scott at that time. He complained of the fixity of tenure and was replied to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and myself?
Mr. Maclay: I have searched through the debates and I never saw in any speech any evidence of that.
Clause 6 modifies the present position in two ways. Firstly, it restricts the tenant's right of bequest to a member of his own family, and in the course of proceedings in Committee that definition was extended to include an adopted child. Broadly speaking, the Clause re-establishes the position that the legatee or heir-at-law of a tenant can of right succeed to only the unexpired portion of the lease. While we are satisfied that in the long-term interests of good farming we must restrict the rights of the legatee or heir-at-law in this way, we have been very ready to make Amendments designed to help in the transition period.
Mr. T. Fraser: That is nonsense.
Mr. Maclay: This will help in the transitional period, as is generally recognised by farmers in Scotland. I must get this clear because possibly the hon. Member for Hamilton has not appreciated it.
Mr. Fraser: The Minister has not.
Mr. Maclay: It was the remark of the hon. Gentleman that it is nonsense which made me wonder. The result of these Amendments will be that every tenant who succeeds to a tenancy as legatee or heir-at-law will be entitled, for a period of seven years after the passing of the Act, to remain in the holding at the very least for two years and in many cases for more. We hope that during this transitional period of seven years opportunity will be taken by landlords and tenants to get back to long leases, a system which has tended to lapse into tacit relocation in the last ten years.
Then there is the other Amendment made in Committee on the subject of compensation for improvements. It had been represented strongly to us that by relying on the virtual fixity of tenure conferred in the 1948 Act on them and their successors, many tenants carried out improvements without giving written notice to their landlords of their intention to do so. Clause 6 does not change the position of the existing tenant but it alters the right of his heir or legatee.
We were anxious that this change in the law should be made in an equitable manner. By an Amendment moved in Committee we therefore provided that, where improvements have been carried out without notice by their predecessors during the period between the coming into operation of the 1948 Act and the coming into operation of the present Bill, legatees and heirs-at-law who receive notice to quit under Clause 6 shall be entitled to compensation, provided they can satisfy the Land Court that approval would have been given to the improvements had notice been given.
I am most anxious—and that is why I have repeated this so carefully this evening—that there should be no misunderstanding about the effect of this Clause. Clause 6 does not in any way affect the right of the existing tenant or of any future tenant to whom a lease is granted,
546
to remain in his holding for the remainder of his life. What it does is to enable the landlord, on the death of his tenant, to exercise some control over the future working of his land.
In this way we have provided the maximum degree of security for tenants which is consistent with the retention by landlords of reasonable control of their own property, towards which, it was pointed out earlier this evening, the landlords have inescapable statutory obligations, which is not always remembered. I agree that the tenant has statutory obligations, but the landlord has heavy obligations which may involve him in the spending of a great deal of money. Therefore it is only right that the proper balance of landlord-tenant relationship should be restored as far as possible.
Coming back to the more general and getting away from the Scottish in particular, there is one point I want to repeat, and that is on rents. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks), in an extremely interesting and good speech, dealing with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who had suggested that the rent formula would not exclude freak rents. I repeat specifically that the Bill refers to the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market. The words "reasonably be expected" must surely exclude the freak rent. I am glad to see the hon. and learned Member in his place and I hope this will enable him to decide which Lobby he will go through tonight, because there is considerable conjecture in the House as to which one it may be.
Before I conclude I should like to say that I can well appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite take pride in the English Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1948 and in the Scottish Acts of 1948 and 1949. We on this side of the House do not in any way grudge them that pride. Those Acts were in many respects agreed Measures, and we were glad to assist the Government of the day to put them on the Statute Book. Now ten years have passed and a review of the provisions has become very necessary indeed. We have undertaken this review in no partisan spirit, as has been suggested throughout the evening. We have undertaken this review because,

547
after ten years, it is only right and inevitable that legislation should be restudied in the light of changing circumstances.
We have been anxious only to meet the needs and circumstances of the day, just as we were all anxious ten years ago to meet the circumstances of that time. We have been ready to learn by experience. In the light of changed circumstances, and in the light of our experience of the working of these Acts, we have found some changes to be necessary. Some of these changes were incorporated in the 1957 Act which gave new financial assurances to farmers and introduced the farm improvement scheme. Other changes have been incorporated in this Bill. These include the abolition of the disciplinary powers exercised through the agricultural executive committees—a major change, I confess, but, in spite of all the arguments that have gone on, it was clear that it had become necessary in the changing circumstances. I repeat that in that we have the support of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan, which is always interesting to note because I think he will not be in our Lobby tonight.
The Acts of 1947 and 1948 were not, of course, perfect. In the course of years defects have appeared and distortions have resulted. One such distortion has been the glaring disparity between the value of a farm sold with vacant possession and the value of a farm sold subject to an existing tenancy. There is something very far wrong—hon. Members opposite must admit it; the hon. Member for Hamilton is always very courteous but this is a point which I hope he will admit—when a sitting tenant can buy the farm which he occupies—this is a case which the hon. Member must have heard about, for I have certainly quoted it several times—for £9,500 and at the same time resell it with vacant possession for £18,000. It is fantastic. I can give three other examples straight off. There was one sold to the sitting tenant in 1957 for
£1,000, and the sitting tenant resold it within two months for £3,500. Another was sold for £4,250 and resold for £14,500.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who bought it?
Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members opposite cannot escape by any kind of intervention the fact that these figures are at least evidence that something is not entirely healthy or right, and they are more than ample justification for action by a responsible Government. I said at the beginning that we played our part in the earlier Acts, and, indeed, complimented hon. Members opposite upon the Acts of 1947 and 1948 and 1948 and 1949 respectively. We thought them wrong, but by and large we supported them. It would have been completely irresponsible on our part after ten years if we had not examined what had happened and tried to put things right.
Hon. Members opposite intend to vote against the Bill. They have produced a variety of reasons for doing so. What I should like to know is their fundamental reason. Is it just possible that it is false pride of authorship? I know that the right hon. Member for Don Valley played a great part in the work on those earlier Measures, as did the right hon. Gentleman for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). Might I suggest to them that if we have to have "sacred cows" in British agriculture, we should have better beasts than any particular Act of Parliament? I ask the House to give the Bill its support.
Mr. Willey: I rise only to——
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Heath)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 254.

Division No. 178.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Armstrong, C. W.

Barber, Anthony

Aitken, W. T.

Ashton, H.

Barlow, Sir John

Alport, C. J. M.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Barter, John

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Atkins, H. E.

Batsford, Brian

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Arbuthnot, John

Bainiel, Lord

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Gurden, Harold

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bidgood, J. C.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maddan, Martin

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

Bingham, R. M.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Bishop, F. P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Black, C. W.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Body, R. F.

Hay, John

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Marshall, Douglas

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mathew, R.

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

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

Mawby, R. L.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

Braine, B. R.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hesketh, R. F.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hills, Mrs. E. (Wythenshaw)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Bryan, P.

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

Nairn, D. L. S.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Neave, Airey

Burden, F. F. A.

Hope, Lord John

Nicholls, Harmar

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornby, R. P.

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

Campbell, Sir David

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Noble, Cmdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Carr, Robert

Horobin, Sir Ian

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Cary, Sir Robert

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Nugent, G. R. H.

Channon, Sir Henry

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howard, John (Test)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Osborne, C.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Page, R. G.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Cooke, Robert

Hurd, A. R.

Partridge, E.

Cooper, A. E.

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

Peel, W. J.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hyde, Montgomery

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pitman, I. J.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pott, H. P.

Cunningham, Knox

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Powell, J. Enoch

Currie, G. B. H.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dance, J. C. G.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Davidson, Viscountess

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Profumo, J. D.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Ramsden, J. E.

Deedes, W. F.

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Rawlinson, Peter

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Joseph, Sir Keith

Redmayne, M.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Kaberry, D.

Renton, D. L. M.

Doughty C. J. A.

Keegan, D.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Drayson, G. B.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Rippon, A. G. F.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

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

Kershaw, J. A.

Robertson, Sir David

Duncan, Sir James

Kimball, M.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Duthie, W. S.

Kirk, P. M.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Lambton, Viscount

Roper, Sir Harold

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Russell, R. S.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Leather, E. H. C.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Erroll, F. J.

Leavey, J. A.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Leburn, W. G.

Sharples, R. C.

Finlay, Graeme

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

Shepherd, William

Fisher, Nigel

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Fort, R.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Speir, R. M.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Gammans, Lady

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Glover, D.

Longden, Gilbert

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Godber, J. B.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Goodhart, Philip

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Storey, S.

Gough, C. F. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Gower, H. R.

McAdden, S. J.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

McKibbin, Alan

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Green, A.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Teeling, W.

Gresham Cooke, R.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Temple, John M.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

550

551

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. O. F.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Wood, Hon. R.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Woollam, John Victor

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Wall, Patrick

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

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

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Vane, W. M. F.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Mr. Oakshott and

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Webster, David

Sir Gerald Wills.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Finch, H. J.

McInnes, J.

Albu, A. H.

Fitch, E. A.

McLeavy, Frank

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fletcher, Eric

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Foot, D. M.

Mahon, Simon

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Forman, J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Awbery, S. S.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bacon, Miss Alice

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then

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

Baird, J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Han. P. C.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Balfour, A.

Greenwood, Anthony

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mason, Roy

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

Grey, C. F.

Messer, Sir F.

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

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Benson, Sir George

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mitchison, G. R.

Beswick, Frank

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Monslow, W.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Grimond, J.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Blackburn, F.

Hale, Leslie

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

Blenkinsop, A.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Blyton, W. R.

Hamilton, W. W.

Moss, R.

Boardman, H.

Hannan, W.

Moyle, A.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Mulley, F. W.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hastings, S.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hayman, F. H.

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

Bowles, F. G.

Healey, Denis

Oliver, G. H.

Boyd, T. C.

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

Oram, A. E.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Herbison, Miss M.

Orbach, M.

Brockway, A. F.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Oswald, T.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Owen, W. J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Holman, P.

Padley, W. E.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Holt, A. F.

Paget, R. T.

Burke, W. A.

Houghton, Douglas

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

Burton, Miss F. E.

Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hoy, J. H.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Hubbard, T. F.

Pargiter, G. A.

Carmichael, J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Parker, J.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parkin, B. T.

Champion, A. J.

Hunter, A. E.

Paton, John

Chapman, W. D.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Peart, T. F.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Pentland, N.

Clunie, J.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Coldrick, W.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Janner, B.

Probert, A. R.

Cove, W. G.

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

Proctor, W. T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Cronin, J. D.

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

Randall, H. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Rankin, John

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Redhead, E. C.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Reid, William

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Reynolds, G. W.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Rhodes, H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Deer, G.

Kenyon, C.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Delargy, H. J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Royle, C.

Diamond, John

Lawson, G. M.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dodds, N. N.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Donnelly D. L.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Dye, S.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Skeffington, A. M.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lewis, Arthur

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

Edelman, M.

Lindgren, G. S.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lipton, Marcus

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Logan, D. G.

Snow, J. W.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

McCann, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

MacDermot, Niall

Spriggs, Leslie

Fernyhough, E.

McGovern, J.

Steele, T

552

553

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Usborne, H. C.

Williams, David (Neath)

Stonehouse, John

Viant, S. P.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Wade, D. W.

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

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Watkins, T. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Weitzman, D.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Winterbottom, Richard

Swingler, S. T.

Wells, William, (Walsall, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Sylvester, G. O.

West, D. G.

Woof, R. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Wigg, George

Zilliacus, K.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Tomney, F.

Wilkins, W. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Willey, Frederick

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)
10.10 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.
I do not think that it will be necessary to spend long upon this Scheme. It merely extends for a further year, from 1st July, the arrangements for paying the fertiliser subsidy and increases the rates of subsidy for nitrogenous fertilisers in accordance with the Price Review award of an additional £1½ million. This production grant is now a familiar feature of our support for agriculture, and I am sure that I have no need to explain to the House the great benefits which result from the greater use of fertilisers.
In the last fertiliser year the use of nitrogen and potash showed a further increase, and, since the supply position is still improving, it was decided at the Price Review to allocate this further sum to nitrogen.
The total cost of the Scheme is expected in this current year to be more than £25 million, which is an indication of the extent to which it is being utilised. I commend the Scheme to the House.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Champion: I am sure that the House will have had enough of agricultural debates for quite a long time to come. I certainly feel like that after 20 Sittings upstairs in Committee on the Agriculture Bill and four complete days on the Floor of the House on other stages. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary appears to have stood up to it very well—I am talking about his health and not his deplorable activities as a junior Minister.
554
The hon. Gentleman has told us that this Scheme represents an increase in the subsidy for last year. I did not quite understand his explanation. Did I understand him to say that it was because of price increases in the meantime, or that it was an additional subsidy to the industry as a result of the Price Review, so that, in effect, he has taken the sum off in prices of products and has placed it on fertilisers? If that is what it amounts to, I have no objection to it.
The use of fertilisers is something that we ought to stimulate, and I therefore welcome the Scheme. I did wonder whether the cost of nitrogenous fertilisers had gone up, and whether that had caused the increase in the subsidy. Hon. Members on this side of the House are still somewhat disturbed about the fertiliser industry. It is true that we cannot go into the question now, but we think that the Government should stimulate the Monopolies Commission to complete its consideration of the industry, because many farmers fear that as a result of the monopoly money is being taken out of the pockets of the taxpayer to provide the subsidy, which has to be paid simply because the monopoly charges very much more for its products than would be charged by competing firms. The Parliamentary Secretary should press his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that the Monopolies Commission gets to work on this matter and presents a report which would either clear away the existing fears or cause the Government to take suitable action.
I agree that we want to stimulate further use of fertilisers, particularly of nitrogenous manures. It is the lack of supply of nitrogen in our soil which is the commonest limiting factor in crop growth. I hope that, through the

555
N.A.A.S., the Minister will do everything possible to stimulate its use by using some of the additional money that is now being provided.
Last year, I visited an experimental farm, where the conversation turned to improvements in crops, and so on, and surrounding farms. I was told by the farmer that he could show me fields which, to his own knowledge, extending over a long time, had never received a dressing of fertiliser. That may be regarded as a waste of the country's land. We ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use this Scheme and the services at his disposal to increase the use of fertiliser, which is one of the best things that could be done to stimulate and improve agricultural production.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) for the approach of himself and his hon. Friends to this matter. The advantage which stems from the use of fertiliser is something about which we are all agreed and I am glad that the House is unanimous in that view.
The hon. Member will realise, as, in fact, he said, that his references to the Monopolies Commission is a matter for the Board of Trade. That is something which is at present being pursued. I think it only fair to remind the House that two of the largest firms concerned with the production of fertilisers have, during the last few days, both announced price reductions for some of their fertilisers. That, together with the increase in the subsidy, which is due to the increase given this year in the Price Review, will bring about a fairly substantial reduction in the price of some fertilisers and should be an added incentive to their further use in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (CEREALS, EGGS AND FATSTOCK)
10.19 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 956), dated 11th June, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that this Order and the next two, relating to eggs and fatstock, may be taken together.
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I intended to ask your permission to do that.
These Orders have a great similarity, in that each has been made to support the arrangements that are in operation to give effect to guaranteed prices under Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1957. Section 5 of that Act empowers Ministers to make by Order such provisions as are necessary to ensure that guarantee payments are given only to those entitled to them. Such provisions are essential for the protection of the Exchequer.
I wish to remind the House that considerable sums are involved. I think that is important. For example, in the last financial year it is estimated that about £180 million to £185 million were paid out under these three guarantees. The Orders now before the House make use of these powers and, in the case of eggs and fatstock, end our reliance upon Emergency Regulations for this purpose. I am sure that is something which the House will welcome.
I wish to describe briefly the provisions of the three Orders because these are matters which should be explained. They all require the keeping of certain records. I know full well that provisions of this sort are not over popular. I see from reading the Farmer and Stock-Breeder this week that "Blythe", that notable contributor, refers to them in relation to these Orders and I am happy to assure him, as well as the House that these new conditions are not very onerous. I should like to instance what they involve.
In saying this, we must recognise that some inspection of records is essential

557
for the proper safeguarding of the guarantees and that the disbursement of large sums of public money of the order which I have indicated imposes certain obligations on the recipients. We hope and believe, however, that these Orders will not involve anybody in much additional work.
For example, growers are already required under the cereals deficiency payments scheme to keep records of their wheat and rye transactions substantially on the lines laid down under the Cereals Order which is now before us. The form on which growers claim acreage payments for oats and barley furnishes a duplicate for retention by the claimant, on which he is supposed to enter the same particulars as are put into the claim. This duplicate would be a satisfactory record for the purpose of the new Order. In that case, therefore, we are not asking very much. Nor would I expect dealers in wheat and rye to have any additional burden imposed upon them in the provision that they may be required to furnish information, supported by records if necessary, about transactions in those guaranteed commodities since it is similar to the existing provision.
The provision in the Order for protecting the egg guarantee requiring packers to keep and produce records of all purchases, sales and use of fresh hen and duck eggs is similar to that in the previous Order under the Defence Regulations; but we are now requiring that the prescribed records should be kept for two years instead of one. The fact that once a record has been made it must be kept for an additional year is not a big burden.
With livestock also, we do not expect the Order to impose any onerous burden. Obviously, anyone engaged in the business of rearing and selling livestock needs to keep some records for his own purposes. In the main, these records will satisfy the statutory requirements now being introduced in the Order. For example, it requires that a person who presents livestock for certification shall keep a record of his purchases and sales of such livestock. Generally, however, we will accept the retention of any normal commercial invoice as a sufficient compliance with this requirement. Again, anyone who moves livestock from place to place is already required under the animal health legislation to keep a record of the movement.
558
The present Order gives the right to inspect these records in any investigation connected with the fatstock guarantees. There will be cases where these simple requirements will be insufficient, but rather than impose additional record keeping on all sections of traders in meat and livestock we shall merely require any necessary further information in appropriate cases by serving notice. This should not, however, impose any burden on the normally efficient business.
I am sure that the House will recognise the need for these safeguards. I hope that hon. Members will recognise, too, that we have tried to find a balance between what would be ideally desirable to cover all possible eventualities and what we think is fair and reasonable in relation to the sums which have to be disbursed.
In addition to the requirements as to records, each of the Orders contains powers of entry for authorised officers of the appropriate Minister at reasonable times. I think I can safely say that this power, which has been available to us already under the Defence Regulations, has been used in the past with circumspection and this will continue to be the case. The Orders also provide power to obtain possession of vital evidence which may be needed for prosecutions.
The Order for protecting the egg guarantee specifies the approved marks which packers will be required to stamp on all hen and duck eggs qualifying for subsidy. It varies the approved marks for hen eggs by specifying the designation of the various weight grades—large, standard, medium and small—and by omitting the British Egg Marketing Board's lion emblem, not because we do not consider this unsuitable, but because we do not think that it is something we should provide. It is, after all, the Board's trade mark and the Board should provide it in the ordinary way. The Order also specifies the weight ranges to which the various grade designations for hen eggs relate.
The Fatstock Order similarly provides for marking every animal or carcase approved for guarantee payment in such a way that an attempt to get a second guarantee payment on it would be detected, and it prohibits the presentation for the guarantee payment of any animal

559
or carcase previously approved for such a payment.
Fatstock guarantee payments are intended for animals which are ready to be slaughtered for meat. It would be an abuse of the guarantee system if animals on which payments have been made should be used for breeding. In the Order, therefore, we prohibit the use of certified animals for this purpose.
The powers which are being taken in these Orders are in my view the minimum necessary to safeguard public money which is intended for the support of our agricultural industry. I feel quite sure the House would wish to see that there is a proper safeguard of this nature. This is not something entirely new. We are merely tidying up here and making use of the legislation we obtained last year rather than Defence Regulations. With that introduction, I can with confidence commend these Orders to the House.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish him no harm, but I am very happy to speak in the absence of the Patronage Secretary because I need not fear that the Closure will be moved. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, can share my happiness, because I am aware that these are narrow Orders, dealing with procedural matters, and that they do not deal with the general issue of guaranteed, prices.
I say at once that I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that, if we can, we have to achieve two objectives. If we are concerned, as we are here, with a large sum of money—£185 million—we have to take all the safeguards we can properly take, but the second objective is that the safeguards we take should be as little onerous as we can devise them. We do not seek unnecessarily to place obligations upon people. I for one believe that we should generally accept the honesty of people, and not be too anxious to provide safeguards against dishonesty. I think that the vast majority of people, when they know that their dealings affect public expenditure, deal with their affairs not only with honesty, but also with regard to the fact that public expenditure is involved.
Under these Orders we cannot discuss guaranteed prices and price supports
560
themselves. We are discussing the arrangements, but I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realises that this is a difficult matter on which to achieve perfection and that as the arrangements are not altogether satisfactory we have to keep reviewing them. They are affected by the form of price support the guaranteed price takes. I say on behalf of the Opposition that in the light of experience of the past few years we are not satisfied as a whole with the working of the new price support arrangements. We believe, after consulting the industry's representatives, that we shall probably have to return to fixed guaranteed prices for a larger number of commodities.
Turning to the commodities affected by these Orders, there have been allegations in the past about fatstock. How justified they were I do not know. The Department made some inquiries and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the arrangements to which he has referred will safeguard the public from any dishonest practices. Although there were allegations of such practices, I personally did not come across evidence of any widespread practices of that kind.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have mentioned eggs at Question Time recently. I do not know how much longer I am to share with the Public Accounts Committee responsibility for calling attention to the fact that this scheme is not properly administered, and that time after time there are complaints about the way in which the packers' margins are administered. I referred in the House this week to a Report.
I agree that as this matter is being discussed with the Egg Marketing Board we cannot discuss it further now, but it is an open secret that the amount involved is well over £1 million. Really, after all these years, we must do something about it. We cannot have this hopeless abnegation of responsibility. The Minister should feel some sense of responsibility in the light of the continuing criticism made by the Public Accounts Committee.
I am not criticising, and I do not wish to criticise, the packers as such tonight. I criticise the system. But it is a very real condemnation of the Government. They hastily rushed into the decontrol of eggs. They made an absolutely disastrous blunder, which has cost the taxpayer

561
enormous sums every year, and, within those enormous losses, are the continuing losses due to the failure of the Ministry to accept any proper responsibility for the administration of these margins. How much longer we are to have report after report stigmatising the right hon. Gentleman's Department, I do not know.
Perhaps I have gone a little wide of the debate, Mr. Speaker. I promised that I would not. I will return to the procedural arrangements made in these Orders. We accept, with the Minister, the obligation of the Government to provide for policing arrangements where, in circumstances such as this, large sums of public money are involved.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: May I refer to the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, and ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of the confusion which exists in Wales with regard to the markings set out in the Schedule for live sheep? There has been a great deal of doubt in Wales about the private markings and the Ministry's ear marks, and I should like to know whether anything has been done by the Ministry in recent weeks to clear up the confusion. I am sorry that I did not give the Parliamentary Secretary notice, but I was unable to do so, and I should like to take this opportunity now of putting the query to him, because the matter has been under discussion for some months in Wales. The Ministry insists upon the ear marks, and I understand that, as a result of the confusion of markings, farmers say that they sometimes do not receive what they say is the proper price. I want to protect our sheep farmers in this matter, and should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would say what the Ministry is doing about it.
10.33 p.m.
Sir James Duncan: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) has raised a point of interest to Wales, and I have a similar point to raise which is of interest to Scotland. It concerns the marking of cattle and the prohibition of
"… the presentation for a guarantee payment of any animal or carcase previously approved for certification or the use for breeding or milking of an approved animal".
Incidentally, it is rather amusing to read in the Explanatory Note that one can present a carcase for breeding.
562
I want to know whether the marking of cattle, sheep and pigs shows any alteration from the present practice. If it is the same, that is all right; but, under the present system, if one goes to the auction, the marked beasts are not marked until they have been through the ring. Any farmer can buy for breeding a heifer, for instance, which he thinks he would like to breed from, and, at the end of the sale of the animal, the auctioneer will instruct his servants not to mark the animal. Thus, there is freedom for the farmer, if he wishes, to breed from an animal which is submitted to auction for slaughter. He can buy it in the open market if he wishes to breed from it.
Is there any alteration? I am not absolutely dear from the wording of the Order, and I should like to preserve the freedom of the farmer to come in and buy in that way.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Godber: Perhaps I might deal in reverse order with the two or three points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) asked me about marking. As I understand, there is no change whatever in the system in relation to those marks. The confusion of marks, to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) referred, has caused some difficulty, as I think he knows, when farmers have used marks which could be genuinely confused with the official marks.
If I may I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman about the precise position in Wales. I should not like to give an answer off the cuff. I hope that we can persuade farmers not to use the type of mark which can lead to confusion of this sort. We have tried to be as helpful as possible on that, but there are certain cases where difficulties are caused and the farmer loses his right to payment if he cannot give adequate proof.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), was his usual generous self in the way in which he criticised us. We rather expect criticisms from him. They help, perhaps, to keep us on the mark. But I thought that the hon Gentleman would have been a little more bashful about eggs. I accept that there have been the criticisms of which he spoke, but for a member of a party which criticised us so much when we took eggs off the ration, which said that

563
eggs would go up to 1s. each, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been far more modest than to challenge us tonight. I have taken note of his criticisms. I assure him that I will give them all the attention that they deserve.
10.37 p.m.
Sir Archer Baldwin: I want to get clear the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). As I understood what he said, if a beast goes through the auction market and the buyer wants to retain that beast for breeding purposes, it does not have to be marked. That, of course, is not so because, otherwise, it would open up a tremendous avenue for fraud. If an animal goes through the fatstock ring and the owner receives a deficiency payment, that animal has to be marked. That point should be cleared up. No owner is going to allow his beast to be sold in the fatstock ring at a price very much below what he would get for slaughter. If a beast goes through the ring it is marked for slaughter. If it is bought by anybody and the subsidy is paid on it, it must be marked as soon as it leaves the ring. If the buyer wants to breed from it he has to make some arrangement with the vendor to see that the deficiency payment is paid from the buyer to the seller. If it goes through the ring and the vendor gets the subsidy it has to be marked.
Mr. Godber: If, in fact, it is certified for payment it must be marked. I do not think there is any confusion between us on that point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) for helping to clear it up.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 956), dated 11th June, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 957), dated 11th June, 1958 [copy laid before the House, 17th June], approved.—[Mr. Godber.]
Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 958), dated 11th June, 1958 [copy laid before the House, 17th June], approved.—[Mr. Godber.]

DEFENCE, WEST AFRICA
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
10.39 p.m.
Mr. George Wigg: Thirteen years ago when I was a new Member of the House, the focal point of the defence policy of the party opposite centred upon colonial defence. We had many debates upon the recruitment of colonial armies and no opportunity was lost by right hon. and hon. Members opposite to ventilate their doubts and fears about our colonial defence policy. Times have changed. In only one of the last two Defence White Papers, I believe, has there been any reference to colonial defence, and then only a passing reference.
I hold the view, the modern world being what it is, that the responsibility of Britain for the Colonial Territories is as great now as it was in 1945. Therefore, I have taken the opportunity to raise in this debate the question of defence policy in West Africa. The principle of Her Majesty's Government's policy is laid down in paragraph 26 of the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War Relating to the Army Estimates, 1957–58, Command Paper 150, which says:
"It is the policy of Tier Majesty's Government that these territories should assume responsibility for their own forces."
The Memorandum states that until 1956 Headquarters West Africa Command controlled and administered West African forces for the War Office. That meant the control of the military forces of Nigeria, the then Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and the Gambia, but on 1st July, 1956, Headquarters West Africa Command was abolished and each of the four Governments assumed responsibility for their own forces, with the assistance of a British adviser. On 6th March, 1957, Ghana becoming then a self-governing Dominion, all responsibility by Her Majesty's Government was severed, although there were left in Ghana about 400 British officers and N.C.O.s.
When the Ghana Independence Act was being debated, I took the opportunity to raise this issue and I think that we received a very good statement from the Secretary of State for the Colonies,

565
If I may say so without impertinence, it was a surprisingly liberal statement. It was a first-class statement which made the position clear. I therefore thought that the situation would develop in a way that would take due regard for economy and, at the same time, should trouble, unhappily, arise, enable likely situations to be met. However, we have learned since that the Ghana Government did not care for the arrangement for a British adviser, and now there is no possible means whereby there can be unification of training and one West African Dominion or Colony can come to the help of another. Each of the four areas has gone its separate way.
Therefore, a few weeks ago I put a Question on the Order Paper, based on a statement by the Secretary of State for War, for on 1st July this year Nigeria assumed responsibility for her own defence and control of her military forces, and on 1st January next Sierra Leone does likewise. Although I put the Question to the Secretary of State for War, and although it was based upon his Memorandum, I should point out that it was transferred, without any regard to my views, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I understand the technical reasons for that, but it is worthy of note that if hon. Members follow up this subject they will find all the material in statements by the War Office, in the Army Estimates for each year, and in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War. Nothing is published by the Colonial Office, nor has there been any statement by that Department.
I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War and asked that he should make a statement on the future of both the Nigerian and Sierra Leone forces. I have particularly in mind Nigeria. This is an area a third of the size of Europe, with 40 million people. I know from personal experience—I have served there—that from time to time internal security problems have arisen. I am also acutely aware, as any hon. Member who studies the problem must be, of the strategic and economic importance of the area.
It is not inappropriate, on the eve of the Cyprus debate, to think for a moment of what a future Gibbon will write about the decline and fall of the British Empire. We have 23 major units committed to
566
Cyprus at this moment, an area of no strategic or economic importance, yet we cannot spare 500 British officers and N.C.O.s for an area which is a third of the size of Europe. It is an astonishing situation. The future Gibbon may well think that we have "gone off our rocker."
I should like to pursue this point but I have not much time; I know I shall not be called upon to speak tomorrow, so I am taking the opportunity of mentioning it now. I am lost in astonishment when I look at the list of units in Cyprus—and likely to stay there for the next seven years—and then look at the situation in the other parts of the British Commonwealth.
I do not think that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was very well briefed. I can understand that. He is a peaceful man, and is caught up in peaceful ways, rightly. He begrudges every penny spent on defence. He needs to spend it upon health and education. However, I would remind him and the House—I am constantly reminding the House—that the exercise of sovereignty means the power to maintain law and order. One of the things I believe we have singularly failed to do is to teach those who are now taking responsibility for their own affairs the importance of this subject, because if one cannot maintain law and order one does not exercise sovereignty.
When I asked the right hon. Gentleman one or two not too searching supplementary questions, the Secretary of State for the Colonies brushed me off by saying that our old friend, Chief Festus, was coming to this country and was coming here to discuss the subject. I took the opportunity of meeting Chief Festus when he was here, and I was astonished to find that he had no military adviser. He had come here to discuss finance. It is true, of course, that colonial defence is now being seen purely in terms of £ s. d. That is the Sandys policy.
Let me give hon. Gentlemen an example. The Gambia Regiment was suddenly called together last December, and it was announced that it was to be disbanded—not quite "disbanded" but it was to be placed in suspended animation. The total strength at that time was 168 African other ranks, two British officers and four British n.c.os. Our contribution in terms of finance was £50,000.

567
Having taken their gratuities, those belonging to it were invited to join the new police force. By nearly the end of March, 82 other Africans had been recruited to the new police force. Then somebody, rightly, got the wind up and decided to recruit, so I am told, a mobile police force. The first question that I want to ask the hon. Gentleman is whether that police force in Gambia has been established, and if so, how much it has cost. If the hon. Gentleman is a little choosey about answering the question in precise terms, has it cost more than the £50,000 the Government set out to save by disbanding the Gambia Regiment?
Let us go back to the question of Nigeria. As I understand, the contribution of Her Majesty's Government has been tapered off until last year, in 1957–58, Her Majesty's Government were making a payment of just over £1 million. Chief Festus has come here and gone back with an offer from the Government of £1 million payable in two yearly instalments of £500,000. Let it be noted that the total effective troops in Nigeria—again I emphasise that it is a third of the size of Europe—comprise five battalions—one in Enugu, one in Ibadan, one in Abeokata and two in Kaduna. That force is small enough, but it has also practically no mobility at all and practically no services, and the total number of British officers and n.c.os. is about 500.
What will happen two years from now? It is obvious that the Nigerian Government begrudge every penny they spend on defence. I do not blame them for that. I blame Her Majesty's Government for not—I will not say "instructing"; "educating" is the better word—educating the African Ministers into the realities of the situation. Two years from now, when the final payment of £500,000 has been made, nothing more will be forthcoming. Be this noted: up to now Nigeria and Ghana have had a joint training establishment at Teshie, which was erected by the expenditure of British taxpayers' money. I do not begrudge a penny of it, and my guess is that it cost nearly £3 million
The Nigerian Government, most unwisely in my opinion, have decided to withdraw from Teshie. Would the Minister tell us what is taking its place in
568
Nigeria, how far plans are advanced and whether discussions have taken place with Chief Festus on what it will cost to have a comparable establishment inside Nigeria?
If hon. Members think I am exaggerating let them look at the facts. Here is Ghana, with a population of about 7 million, and Nigeria, with a population five or six times as great. Ghana has got four battalions and Nigeria five. Either Ghana has got too much or Nigeria has not got enough.
The thing that worries me is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. What does paragraph 26 of the Secretary of State for War's Memorandum of a year ago mean when it says:
"the policy of the Government is that these territories should assume responsibility for their own affairs"?
Are we washing our hands of it? Have we said to Ghana, "This is the end"? Have we completely put from ourselves any thought of what might happen if internal disorder arose which the Ghana or Nigerian Government could not handle?
These are very difficult and complex problems. If we look at the realities of the modern world, this is the kind of subject which ought to be put on the agenda for the Commonwealth Conference.
In Nigeria, there have been disorders in the last couple of years. In my soldiering years there were a great number of worries about what could happen in Nigeria. There has been some wild talk by African politicians. I am quite sure that it would be a major defeat for the idea of Western democracy if there was something near to chaos and we stood on the sidelines. What worries me is that with our commitments in the Arabian peninsula, Cyprus, and the fantastic defence policy of the present Minister of Defence—which, I trust before long will be reversed—we shall not be in a position to help and neither will the Nigerians.
I will be satisfied if the Minister will get up and say that whoever saw Chief Festus made perfectly clear what the consequences of independence were. I do not believe that the Nigerian Ministers have faced up to this situation. They are living in a dream world; they do not understand what can happen. They look

569
upon soldiers as rather picturesque symbols that one has on guard outside the Governor's house. They do not realise that in the modern world, even in highly developed civilised countries like ours, a battalion in Wellington Barracks, for instance, has a part to play, and that if such a force is needed here, or in Scandinavian countries, it is certainly needed in countries like Nigeria.
I want to give the Minister ample time to reply, but I must say that the one thing that distresses me almost as much as the decision about Teshie is the decision about the West African Army Advisory Council. I have said this before, and I repeat it; one of the most imaginative documents that I have read is Colonial 304. When the position arising from the training of African officers was looked at it was realised that we could not do it all, and the suggestion was that there should be an African Sandhurst, to which all the Commonwealth countries would make a contribution, by way of instructors, money and experience, and that there would be trained young men who would, in due course, take their place in their own armed forces.
I thought that this was a wonderful idea—but in the same Colonial Paper there was a statement about the African Advisory Council. It is absolutely vital that there should be a uniformity of doctrine in the matter of training, if not in operational procedure. But now, as I understand, the Council has also been put into a state of suspended animation. I want to be fair here; I appreciate the difficulties of Her Majesty's Government, which are very great. Ghana has taken the unwise step of withdrawing from the arrangement whereby a War Office adviser, or a senior Army officer, acted as adviser to the West African Governments.
I hope that the time will come when Dr. Nkrumah—who is a wise and farsighted man—will see the wisdom of such an arrangement, and that when the new constitution for Nigeria takes shape, and independence comes, the Nigerians will also see the advantage of a partnership between all the African countries and ourselves, with each playing its part. I have raised the matter tonight because I believe it to be important, and the Minister will be doing a great service to these countries if he indulges in plain speaking, as I have, as a means of making
570
his voice carry into Nigeria and Sierre Leone, so that the African Ministers there will understand that although there is a maximum of good will in this House it must be based on reality. We are willing to give the countries the benefit of our experience, but the African Ministers must face realities and not live in a dream world, as, I am afraid, they are inclined to do at present.
10.58 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised an extremely interesting and important subject tonight. I am grateful to him for the advance information he gave me of his intentions. I must at once be at variance with him, however. He told the House that he thought that a future Gibbon might write about the decline and fall of the British Empire, and think that some of us were "off our rockers" because of the things that we had done. I do not accept that theory; I think that a future Gibbon would certainly think that anyone was "off his rocker" if he thought that there was to be a decline and fall of the British Empire. I am sure that, far from breaking up, the British Empire is growing up. It is growing up in Africa—and perhaps faster there than anywhere else.
The first thing I want to do is to tell the hon. Member that the military forces in West Africa, whose main function since 1955 has been that of internal security and local defence, are not the only means by which the three Governments in West Africa carry out their responsibility for law and order. In Nigeria, there are 10,717 police and 2,650 auxiliary police; in Sierra Leone, 1,737 police and 394 auxiliaries; and in the Gambia, 276 police and 69 auxiliaries. The duty of the military forces is to support the police in the event of internal security disturbances; as those of Sierra Leone did, of course, in the Kono riots in September, 1957. The responsibility for the use and operational control of the police is vested in the Governor-General of Nigeria and the Governors of the other territories.
Having regard to the fact that the function of the local forces is internal security and local defence, and to political developments that have taken and are taking place in West Africa, I myself am convinced it is right that

571
local forces should no longer be administered and controlled by the War Office but should revert to local control as was the position before the last war. Because there has been that change I find myself at this Box this evening and not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
As the hon. Member knows, in July, 1956, the Gold Coast, as it was then called, assumed control of, and full financial responsibility for, her forces. In Nigeria, military forces passed into local control on 1st April last, and Sierra Leone has agreed in principle to assume control as from 1st January, 1959. In the Gambia it was decided that a special police force of 100 men, in addition to the 276 which I have mentioned, would be raised and trained in a manner similar to that of the Gambia Regiment, rather than to continue to run the independent company—about 150 strong—and the regiment was, therefore, placed in suspended animation in December, 1957.
As a corollary to this reorganisation, West Africa Command ceased to exist on 1st July, 1956, as the hon. Member himself mentioned. What this now means in terms of the Royal West African Frontier Force is that it is in three separate commands for Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Thus, there are now in West Africa the five battalions of the Nigeria military forces, totalling about 7,000 officers and men, and the Sierra Leone Battalion, totalling about 1,700 officers and men. All in all, therefore, there are over 20,000 members of the security forces, police and Army combined.
Political developments in West Africa have, of course, affected the various military institutions and organisations in West Africa which were established during and after the last war to provide common services for the West African Governments. The West African Army Advisory Council was set up in 1954 as the civil counterpart to the West Africa Command. It was a body composed of Ministers and officials and its functions were to advise the West African Governments on matters affecting their military forces, and to keep under review measures to further West African military co-operation. It was specifically set up to provide a means of contact
572
between the four Governments and West Africa Command, and on the disappearance of West Africa Command the local Governments asked for—and this is the point, they themselves asked for—the appointment of a Military Adviser to assist them in the co-ordination of defence matters. This appointment took place in 1956.
The four Governments also co-operated in running the West African Military Training School at Teshie, in Ghana, to provide technical and advanced training for all four West African Land Forces. The costs of this school were entirely borne by the West African Governments, the main share, 50 per cent., being paid by Nigeria and 40 per cent. by Ghana. In recent years the yearly cost has been about £150,000.
Now, these arrangements had to undergo some change when Ghana achieved independence. The Ghana Government gave notice of withdrawal from the West African Army Advisory Council a year ago, and this will take effect in five days' time. It also gave similar notice about the arrangements for the Military Adviser. The Military Training School has, since the departure of the Military Adviser in February, 1958, been operating under a joint board.
Nigeria now wishes to establish its own military training school, as the hon. Member surmises, and is proposing to build one at Kaduna at a cost of £200,000, of which £92,000 is to be spent this year. Nigeria therefore proposes to withdraw from the arrangements for Teshie as from 1st April, 1960.
We have contributed to these forces considerably in the past and at the Constitutional Conference held in London in May and June, 1957, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary promised that if a case were made out after the transfer of control, Her Majesty's Government would consider sympathetically the continuance of financial aid but on a diminishing basis.
I think that at that conference, which took a very long time and which was very thorough, the people who came to London from Africa had a good idea of the consequences of independence. At any rate, last month the Finance Minister for the Federation of Nigeria, Chief Festus, who came here to discuss the extent of future assistance by Her

573
Majesty's Government, gratefully accepted on behalf of the Nigerian Government, a proposal by Her Majesty's Government under which an amount of £1 million in all will be made available over the years 1958–59 and 1959–60, subject to the approval of Parliament in the usual way. After that no further contribution would arise.
The fact that Nigeria will have to meet a substantial extra bill in the current year is fully appreciated. On an estimated cost of the forces of £3¼ million it looks as though the total extra cost over the 1957–58 figure which will fall in the first instance on Nigeria will be about £1,400,000. But Nigerian finances are sound, and my right hon. Friend does consider that the agreement implements fairly the undertaking which was given at the London Conference of 1957, and it has been received in that sense by the Federal Government, by Chief Festus and by the Federal Prime Minister.
In making this assistance available there is, of course, no question of washing our hands of ultimate responsibility for the law and order of the West African territories, so long as my right hon. Friend remains answerable to this House for Nigeria, Sierra Leone or the Gambia. There are plans, of course, for the reinforcement of each of these territories in the event of trouble arising which it is beyond the capacity of the local security forces to contain.
I am assured that the forces which might be requested to reinforce Nigeria are available from the central reserve, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said in the Report on Defence (Command 363), is maintained in the United Kingdom and is supported by an adequate fleet of aircraft. These can carry reinforcements rapidly to Nigeria, Sierra Leone or the Gambia. It would be neither appropriate nor usual to offer assistance of this kind once a territory had achieved independence.
I hope that what I have said will assure the hon. Member for Dudley that
574
these arrangements have not been undertaken in any spirit of hurry or without very profound thought being given to them by my Department, the Ministry of Defence, the War Office and the Air Ministry. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is here tonight.
It has to be recognised that when these countries advance towards independence one must accept that if they are to be responsible for internal security the Minister must give them what he feels they require, so long as he keeps fundamental control and we are satisfied that there is an adequate reserve. In the past these forces had two roles to serve: that of internal security and an imperial role, and, therefore, they required more armed forces and more control from here than now that the basic job will be internal security.
We are satisfied that they are taking the opportunity of looking after their own affairs, but that, at the same time, we have the forces necessary to back them up if extreme danger arises. We are also satisfied that they are, by and large, able to shoulder the burden of financial responsibility which must fall on their shoulders when they assume these responsibilities for themselves.
If the hon. Member for Dudley, with his considerable knowledge, has any further qualms about this, or feels that things are going too fast or not quite right, no one will be more ready to listen to him than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I can assure him that we do realise the responsibility that still exists in this matter.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Rocket Missiles
  Rocket Missiles
  ADEN PROTECTORATE (FRONTIER)
  ADEN PROTECTORATE (FRONTIER)
EMPLOYMENT
  Pre-Apprenticeship Courses, Coatbridge and Lanarkshire
  Pre-Apprenticeship Courses, Coatbridge and Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  West Riding
  West Riding
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Feltham and Hounslow
  Aircraft and Radio Industries
  Aircraft and Radio Industries
  School Leavers (Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley)
  School Leavers (Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley)
  First-Aid in Factories Order (Revised Draft)
  First-Aid in Factories Order (Revised Draft)
BRITISH ARMY
  Service Men, Christmas Island (Medical Care)
  Service Men, Christmas Island (Medical Care)
POST OFFICE
  Mail Train, Kings Cross—Dundee
  Mail Train, Kings Cross—Dundee
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Ivanhoe Exchange, Chigwell
  Ivanhoe Exchange, Chigwell
  Overseas Calls (Transferred Charges)
  Overseas Calls (Transferred Charges)
  West Riding
  West Riding
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  West Highlands and Islands
  West Highlands and Islands
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Chaplains, Christmas Island
  Chaplains, Christmas Island
  United States Military Aircraft (Accidents)
  United States Military Aircraft (Accidents)
  Wickersby Airfield
  Wickersby Airfield
  Works Area, Exeter
  Works Area, Exeter
TRANSPORT
  Working Hours (Staggering)
  Working Hours (Staggering)
  European Conference of Ministers of Transport
  European Conference of Ministers of Transport
  Licensing Authority Reports (Annual Summaries)
  Licensing Authority Reports (Annual Summaries)
  Light Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Light Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
RAILWAYS
  Midland and Great Northern Line
  Midland and Great Northern Line
ROADS
  Major Road Improvements (Expenditure)
  Major Road Improvements (Expenditure)
  Selby Bridge (Toll Rights)
  Selby Bridge (Toll Rights)
SCOTLAND
  Farms, Lanark (Land Drainage)
  Farms, Lanark (Land Drainage)
EDUCATION
  University Students' Grants (Committee)
  University Students' Grants (Committee)

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

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the various expressions of opinion by prison officers, benches of magistrates and Her Majesty's Judges, together with at least one debate in this House, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the reintroduction of corporal punishment for certain offences should now be further considered.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that any adequate grounds exist for reversing the legislation of 1948 which implemented the recommendation of an Interdepartmental Committee in 1938 that corporal punishment should be abolished as a judicial penalty or that any useful purpose would be served by holding a further similar inquiry. In their view the most useful form of inquiry at this stage is an analysis and study of the crimes of violence in order to obtain a clearer idea of the nature and scope of the increase in such crimes recorded in the statistics. The Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge University is working on crimes of violence in the Metropolitan Police District, and we are confident that their report will prove a valuable contribution to the study of the problem.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I be allowed to ask the noble and learned Viscount how many more women have got to be attacked, how many more "Teddy-boy" outrages have got to take place, before somebody in Cambridge will be convinced that it is about time we did something to restore corporal punishment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Earl's question is a consideration of what the problem is. I wanted to spare your Lordships figures, but I think I ought to give them in view of the importance of the matter. As I said, legislation was passed in 1948 abolishing flogging. That legislation was based on the conclusions of the Cadogan Committee which reported in 1938 and those conclusions were fully discussed in Parliament. Before 1948, the only offences of importance for which corporal punishment was available for adults were offences under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916ߞthat is, robbery while armed, robbery in company with others, and robbery with violence. The number of offences in this category known to the police decreasedߞI repeat, decreasedߞfrom 1948 to 1955, and in 1956 they were still below the 1948 figure. The 1948 figure was 978 and that in 1956 was 730. That was at a time when other crimes increased.
If it is suggested that flogging should be introduced as a penalty for sexual offences, it should be remembered that corporal punishment has not been available as a penalty for the great majority of offences of this kind since 1861, and that the Inter-departmental Committee reported that all the most experienced witnesses who gave evidence before them agreed in regarding corporal punishment as a specially unsuitable penalty for sexual offences.
With regard to the other point of the noble Earlߞthe suggested reintroduction of birching for juveniles—noble Lords will recollect that the Committee of 1938 based their recommendations against corporal punishment for juveniles on the practice of the more experienced juvenile courts which, by 1938, had abandoned birching because they found it less effective than other methods. They drew a clear distinction between corporal punishment as a judicial penalty and immediate corporal punishment administered in the home or the, school by a person in a direct personal relationship with the child. Since then the range of penalties and remedies other than corporal punishment bas been greatly extended. If, however, noble Lordsߞand this applies to my noble friendߞconsider that there are reasons to depart from the recommendations of the 1938 Committee and the present law, they might care to bring

179
their views to the notice of the Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, whose terms of reference cover the powers of the courts in respect of juvenile delinquency. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ingleby, and his colleagues, would be delighted to hear the evidence of the noble Earl.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I again intrude by asking the noble and learned Viscount whether he will select a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in which the Lord Chief Justice and four other Judges of the High Court said in this House that they considered that corporal punishment should be reintroduced? Would he please see that the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate is at the disposal of Lord Ingleby?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ingleby will consider that. I hope, without due presumption, he will also consider a speech that I made as Home Secretary on a Private Bill in the House of Commons to reintroduce flogging, when I dealt with it from the point of view of the person responsible for law and order in this country.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he is aware that we on this side of the House welcome the steps that have been taken for a proper and scientific examination of statistical records in this matter. We shall await the findings with due interest. We are also greatly obliged for the really steady statistical evidence which the noble and learned Viscount has produced to the House to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I am sure that his views will also be brought to the attention of the appropriate Committee.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether the situation has not changed a little since the innocent private citizen has not been allowed to be in a position to defend himself with any weapon at all? It is only the criminal who carries a weapon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I want to consider that point very
180
carefully. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Saltoun has put it quite accurately with regard to England, although my knowledge of Scottish law is inferior to his. There was the great offence of hamesucken, as he knows, and I should have thought that inability to use any weapon is putting the position rather high. But I should like to consider that matter carefully. It is rather a different point.
LORD SALTOUN: I was referring to the Prevention of Crime Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord has in mind, but I myself introduced the Bill which passed through Parliament and made it a criminal offence to be found in possession of an offensive weaponߞthat is, from the standpoint of the criminal. But I should like to consider the matter. I would not assent without grave consideration to the general proposition that it is impossible to use at any rate certain means of defence appropriate to the situation in which the person attacked finds himself.

AIRCRAFT AND MAINTENANCE CARRIERS
2.39 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to scrap the following aircraft and maintenance carriers: "Unicorn", "Warrior", "Perseus", "Theseus", "Ocean" and "Glory"; why no mention of this was made in the discussions on the Navy Estimates; whether it is intended to explain the reasons for so drastic a step to Parliament; and whether these ships could not have been retained as emergency transports for all three Services.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for providing the opportunity for me to dispel any doubts which may remain following upon our debate on the Navy Estimates. The carriers "Unicorn", "Perseus", "Theseus", "Ocean" and "Glory" were laid down before or during the war and have not subsequently been

181
brought up to date to meet modern requirements. They are now surplus to the requirements of the Royal Navy, and if they cannot otherwise be disposed of, they will be scrapped. The "Warrior" has been partially modernised and was in service up to December last. We are willing to sell her, as she is surplus to our immediate requirements, and she is remaining in reserve for the time being.
Your Lordships will recall that during the course of our debate on the Navy Estimates I explained in general terms the decision to reduce the size of the Reserve Fleet. I did not enumerate the ships affected because I was under the impression that this information had become generally known through my last two Explanatory Statements on the Navy Estimates and through replies to questions in Parliament.
The reasons I gave for the reduction in the Reserve Fleet were, briefly, that these ships and their equipment would be very expensive to modernise, and that the large sums of money needed to maintain ships in reserve at the requisite degree of readiness is better spent on keeping more ships in the Active Fleet. These factors apply with special force to aircraft carriers, which are useless if they cannot keep pace with the rapid developments in the aircraft. We have not overlooked the advantages of keeping one or two carriers for the transport rôole, but it is expensive in money and manpower to maintain them in reserve as such. I can assure the noble Earl that this question will not in any way be prejudiced by the proposal to scrap the ships that I have mentioned above.
EARL HOWE: My Lords while thanking the noble Earl for his comprehensive Answer, may I ask him whether I am not right in thinking that H.M.S. "Warrior" has been twice refitted in recent years and presumably, therefore, may be considered to be an efficient unit of the Fleet? Might I also ask whether, as we have no further aircraft carriers building, it might not be a good thing to retain H.M.S. "Warrior," at least for a period, to see what we can do about it, as without that carrier our aircraft carrier strength is very small?
LORD LAWSON: Before the noble Earl answers, may I ask him, in regard to H.M.S. "Warrior," whether it is not a
182
dangerous practice to sell to our enemies a ship of this description, which may some day be turned against us?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not the details of recent refits of H.M.S. "Warrior," but she was in good condition last December. The real point is that she is not fully modernised and a great deal of money would be required to bring her up to the point where she could be of real value to modern aircraft. We are, of course, building the carrier "Hermes" and she will be a very fine carrier. En reply to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I would say that he is perfectly right. We exercise very great care in disposing of ships overseas and it is normal to inform Parliament when we do so. I can assure noble Lords that these sales are made only in cases where we are quite certain that they are desirable.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, first, whether he is aware that he has brought more doleful news to the House of Lords today? We had understood, in the debate on the Navy Estimates and from the White Paper, that carriers were now to be the core of the Royal Navy. Will the noble Earl first tell us whether the "Leviathan" is to be completed as well as the Hermes"? And will he give us the dates of the first commissioning of most of these ships, which were in my own programme during the war? They are modern in design and well capable of conversion for effective task force service with far less expenditure than would be involved in building another six or seven carriers; and without them we shall still be ineffectively armed.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:My Lords, before the noble Earl the First Lord answers, may I ask whether, before it was decided to scrap these carriers for the presentߞI believe the words used by the first Lord were that they were useless at the present momentߞit was known to be a fact that these ships could not be used for convoys. Is it very much good keeping two ships for convoys if we cannot get six for convoys? When this decision was taken, was consideration given to what might be the future loss owing to lack of protection which these ships could

183
give, not only to the passengers and crews of ships, but to the ships themselves, and to cargoes of oil, raw materials and food? Is this not an extraordinarily bad time, when we live under the threat of war, drastically to reduce the protection of convoys?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask a further question? The noble Earl has stated that these ships were surplus to our requirements. Is he aware that the Supreme Allied Commander of N.A.T.O. recently stated that he was extremely concerned about the inadequacy of ships in the Western Atlantic to deal with convoys and submarines?
THE EARL, OF SELKIRK: My Lords I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, the dates when these ships were first commissioned. I imagine that some of them go back to 1944, 1945 and 1946. But as the noble Viscount is well aware, the development in carriers since that date has been of a remarkable character, so that ships built then are now completely out of date. The nature of the modernisation necessary to enable these ships to be used as carriers to-day would be very expensiveߞthe cost would run into millions. That is really the answer also to the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery; but I feel it right that I should explain that we would rather spend the money available on new ships and new equipment, and we do not want to spend more than is absolutely essential on either the extended or the less extended Reserve. We feel that it would be wrong to do so.
We have therefore decidedߞand I believe this is right—to spend what resources we have on modern ships and modern equipment. For this reason we are not proposing at the present time to complete H.M.S. "Leviathan." I believe that that is also the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. We have to keep ships which are ready and immediately available in the Active Fleet. If these ships were retained in the extended Reserve, it would be months before they could be brought out in emergency. It is not felt that that is at all a valuable way of expending our resources at the present time. It is better to have a fully-equipped carrier
184
which we can use quickly, rather than carriers which can be used only after a period of months, and possibly years.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, probably the noble Earl, during his period of office, has authorised the spending of a lot of money in refitting H.M.S. "Warrior," for I know that she has been refitted twice. Surely that ship must be capable of further service. If she were not, it would not be an economic proposition to try to sell her to somebody else. Surely if we are not going to complete the "Leviathan" it is better to have a carrier like the "Warrior," which could be of service to the Fleet, rather than nothing at all—which is what the noble
Earl's answer amounts to.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords might I add this? The noble Earl the First Lord says that he has the ships which are required and essential; but he has not. I very much doubt whether the opinion of the Admiralty, if it were known, is that we have the ships which are essential. But, as was mentioned from the Opposition Benches, we have evidence—we have been told by responsible officers, by American Admirals and by our ownߞthat we have not got the ships. As for replacing them with the money available, there is no sign yet of a nuclear Navy. Surely it is better to keep what we have and can make use of, rather than to have nothing at all.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I say this—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if my noble friend does not mind my saying so, it is not a question of saying: this is Question time, and we must not turn it into a debate.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, then may I ask this question? Although these ships that have been mentioned may in their present state be quite unsuitable for use as Fleet carriers, might it not be possible to bring them quickly to such a state of readiness that they would be most useful as escort carriers for escorting convoys across the Atlantic and elsewhere?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not think that that is correct. I

185
think that an escort carrier to-day would require, with modern aircraft, pretty advanced equipment in the carrier itself. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, would, I gather, like a full debate on the subject—
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Very much.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: ߞand there is no reason at all why he should not put down a Motion to discuss it. But he has raised a big question, which was dealt with in the course of the debate on the Navy Estimates which we had recently. I really do not think that I can satisfy him this afternoon, and it would need a great deal more time to explain all that is involved. The question is, is he prepared or does the country want to spend very much larger sums of money on defence than at the present time? If the noble Lords opposite will say that they do, then I will bear the point in mind. As I am placed, I must say that I ant convinced that the right thing is to spend our resources on first-class modern equipment and not on keeping vast quantities in reserve.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that statement is capable of being dealt with only in a debateߞand we should be quite willing to deal with it in a debate? What I am concerned about is this: is no Government in this country going to learn in time that we should have lost the last war in the first two years of the war if we had not had a substantial Reserve Fleet which had been maintained? Even then we had quickly to give a ninety-nine years' lease on our valuable possessions in the West Indies in order to get fifty old destroyers to try to meet the situation. Will the Government never learn?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Viscount has said, and I would say only this to him. There are two accusations that are always made against the Defence Departments. One is that they are fighting a future war in terms of the last war, and the other is that they are trying to fight a future war without regard to the past. They are the two observations that are always thrown at one, and the only thing to do is to try to take a lesson from both, and that is what we are proposing to do.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it proposed to scrap all the work that has been done on the "Leviathan"?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No; the "Leviathan" is there. The noble Viscount may be aware that the Indian Navy has taken over the "Hercules", which is a similar ship, and she is now being completed by the Indian Navy.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY'S JUBILEE
2.54 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to move to resolve. That this House congratulates the Territorial Army on the Jubilee of its foundation which falls within the present year; acknowledges the magnificent record of the Territorial Army in peace and war; appreciates the importance of the contribution of the Territorial Army to national defence; declares its warm and abiding interest in the welfare of the Territorial Army; and expresses the confidence of this House in the desire and ability of all ranks of the Territorial Army always to carry out to the full the arduous duties which may be imposed upon them. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason I have put this Resolution on the Order Paper to-day is that I thought it was desirable that there should be a debate, culminating, I hope, in an agreed Resolution, on the Territorial Army, to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. During the past week there have been a number of functions in celebration of this anniversary, culminating with a review last Sunday by Her Majesty the Queen of representatives of the Territorial Army in Hyde Park; and I should have thought it wrong if during this week in neither House of Parliament had there been any debate or mention of this fiftieth anniversary. I am very pleased indeed that so many noble Lords have intimated their intention of speaking in this debate, which I am quite sure will be of great gratification to the Territorial Army as a whole.
The genesis of the Territorial Army, as your Lordships know, was this. When Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman formed his Government towards the end of 1905 he offered Mr. Haldane (as he then was)

187
the post of Attorney-General. Mr. Haldane refused it, and, much to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's surprise, asked for the War Officeߞmuch to his surprise, because the Prime Minister said that at that time "no one would touch it with a pole". Mr. Haldane, being of Scottish race and having a considerable knowledge of German philosophy, went into first principles and consulted Clausewitz, Bronsart von Schellendorff, Von Der Goltz. Yorck von Wartenburg, and the Frenchman, Ardant du Picq, whose works were not at that time one imagines, common reading among British Army officers. As a result of his studies, combined with a consideration of the report of the Esher Committee and the advice of military advisers, Mr. Haldane concluded that among other necessities there was required an expeditionary force of six infantry divisions and at least one cavalry division, and a second line to meet the needs of expansion in war and for home defence. This last was the genesis of the Territorial Army.
A large Bill was prepared, and perhaps we as Parliamentarians might be interested to know that this was the first time that there had ever been an agreed timetable for the passage of a Bill. Mr. Haldane saw Mr. Balfour and the Marquess of Lansdowne, and agreed with them a timetable; and by so doing he was able to get the Bill agreed by the Liberal Cabinet, who were not all very much inclined to it, and it became law. It only remains to be said that a few years later, as a reward for this and other outstanding services to his country, Lord Haldane was hounded out of public life as a pro-German and a potential enemy to this country.
My Lords, in peace and in two world wars the Territorial Army has rendered invaluable service to its King and country. It has depended, particularly so far as officers and non-commissioned officers are concerned, on years of loyal, devoted and, in the main, in peace time at all events, unpaid service. This has called for a great deal of sacrificeߞsacrifice of time, money, leisure and holidays. But the Territorial Army has depended entirely upon esprit de corps, upon enthusiasm and upon colour. It has fostered comradeship; and it has depended to a large extent, or to some extent at all events,
188
upon the social opportunities offered to its members. The link between the Territorial Army and the Regular Army has always been of first importance, I think, to both the Regulars and the Territorials; and it is perhaps significant that, prior to the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff, both the former holders of that post (one of whom we are glad to note is to speak to-day) started their military careers in the Territorial Army; and, in fact, the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff spent some years as a staff officer in the 53rd Division.
There was one piece of history of the Territorial Army which is rather significant at the moment, in view of some of the proposals which are made for it, and that is that in 1938, at the time of Munich, part of the Territorial Army was embodied or mobilised when the Regular Army was not. This is a piece of history that I have never seen mentioned in any of the works on that event, and I should have thought it was a matter which might have received at least a footnote to history. At the end of the war the Territorial Army changed in its personnel; it had then a hard core of Regulars and volunteers, and over the years National Servicemen were drafted into it; and of course their outlook was bound to be very different from that of traditional volunteers. But the identity of the units was preserved, as well as a good deal of the spirit. Now, with the ending of National Service, at all events in the near future, the old status is being revived and the Territorial Army is again becoming a purely voluntary force, assisted by a certain number of officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers seconded from the Regular Army.
We are told that the rôole of the Territorial Army is to provide a reserve of trained manpower, and its tasks include home defence in total war (this is what the White Paper on Defence, paragraph 58, describes them to be); secondly, to bring Regular units up to strength (that is what the Memorandum on the Army Estimates, paragraph 48, describes them to be); thirdly, to provide support of the Regular Army overseas in limited wars, including two divisions earmarked for N.A.T.O.; and, fourthly, to undertake important Civil Defence commitments. As your Lordships will see, these tasks are

189
to some extent incompatible, as The Times pointed out this week in a leading article. It is difficult to organise the Territorial Army for a Civil Defence rôole if at the same time it has to be organised as a fighting formation ready to go overseas to support the Regular Army.
I was perturbed about the second task, that of bringing Regular units up to strength, because it may well have an adverse effect on the Territorial Army esprit de corps. People join certain regiments and battalions in peace time with the idea of serving together in peace time and, so far as practicable, serving together in war time, too; and to think of the Territorial Army, as the Memorandum on the Army Estimates seems to imply, being broken up to supply drafts for Regular units, would be unfortunate. To carry out these tasks, bearing in mind that we shall soon have only fifty battalions of Regular infantry and twenty regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps, and that there are now only four Regular brigades in the United Kingdom central strategic reserve, the Territorial Army has an authorised strength of ten infantry divisions, the Northern. Ireland Brigade Group, the 44th Parachute Brigade Group and two Armoured Groups. Its establishment is 300,000 men, which, I understand, it is hoped may be reached in two bounds-50 per cent. by 1962 and 100 per cent. by 1963.
Within the framework of the picture that I have tried to paint of the present position of the Territorial Army, I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply several questions, of which I have given him notice. Would he give the House the latest figures for recruiting and say what is the trend? Are the Government aware that the quality of the Territorial Army must never be sacrificed to quantity? Would the noble Lord inform the House of the significance of the announcement made in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place yesterday with regard to the commissioning of Territorial Army Officers after the ending of National Service? It seems curious that just before a debate in this House an obviously inspired Written Question and Answer should be given in another place on an important topic such as this.
What are the plans of the Government in the field of annual training? Do the Government realise that, while annual
190
training must be interesting from a military point of view, in many cases it will be the only holiday that officers and men may have, and that, from time to time at all events, it is desirable that units do their training near holiday resorts? I believe that there need be no lapse in military efficiency. Just before the war, in 1938, in my own infantry brigade, when we were in camp outside a holiday resort, I asked the Chief Staff Officer how far our brigade, the South Wales Infantry Brigade, was behind a Regular brigade, and he said six weeks. So it is possible to camp near an attractive resort and to be militarily efficient as well.
I should also like to ask the Government whether they realise the importance of colour. I imagine they do not, after the review on Sunday. All who saw the review were impressed by the military bearing of those who took part. I am sorry that the torrential rain marred it to some extent, from the point of view of spectacle, though it certainly did not affect the enthusiasm of those who took part. Is it true that the uniforms of the men and women who were on parade, were, like Cinderella's clothes at twelve o'clock, "whipped off" them immediately afterwards and taken back into store for the Regular Army? I imagine that the fairy godmothers will have a job in cleaning up some of the uniforms after the soaking they received. But really it is rather ridiculous. The "Number ones," the band, colours and all the colour of the Territorial Army are vital. The country is getting the Territorial Army cheap enough, and it need not be mean as well as careful.
Will suitable jobs be available to Territorial Army senior officers? At the beginning of the scheme it was contemplated that Territorial Army officers should be eligible for senior posts, such as divisional and brigade commanders. It has not turned out like that. I realise full well that perhaps in most cases officers suitable from the military point of view may not be able to accept senior posts because of their civilian commitments; but where they are able to do so it would be as well to carry out the original intention of those who formed the Territorial Army. The famous case in point is that of Sir John Brown, who was recommended by his predecessor to be divisional commander at the end of

191
the '20s and was turned down on the ground that the post had to go to a Regular officer. Sir John Brown did not become a divisional commander, and in fact did not become a major-general for ten years, when he became a Staff Officer in the War Office.
Then we should like to know something about the Women's Service. We were all impressed with their turn-out on Sunday. Are arms, equipment, drill-halls and vehicles of the Territorial Army being brought up to modern standards? This is a pertinent question because we know that even Regular Army units of the Army of the Rhine have not modern equipment. Of course, there is a migration of population nowadays, with new towns going up, and it may be that new drill-halls should be built in them. I should also like to know whether it is the case that the armoured regiments have only worn-out Comet tanks.
On Saturday night last the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Templer, said:
" The Territorial Army is the best and cheapest insurance policy that any country ever had."
I think that the Government and the country must be prepared to pay an adequate premium for that insurance policy. Are annual retainers going to be adequate in view of the cost of living and present-day expenses? According to the Daily Telegraph yesterday and to-day, the grant for out-of-camp training is to be reduced. Yesterday the Daily Telegraph said it was to be reduced by 25 per cent., but to-day the position seems to have altered a little and it is obscure. I think your Lordships would like to know from the noble Lord what the situation is. My own experience is that week-end training, particularly for artillery, is essential, and if this decision is confirmed it means that there is going to be a great cut in week-end training, which will give cause for disquiet. In any case it is an odd epilogue to all the tributes deservedly paid this last week to the Territorial Army by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War, and other members of the Government, that this cut in training grant should be made at this particular moment ߞor at any moment.
These are all the questions I have. There is a large number of speakers and
192
I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer. I would say that any criticisms I have made are not criticisms of the Territorial Army or its members, but of the Government, who are responsible for them, and of the War Office, which is the agent of the Government. My views on the Territorial Army are adequately expressed in my Resolution, the terms of which have been carefully drawn. They represent not only my feelings and those of my noble friends on this side of the House, but also, I am sure, the feelings of noble Lords in all parts of the House. I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That this House congratulates the Territorial Army on the Jubilee of its foundation which falls within the present year; acknowledges the magnificent record of the Territorial Army in peace and war; appreciates the importance of the contribution of the Territorial Army to national defence; declares its warm and abiding interest in the welfare of the Territorial Army; and expresses the confidence of this House in in the desire and ability of all ranks of the Territorial Army always to carry out to the full the arduous duties which may be imposed upon them.ߞ(Lord Ogmore.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in the line he has taken in this debate, because I, and I imagine many of your Lordships, interpreted the Motion as being one of rather formal but nevertheless very sincere congratulation to and admiration of the Territorial Army. Therefore I am not proposing to go into technical questions as if this were a White Paper debate on the Territorial Forces, though I am sure we shall all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, if he answers the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and particularly whether he can confirm the rumour, which I had not heard before, that Cinderella's clothes were stripped off and given to the Regular Army.
In the general arrangement of your Lordships' House, it is surprising how, when names come out of the hat, there seems to be a speaker from each of the three political Parties in the first three places. This, it seems to me, is not in any sense a political debate, yet the same

193
thing has happened; and I must confess that I sometimes find it a little frustrating always to bat second wicket down, when my most telling points have been put to the House much more efficiently and cleverly by batsman No. 1 from the Benches opposite and batsman No. 2 from the Benches on my left. But no political issue arises here. There is nothing political about the Territorial Army, because it exists far above any national or even world politics as a fine example of what can be achieved by companionship, patriotism, self-sacrifice and working together. It does not matter whether the Party in power is the Liberal Party, as in 1914, or the Conservative Party, as in 1939, or possibly the Labour Party at some future date when, Heaven forbid! some further threat comes to our shores ߞand when I say, "Heaven forbid!" I refer to the threat of war and not to the advent of a Labour Government.
Since I am on the matter of politics, and as they are divorced from the Territorial Army, I must say that the Party I have the honour to represent here is admittedly the Party which has advocated a reduction of arms and armaments and destructive weapons to a near-minimum rather than to an over-maximum. We were, indeed, unpopular with those people known as "Jingoes" in the Boer war for our criticism of some of the Government policies; but we had no criticism of the gallant Volunteers (as they were then) who went out to fight for our country. Later we were called "Little Englanders" and "Little Navymen". Looking back to the size of the "little Navy" which the Liberal Party advocated fifty years ago, and comparing it with the size of the Navy which was debated a few minutes ago in your Lordships' House, it was not perhaps so little as it may have seemed at the time.
I am not going to keep your Lordships longer. I merely want to pay tribute from these Benches to the magnificent and. heroic record of the Territorial Force and Territorial Army, both men and women, for what they have done in the past and for their reliability in the future, which means so much and is impossible to overrate. Nuclear developments have changed the general military pattern, but this spirit of the Territorial Army of willingness and comradeship, of friend working alongside friend, remains, and will always, I am sure, have
194
a valued place. It is patriotism in the best classical sense, as opposed to narrow nationalism in its bad modern connotation. With a full heart I support this Motion, couched in such warm terms as it is, and I have every confidence that it will be supported in every quarter of your Lordships' House.
3.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome this debate. We hope that the House will see fit to pass with enthusiasm this Resolution, which is couched in such resounding terms and which was moved in such an acceptable way by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and seconded in his usual charming and quizzical way by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Your Lordships' House in general, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. in particular, have always shown a keen interest in the Territorial Army. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is most fitting that a debate such as this should form part of the Jubilee celebrations of the Territorial Army which culminated in the splendid parade in Hyde Park on Sunday. A Force that can survive that last ten minutes of flaming June weather can tackle anything! I am, however, credibly informed that the sight of practically the whole of the Army Council standing drenched to the skin had a most salutary effect on the morale of the entire parade.
This debate has attracted a remarkable list of speakers. We welcome four new recruits, including, I am happy to say, one of the few Territorials ever to reach the rank of Field Marshal. It is particularly pleasing to me that the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, should, by serving in the Finsbury Rifles which he first joined, have been a member of the same division which I joined, the 1st London Division. After that, the similarity between our military careers ends abruptly. I am intervening in the debate now to deal with one or two of the more important points which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has raised. My noble friend, Lord Bathurst, will wind up at the end of the debate to deal with the many other points which no doubt your Lordships will raise. Here we shall have the advantage of being able to listen at the conclusion of the

195
debate to one, in the person of my noble friend, Lord Bathurst, who is still a serving T.A. officer; indeed, he took part in last Sunday's parade and, some of us thought, did not march too badly for a cavalry officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has raised the important question of the real status and importance of the Territorial Army. May I remind your Lordships of some of the observations of Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer, the C.I.G.S., on this subject recently? He said this:
" The Territorial Army is the Army's trained fighting reserve. A reserve is for use against the unexpected and the unexpected usually happens. That is why it would be folly to say exactly how or where the T.A. will be used in the event of war, but I can say that the T.A. is a vital part of our fighting organisation, ready for any eventuality probable or improbable."
There is no need in your Lordships' House to emphasise the impossibility of foretelling the nature of any future war. Prophecies on the nature and the course of previous wars have invariably proved wrong and now to-day there are more unknown factors than ever. For this reason it is more difficult than ever to predict the nature and course of any future war. This causes me to emphasise the difficulty and the unwisdom of trying to forecast the precise role of any reserve force.
I think I can sum up the Territorial Army's role in this way. It involves two main tasks. The first is to form the nation's reserve of armed and disciplined manpower trained to fight in any emergency, foreseen or unforeseen. As the Army shrinks to an all-Regular strength of about 165,000, so the importance of this role for the Territorial Army is obviously enhanced. The second of these two roles is to keep the country going in the event of nuclear attack. This rôole is being taken equally seriously. I cannot and do not wish to be more precise. I can only reiterate the need for and the consequences of flexibility which such a reserve force as the Territorial Army must have. This does not mean more violent changes in the Territorial Army's order of battle. As we all know, the Territorial Army since the war has had a rough time with such a large number of reorganisations and conversions.
196
It is most difficult to maintain morale in a unit which is changing its nature and even its name every two or three years. I think that in my seventeen years' in the Territorial Army I served in practically everything except possibly a mobile field bakery and the A.T.S. These changes are inevitable; they are understood and I think accepted, but I think we should be grateful to the Territorial Army for its toleration. I hope that the order of battle is now tolerably firm, although there will be a few minor changes still to come. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, told us quite accurately what it was but I think he made a slip of the tongue when he talked of the two N.A.T.O. divisions. These two divisions are no longer earmarked for N.A.T.O. They were removed in the White Paper of 1957.
LORD OGMORE: In the White Paper it says that this question is being discussed with N.A.T.O. The conclusion is not mentioned in the White Paper, which I have here.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has the advantage of me, but I thought that, at about paragraph 56, the White Paper of 1957 gave the definite impression that these divisions had been stood down.
LORD OGMORE: No.
LORD MANCROFT: Suffice it to say that they have now; that is the fact. The Territorial Army, as the noble Lord suggested in his remarks, will of course retain its divisional organisation. It will not adopt the Regular Army brigade group organisation, but it will be capable of rapid reorganisation into the brigade group system if it is necessary. Study is therefore being given in the Territorial Army to the brigade group organisation and system.
Training is all-important and I should like to say a few words on that subject. The very flexibility to which I have just referred emphasises the importance of good sound training. It emphasises the need for active, realistic and tough training; that the Government fully appreciate. A four-year cycle for training is now being planned. During a given four years it is planned that a unit will do one camp on its own, either at a weekend training centre or under arrangements

197
made by itself, or certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, suggests, at a seaside camp or somewhere near a seaside camp. It will do one brigade group camp—that is, brigade group of all arms —in one of the six large camps which will be hutted and well-found. It will do one year in a brigade camp of its own arm and one year civil defence training at either Millom, in Northern Command, or Pendells, in Eastern Corn-m and. Our intention is to get out a programme in the near future which will show units when and where they are going between 1959 and 1963. I hope that we shall be able to keep that programme amended to about four years ahead.
Armoured regiments will carry out firing practice at Castle Martin. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about equipment. He will be interested to know that the armoured regiments are getting Centurion tanks. The gunners will also get as much opportunity for firing as possible. No. 44 Parachute Brigade will be holding several small airborne exercises during its camp at Castle Martin in August. Three squadrons of 21 S.A.S. regiment are due to take part in a N.A.T.O. exercise in Norway in September. Ten infantry battalions and one gunner regiment will undergo civil defence training during their annual camps this year. I give your Lordships this catalogue merely to show the realism and energy with which the training programme is being pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph which, coming as it did from the pen of General Martin, universally regarded as a well-informed defence correspondent, caused some apprehension. I hope that that has been dispelled by his further article to-day. There is no need for the alarm originally inspired. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we are providing enough money for all the training necessary for the Territorial Army. Money is being provided this financial year for the same number of days training per head as in 1956. The allotment provides money for an average of 13 days for each officer and 16 days for each other rank throughout the Territorial Army. This average may vary from command to command. This is additional to the normal annual camp, and
198
additional to evening training. It is true that the money per head we are providing this year is somewhat less than it was in 1957. I think it is here the misunderstanding has occurred. We must ensure, however, that everyone gets the right amount of training within a reasonable limit and that there is still enough money to train the recruits we hope are going to flock in. without prejudice to the training of those who are already in the Territorial Army. I can, incidentally, assure your Lordships that the Jubilee parades and the local Jubilee celebrations will not count against the allotment for out of camp training. Training at weekends and in the evenings will continue, mainly devoted to the improvement of individual skills.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that arms, vehicles and equipment must be kept up to the standard which their rôle requires. I think, however, that it would also be prudent that we should not take into the Territorial Army arms, equipment and vehicles until they have been given full user trials with the Regular Army. No great encouragement to recruits will come from presenting the Territorial Army with out-of-date or inadequate equipment. I have emphasised, and I wish to re-emphasise, the need for bringing a sense of realism and vigour to all training. That, as much as anything, brings in the recruits, which was a point the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, emphasised in his broadcast last Sunday night. Good club life and escape from dish-washing are no longer the principal reasons for joining the Territorial Army. It is a programme of strong and vigorous training which will bring the men in; it is bringing them in.
My Lords, I have taken the liberty of setting out the current recruiting figures on a piece of paper, which I thought would be more helpful to your Lordships than reading out a catalogue of figures in the course of my speech. I will try to interpret the trend. Your Lordships will remember that the interim recruiting target for the Territorial Army set in November last is 50 per cent. of establishment within five yearsߞthat is, by the end of 1962. That, of course, corresponds with the end of National Service and the completion of the rundown of the Regular Army. You will see from the paper that the average monthly net increase over the previous

199
month needed for this over the whole period is 1,366 all ranks. If we are to maintain our Territorial Army we must increase all ranks each month by 1,366. I am happy to tell the House that we are getting comfortably more than that. The April increase was nearly 2,500, and I believe, though the figures are not yet final, that the May figures will be nearly as good. The general recruiting position of the Territorial Army is very satisfactory. I hope that the figures will
improve each month.
We listened earlier to a Question from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about juvenile delinquency and crime. I remember myself making a rather pessimistic speech in the debate on prisons some time ago, when I had to give the depressing figures of the increase in juvenile delinquency. There is another side to the coin, and this is the other side—the increase in the number of young men who are prepared to join the Territorial Army. Clearly, new ideas will have to be produced or more attention given to the old and good ideas to maintain the present momentum of Jubilee festivities and attendant publicity. The good figures I am able to announce to your Lordships must not make us smug. The improvement in male other rank volunteers is almost spectacular; it is particularly so because they are true volunteers. We are now seeing the effect of the departure of the National Service man. This is particularly encouraging because large numbers are coming into the Territorial Army from civil life, and that is going to be our main source from now on. I hope that some employers who have not yet been prepared to play their full part in allowing men to go to camp will take a lesson from some of their more public-spirited colleagues.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that on no account must quality be sacrificed to quantity. Quality varies, of course, in the Territorial Army, as elsewhere. Different types of units require different types of men. The sort of man who makes an excellent member of a Guards unit is not necessarily the sort of man who makes a good member of a port ammunition detachment. I would put in one word on behalf of the very small and rather obscure units. It is very often these little units of the supporting arms which achieve the best
200
recruiting figures and attain a high standard of morale. I hope those of your Lordships who have an interest in these matters will not forget the little units when you remember the more spectacular and publicity-minded big units. The shift of population to the new towns, of course, gives us a great opportunity which is engaging our attention. I suspect that the new towns may prove a fruitful source of recruiting. The sort of man who goes or whose parents have gone there to seek a livelihood is the sort of man wanted. Without being unduly cynical, I would say that there is perhaps a lack of a counter-attraction in some new towns which may prove of advantage. New drill halls w ill be necessary for the new towns. In some—Crawley and Corby, for instance—provision has already been made. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an aspect which we must investigate further.
The officer situation is not quite so good. Outgoings at the top have not been matched by the younger entries. The noble Lord rightly drew attention to the new arrangements which were announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War on Monday and which we hope will encourage the entry of young officers. Still, the percentage of volunteer officers to the establishment is 72. That is not unsatisfactory, but we need to stop a further decrease and to bring in more young officers. The policy is for Territorial Army officers to fill appointments in the Territorial Army so far as possible. Only 60 out of the 286 lieutenant-colonel commands are held by Regulars. The rest are all held by Territorial officers. In the senior appointments from lieutenant-colonel upwards, our policy depends on there being available Territorial officers who are both militarily competent and able to devote the necessary time. Unfortunately, this is not always easy. But in the Territorial Army to-day one brigadier's appointment and just over 100 full colonel's appointments are filled by Territorial officers.
Despite the post-war convulsions through which it has gone the Territorial Army is now in a pretty healthy state. We all hope that it will settle down to an even firmer lease of life on an all-volunteer basis. Some of us remember the uneasy start in 1947, but the Territorial Army is now on a much firmer

201
footing. The country is obviously taking a renewed interest in it, and long may that interest continue! It is up to the Government to see that this interest and the Territorial Army's own renewed enthusiasm do not play themselves out. I am happy to give a pledge on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they will do their best to see that that does not happen.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that tradition, esprit de corps and the enthusiasm of the Territorial Army, are powerfully appreciated, both by the War Office and by Her Majesty's Government. The buffets to which the Territorial Army has been subjected have been regrettable but unavoidable. To-day it is a rejuvenated body. The Chief of the imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Gerald Temples, referred to an insurance policy. He said that the Territorial Army
" is the country's insurance against the unknown and no other country in history has been able to take out such a comprehensive policy for such a low premium."
I am happy, and the Government are happy, that your Lordships' House has to-day reaffirmed its confidence in this old-established and most reliable insurance company, the Territorial Army, a company in which I am proud to be a policy-holder and in which, for seventeen years, I was a happy and very satisfied employee.
3.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful, and I think that the whole of the House will be tnankful, that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has provided us with this opportunity to debate this Motion to-day. What is going on in building up the greatness of our country from the exercise of the voluntary spirit is a great thing. It has varied from time to time. To-day, in the Royal Navy it has hardly ever been necessary to get into the Fleet any extensive numbers of National Service people. There was a day when we got seamen by press gangs. They still made a very fine Navy and they did great things at sea. But we are proud of the later stages of the development of the voluntary spirit. I am now one of the old veterans, but I can see in my mind's eye at the moment the red-coated volunteer Regiment of Engineers
202
at Bristol in 1895, and the Gloucester-shire Volunteer Rifles in their dark green type of Rifle Brigade uniform in 1895, before seeing them march off to the South African War in 1899. Without their volunteer existence and their enthusiasm and loyalty, I am quite sure that we should never have gone on as we have done as an Empire and Commonwealth.
However, nothing could be better than to foster the voluntary principle at all times. I have never been against keeping that voluntary principle in any of the Services; but I am bound to sayߞI should be unfair to myself if I did not—that, though it may not be the view of the majority even of my own Party in the country, and may not now for the time being be the view of many noble Lords opposite, in the state in which the world is to-day, with almost untold dangers that bring fear into so many hearts, I regret that we should be so ready to concentrate largely upon a unilateral disarmament and to do away with the existing insurance of National Service. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that in the decisions to which Her Majesty's Government have come, it remains vital that we should not only pay tribute to the great examples and the voluntary spirit of the Territorial force in the past, but look forward with a great deal of confidence and hope to what they are going to be able to accomplish for us in the difficult years that we, as a nation and as a Commonwealth, are bound to face. I only hope that in promoting what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has referred to as an insurance, we shall not sacrifice too quickly the much more widespread, even though compulsory, form of insurance.
The explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has given with regard to the reported cuts in the training grant will be studied with interest to see exactly what it means. At first sight it seems a little curious that at a time when he, thank goodness! is able to report to the House a steep increase this year in voluntary enlistment in the Territorial Army, there should be a cut in the amount of the training grant, in spite of the rate and standard of current costs. I hope that we may take it that his general assurance is that, whatever announcement has been made about a smaller expenditure on training grant, with recruits

203
coming in at this rate he or the War Office will see to it that the money is forthcoming so that their training is properly covered.
LORD MANCROFT: Certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That seems to be fundamental, especially when you are now getting a fortunate development in voluntary recruiting. You have to attract volunteers at a proper rate of enlistment if you are going to reach your full divisional strength in this new form of insurance by 1963. That seems to be fundamental. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave us a short survey of the build-up of the first great idea of a voluntary Territorial Army. I had occasion to think a great deal about it in 1946 and 1947. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, thinks that the manifold changes which have taken place in organisation and the like have been entirely due to the introduction of National Servicemen into a four years' service in the Territorial Army. He shakes his head. I am glad that that is not the case. I am bound to say that in the visits that I made, in the few years during which I was Minister of Defence and afterwards, I was glad to find how successfully it had worked, and how keen some at any rate of the National Servicemen were in serving in the Territorial Army after they had completed their service with the Regular forces.
The other matter which is in my mind to a great extent, and which I think has not been touched upon at the present time, is this. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that here was a new side of the coin as opposed to his necessary comments the other day on juvenile delinquency. In the Royal Navy I always found a great advantage, not only for the Royal Navy but for the Merchant Service, in the existence of the sea cadets, who have been always greatly encouraged by the Admiralty, and whom I have often visited and inspected. They have been of great value.
While I was Minister of Defence I was invited by the War Office on three or four separate occasions to go and inspect the summer camps of the army cadets. It was amazing what difference there was at the end of a fortnight in a camp
204
of army cadets, in turn-out, condition and general deportment. What a great factor might be made of that now in building up the voluntary spirit for the Territorial Army!
I do not want to turn this into a general debate on the War Office Estimates, but in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government for a volunteer Territorial Army, would it be possible for the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, when he comes to reply, to tell us of any special efforts which are being made in that direction and also for promoting the development and improving the training of the army cadets? Because I believe that in that kind of thorough organisation we can have great success.
May I say once more how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Ogmore for his Motion? When he spoke of the services of the past, I was reminded that I was a private, a lance-corporal and a corporal in the 28th Artists Rifles in the First Great War, and I have never forgotten my companionship and the wonderful spirit of those days, before I went away to take a commission. I hope that however nostalgic may be my feeling for the principle of National Service as being fair, equal, just and the only really adequate way for us, with our great responsibilities, I may wish all success to the Territorial Forces.
3.42 p.m.
LORD HARDING OF PETHERTON: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address your Lordships in a full debate I crave your Lordships' indulgence for any errors 1 may make or for any lack of skill in the choice of the words I use. As one who began his military career in the Territorial Army I should like to say that this a very happy and proud occasion for me; and I wish to support wholeheartedly the Resolution that has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and to identify myself with his remarks about the splendid contribution to the defence of this country that has been made by the Territorial Army in the past.
I was delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, brought into greater prominence than I believe is in the public mind that part of the rôole of the Territorial Army which implies that it must be ready to reinforce the Regular Army

205
overseas, whenever and wherever necessary. I realise that this is a very important rôole, and that probably it is one which enhances the status of the Territorial Army more than its other various tasks. I fully agree that if this country is attacked by land forces, whether they arrive by air or by some other means, the main responsibility for home defence w ill fall on the shoulders of the Territorial Army. I also agree that in certain tragic circumstances, which I hope will never come about, the Territorial Army will have a vital rôle to play in Civil Defence. But it is our reserve Army, and with the Regular Army running down in strength, and with the overseas commitments of the Regular Army increasing, and likely, with the world in its present highly unsettled and inflammable state, to increase even more, it is not difficult to foresee circumstances in which the Territorial Army would have to be used to reinforce the Regular Army overseas in conditions short of all-out war.
In this connection it may interest your Lordships to know that on one occasion in Cyprus it was necessary to call on members of a certain specialist Territorial Army unit to fill a gap while the necessary suitable Regular Army personnel were being found and trained. Fortunately, in that case the numbers involved were small and were readily forthcoming on a volunteer basis. They did an excellent job of work, but on that occasion numbers and time were limited; and that may not always he the case in future. I understand, for example, that that part of our strategic reserve which is called, I believe, the second echelon, is not fully provided with all the ancillary units and administrative services that it would need in the event of its being required for an operational rôle.
I am aware of the fact that some of these needs could be met from the Army Emergency Reserve, but I doubt whether all of them could; and if that part of the strategic reserve were required for an operational role at comparatively short notice, under cold war or limited war conditions, I believe that those deficiencies would have to be made good by drawing on the resources of the Territorial Army. So I would suggest that this rôle should be given more prominence, both in the minds of the Territorials themselves and in the public mind, and that the idea that the Territorial Army is nowadays nothing
206
more or less than an adjunctߞa useful adjunct, it is trueߞof Civil Defence, and might possibly be required for home defence, should be dispelled.
As I know from experience, there are certain very important practical problems that arise in connection with this particular role of the Territorial Army. The partial embodiment of the Territorial Army in advance of declaration of a national emergency presents very special constitutional and organisational problems, and also has implications for industry because of the discrimination that would be caused, both to individuals and in areas, if, for example, one division of the Territorial Army, drawn simply and solely from a particular area, were called up. So there are very important practical problems in connection with the proper application of this rôle of the Territorial Army. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who is to answer this debate whether he can give some assurance that these practical problems are being faced, and that they will be tackled fearlessly and urgently, with a view to seeing how they can best be overcome.
It would be presumptuous of me to suggest what should be done in this respect, and I am in no position to do so. But it occurs to me that there are certain units and formations in the Territorial Army to-day which, by their distribution in the country and their readiness and standard of efficiency, would be particularly fitted to be the first reinforcement of the Regular Armyߞfor example, the units of the Territorial Parachute Brigade Group; and there are other specialist unitsߞthere is one Engineer unit that I know well personally—which I am quite certain could be ready for immediate action within a few days, at any rate so far as numbers and efficiency are concerned.
I would therefore suggest that investigation might be directed towards the possibility of inviting such units, as units (not as individuals, so that they would be broken up and distributed to the Regular Army), to accept some additional liability, in return for appropriate compensation, which would enable them, if embodied, to be made available for this rôle as a ready reserve for the Regular Army, and enable them to do that without the embodiment of the Territorial

207
Army as a whole. That is a practical plan which could be put into effect. It will, I submit, be all the more important when National Service comes to an end.
My Lords, as regards the needs of the Territorial Army, I realise that there is very little, if any, difference of opinion among your Lordships as to the continuing need for a strong and efficient Territorial Army; but I am not sure that that same view is taken by the general public. I believe that the greatest need of the Territorial Army to-day is that the general public in this country should be convinced that the Territorial Army still forms a vital part of our whole system of national defence. If that could be ensured, then I have no doubt that the people of this country would rise to the occasion, as they have done in the past, and the Territorial Army would, in a reasonable space of time, be brought up to a strength at which it could carry out not only its rôle in home defence and civil defence but its more urgent rôle, to my mindߞthat of being ready at any time to reinforce the Regular Army overseas. At present, I submit, it is neither strong enough nor well enough trained or equipped to carry out that particular part of its task.
In that connection, there is one practical point that I should like to mention. The Territorial Army, as your Lordships are well aware, had many needs; up-to-date equipment; good drill halls; well-found camps, with proper training areas close at hand; realistic and imaginative training; and expert assistance and advice from the Regular army. I know that a great deal has been done under all these heads in recent years to improve matters, but there is one field in which I think a retrograde step is about to be taken. I refer to the permanent staff officers of an infantry battalion, who I understand are shortly to be reduced in number from three to two. That reduction may be acceptable in the case of a battalion which is closely concentrated in an urban area, but in the case of a battalion such as the one in which I personally am particularly interested, spread over the whole county of Somerset, the loss of one of three of the permanent Regular staff officers will be a very serious blow and will greatly hamper the efforts that are being made to attract recruits into it and to bring the standard of efficiency up to what is required. So
208
I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply to this debate whether he can give us an assurance that that decision will at any rate be reconsidered in the case of units such as the one I have just mentioned.
My Lords, I apologise for speaking at such length, but I should like to return to the point I made just now and to say that, in my belief, the most important thing to enable the Territorial Army to carry out its important function in the defence of this country is to convince the general public of this country that it still forms a vital part of our system of national defence.
3.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, the privilege falls to me this afternoon of congratulating the noble Lord, Field Marshal Lord Harding of Petherton, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, and also to welcome him and the contribution which he has made to this debate. I think we should all agree that there could be no one more fitted than he is to speak with authority in such a debate as this. I hope that he will find more time to come here and give his views to this House, in particular on the matters with which his great career has always been concerned.
I intervene in this debate for only a very few minutes in my capacity as Chairman of the Territorial Association, and of the Council of that Association, and I do so because I thought it was a matter in which I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the happy thought which prompted him to put down this Motion this week when we are celebrating the Golden Jubilee. I know that all the members of my Council are indebted to him, in that we shall have some publicity in this House. During the last few months, when the preparations for the Golden Jubilee were being considered I have been fairly close to them, and I should like to record my thanks to the War Office for the very friendly way they always met us and always consulted us in all the various activities which came to mind. We have happy relations both with the Council and with the Advisory Committee; they send representatives to our discussions and they always meet us on any terms we like. We put forward from each county, in England.

209
Scotland, Wales and Ireland, any problem which may be worrying us from the civil administration of this great part-time Army.
At this moment we are possibly on the threshold of further activities. In my humble opinionߞand I do not wish to make any form of controversial statement here, because it is not my purpose to do soߞall Governments and all Departments of Governments that I have ever seen have always had one safety valve behind them, however much they try to help, in that in the last resort they are always able to say that, alas! the Treasury were not able to meet you. I believe it to be true that there is a great needߞand the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, and other noble Lords have said this afternoon that there is a great needߞconcerning the vital rôle to be played at this moment by the Territorial Army. I know the difficulties of defence, and I would say that my Council fully appreciate the responsibility of not asking for more than is absolutely necessary; but I would say that at this moment we do not want any further disappointments if we are to go along the road which this Government want us to follow.
I believe it was only three nights ago that the Prime Minister, in a speech at a dinner in London, spoke about the spirit of the volunteer. It is inherent in the Englishman and in all freedom-loving people that they should be able to offer their spare time to their country, both in peace and in war. That is why I believe that as National Service becomes run down, the recruiting of the volunteer, the complete civilian, is beginning to rise. Lord Haldane would indeed be a proud man to-day if he were able to see the position of his inspiration of fifty years ago. The history of the Territorial Army, both in war and in peace, has been borne upon that spirit. I believe that that spirit is about to be re-born. I hope that as a result of the celebrations of the Jubilee and of the part played by this debate in your Lordships' House, we may look forward to an added interest, not only in Parliament and in Government, but also throughout the villages and fields of rural England and the streets of our cities, which will bring it home to every man and woman that they have a part to play in the defence of our country. I have no doubt that they will play it.
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT LAMBERT: My Lords, on this, the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, I am grateful for the indulgence that it is your Lordships' custom to allow to a speaker making his maiden speech. I must confess that this is the second time that I have made a maiden speech in this Chamber. I was elected a Member of another place in 1945, and as your Lordships, in your kindness of heart, had allowed the other place to use this Chamber for their debates, I then made my first maiden speech here.
We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for making it possible for us to pay a tribute to the Territorial Army in the year of its Golden Jubilee and I should like to associate myself with the eloquent tributes that have been paid to it. I should also like to discuss for a short while the difficulties that may confront the Territorial Army in the future. It has been given the task of recruiting up to half its establishment by 1962, arid I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Mancroft say how well recruiting is going at the moment, but there is the possibility that as time goes on recruiting may slow up. I feel that it is more important to-day that the Territorial Army should accomplish its task and get the full number of recruits than it was in the years before the war. Not only is it essential for the Territorial Army to play its full part in the defence of this country, but, unhappily, every year there is a large increase in juvenile delinquency, and I feel that once a man has been persuaded to join the Territorial Army he will be on the road to becoming a good citizen and will be one less person to become the potential juvenile delinquent or "Teddy-boy".
Why will there be more difficulty in getting recruits? Take the present international situation. I am sorry to admit that it is grave, but it is much less dramatic than it was during the 'thirties For the last ten or twelve years the cold war has dragged on. Every now and then, unhappily, there is some bestial incident, as there was last week when the gallant Hungarian leaders were murdered in cold blood. But during the 1930's, when Hitler planned to occupy the whole of Europe, his plans seemed to unfold with almost clockwork precision. In March, 1935, he announced that.

211
his air force was the equal of ours and that he was going to introduce conscription. In March, 1936, he occupied the Rhineland. He was quiet in 1937. In March, 1938, he occupied Austria, and then, in growing tension during the summer months, we had Munich, to be followed in the spring of 1939 with the grabbing of Czechoslovakia, and finally the declaration of war on Poland in September, 1939. During all this period people were tending to search their consciences and see that they were doing what they could to help their country.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for making clear the rôle of the Territorial Army. It was rather disturbing that, as he mentioned, The Times said two days ago that there was a good deal of confusion about this. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that it would be advisable to issue a White Paper on the Territorial Army, giving its duties precisely, because at the moment its duties and rôle are discussed sometimes in the White Paper on Defence and sometimes in the Memorandum on the Army Estimates.
Another reason why I feel it may be more difficult to obtain recruits as time goes on is that there has been a complete social revolution in this country since 1939. As I see it, one of the biggest obstacles to recruiting is that holidays with pay are the rule to-day, rather than the exception. In the old days, a young man, particularly if he was a bachelor, was delighted to go to camp. He had a good holiday and it cost him nothing. But to-day, and I am thankful that it is so, the large majority of firms give their employees holidays with pay. Again, high taxation is making it difficult for the professional classes, the potential officer classes, to give up sufficient time to take their wives and families on holiday and also go to annual camp. It means that they must stay away from work for up to a month every year. Finally, during the years since the war the Government have interfered more and more with the running of our business lives—quite rightly. But the fact remains that the interference causes difficulty to the various businesses to carry out whatever they may be doing: they have to pay more attention to hygiene
212
and to the health and safety of their workers.
Again, the State, in its wisdom, forces businesses to act as tax collectors. All this makes it more difficult for businesses, and particularly small businesses, to remain solvent. I understand that today many firms, and small ones in particular, would like to encourage their employees to join the Territorial Army, but they simply cannot afford to do so: they cannot afford to lose the services of what no doubt would be their best men for a period of holiday and for a period at camp in addition.
As I see it, the problem before the Territorial Army to get recruits is two-fold. First, it is essential, as the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, pointed out, to make people realise the vital importance of the Territorial Army to-day. Secondly, it is essential for the Government to take steps to make it possible for small firms to encourage their employees to join the Territorial Army. In my view, the only way to do it is for the Government to give some sort of tax relief to firms who have members of their staff in the Territorial Army. It is not for me to say how it should be done, but of this I am convinced: that if there were the will to do it, the Treasury would quickly find a way. It may be argued that if this scheme were adopted only the firms would benefit. In that case, I suggest that a man who joins the Territorial Army and completes a year of proficient service might have his code number for P.A.Y.E. increased, thereby lessening his obligation for tax; and if it were put up sufficiently, he might have to pay no tax at all, in which case the firm would benefit, as they would no longer have to keep a P.A.Y.E. card for him.
Then I should like to suggest to the Government that it might be possible to stagger the annual camps of the Territorial Army more than is done to-day. Most of the camps, I understand, take place in August, which is a time when many people go on holiday. Again, supposing that a firm of medium size has three or four people in the same unit of the Territorial Army and they all go to camp at the same time, it may make things difficult for that firm. I wonder whether it would not be possible for two units to combine and go to camp at two separate periods, one half of one unit

213
and one half of the other going at one time, and the other two halves later on. I know it would make the training less effective, but I am sure it would make the recruiting problem easier. I should like to conclude by expressing the hope that I have not been too controversial in my suggestions, but that they have been constructive, and that I have not taken advantage of the indulgence your Lordships have been kind enough to show me.
4.15 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, It is my privilege to congratulate a colleague from the old days on a speech which is well worthy of the man I used to hear speaking in the other place. At that time we could speak to each other, as it was called by an old Parliamentarian many years ago, "nippingly". I am sure your Lordships would wish me to congratulate the noble Viscount not only on the speech he has made, the consideration he has given to the problem and the suggestions he has offered, but for the cool manner in which he conducted himself during that speech. Both the noble Viscount and the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, obviously want the Government to make a reality of the Territorials. The public will be surprised in the morning to know that one House in Parliament, at any rate, has actually given some hours to debating the Territorials; and I feel sure that the mass of the people will be pleased. But the fact is that many people have only a dim view of what the Territorials are—and in saying that I do not think I exaggerate. They do not know, for instance, that many men forgo their holidays in order to go into camp; or that men actually lose by paying money out themselves in order to "make out" in the camp they go to. I do not think that will be good enough in the future.
I was glad to hear the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave us. As one who has some responsibility in the county in which I live, and having gone to many of the gatheringsߞsort of "beat-ups" and the restߞI know that the spirit has grown in my own county. People think that Territorials are just there to be called upon in time of war; and that may be so. But I remember, as will many of your Lordships, the time when we in this country would have been delighted to see more men doing the work
214
of the Territorials so that others could be used in case of invasion.
I think it can be said without any exaggeration that we are about the least warlike country there is in this world to-day, but we are a country, an island, that needs protection. I said some time ago, when we were discussing National Service, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, also said, that I did not think we were right to end National Service. I can tell your Lordships that one of the things that has delighted me in the last few years has been to hear one man after another on finishing his National Service, when I asked what he thought about it, say, "I wouldn't have been without it for any thing ". That is a common statement among the men. If National Service is going, can we afford to let the Territorials drift along as they have and to treat them —I know the War Office has always done its best in the circumstances—as the kind of odds-and-ends of the Services of our country? We cannot. We have to he realistic about this.
One of the things which I think is not widely understood in this country is not only the voluntary service given by the Territorials but the great mass of voluntary service that is given in this country. I say that because there are also sidelines to the Territorials. I saw a great cathedral service on Sunday, one of the most wonderful sights I have ever seen in my life, the Red Cross filling a vast cathedral ߞDurham Cathedral. Next week we have the St. John Ambulance Brigade. They are two great assets that are in line in their way, doing voluntary work, although healing rather than fighting, but still a manifestation of the voluntary system in this country. In the county in which I liveߞand I thought I knew it very wellߞI have had opportunities in the present position I hold of seeing the voluntary life of the county. If someone could just take each county in this country and show what boys and girls and young men and young women do, there would not be so much nonsense talked about these fellows on the fringe of things, the people about whom there is so much agitation.
It is a wonderful thing to have a great organisation like the Territorial organisation, and we have had it for half a century. What a gift it has been to this

215
country! It fitted in at a very critical time in the first war and did a magnificent job; then it played its part in the second war. Now, almost for the first time, so far as I can remember—although we have had little bits of conversation about it in your Lordships' Houseߞthe noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has riveted the attention of the House with it. I hope that he is going to get due notice in the country generally.
We have been told that the numbers are increasing. I know that so far as my own part of the world is concerned they are increasing. Why do they increase? Because you get men coming into an atmosphere in which there is courtesy and humour and fellowship, and those who have been members of it remember these things. It is a wonderful organisation in which men do much for nothing. They have not even asked us in the past to take them seriously. They have just gone on and done the job and been ready when it was necessary.
I come from a county which your Lordships' House well knowsߞand I am not going to apologise for stating itߞis an all-Labour county, and it usually has the top numbers for the Territorials. I say that, not for the benefit of this House but for the sake of the record, so that those abroad may note that the questions that affect the life of this nation fundamentally are questions that receive the serious attention of the mass of the people, whatever be their political colour. I congratulate my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, on raising this question to-day, I hope we are going to have more debates. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has raised these matters from time to time, but this is the first all-out debate we have had. It is the first time the attention of the public has really been drawn towards the great work that the Territorials of this country are doing, and I am very pleased indeed. I hope the Government is going to take notice of the fact, whether the public outside do or not.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my own word of congratulation to my two noble friends who have just addressed the House for the first time. My noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton, in a speech
216
which was certainly not too long, did, I thought, succeed in touching on all the points that are most vital to the future of the Territorial Army, and my noble friend Lord Lambert touched on a number of the practical points which affect both the individual who wishes to join the Territorial Army and those who employ him. We all hope that we shall often hear both noble Lords again in this House, and those who have dealt with these matters in the past, I am sure, hope so especially.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having initiated this debate at this particular time. We know him to be a distinguished and devoted Territorial, and there, on his right, is sitting another Territorial of even longer standing, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is not quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, that we have never had a debate before in this House on the Territorial Army, but it is true that it is some time since we had one devoted entirely to the subject, and it is certainly high time we had one now.
I wish to say a word or two because it has been my privilege to see the Territorial Army from a number of different angles and also to spend a period in the War Office as Director-General of the Home Guard and Territorial Army. I am not going to try to cover the whole field, but I would draw special attention to that paragraph in the Resolution in which the House is invited to appreciate
" the importance of the contribution of the Territorial Army to national defence."
We are celebrating in this period the vision, the foresight and the statesmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haldane. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said when introducing this Motion, what Lord Haldane did was certainly not to create a voluntary spirit: the voluntary spirit was already thereߞit has its roots much further back, at some time like the fifteenth century. Nor did the noble Lord, Lord Haldane, devise the system whereby our second-line Army is linked not only with the Regular Forces but also with the local organisation of the county ߞwith the county organisation and, therefore, with the civil government. He did, however, succeed in keeping those ancient traditions of volunteering and those old deep roots which the Territorial Army has in the country and, at the same time,

217
in making the Territorial Army a force which was of real value to the defence of the country.
The Territorial Army, when Lord Haldane had introduced the divisional organisation and had finished his work, was something incomparably better and more useful than the old volunteers could ever have been, however good their spirit, under the haphazard organisation of the nineteenth century, or the time of the South African War. Lord Haldane saw to it that this magnificent source of strength, the volunteer spirit, was not going to be wasted; that it was going to be put to its full use. And it was put to its full use by the creation of the divisional organisation and a proper order of battle suitable for the warfare of that time, which bore its fruit in the First World War in 1914ߞand, indeed, would have borne even greater fruit had another great man, Lord Kitchener, not had a bind spot in his mind where the Territorial Army was concerned. Lord Kitchener's mistake, of not using the Territorial Army fully in 1914,was not repeated, as all noble Lords know, in 1939. In that year, and in 1940, the Territorial Army took the strain not merely of doubling itself but of providing territorial formations for overseas. Not only that; if it had not been for the older men, the retired men, who had served in the Territorial Army, the story of the Home Guard and of Civil Defence in the last war would have been a very different one from what it was.
After the last World War, the Territorial Army had to face a problem that it had never had to face before in its history—namely, the combination of Territorial service with National Service in peace time. A great deal has been said about that matter, and I think a good deal of misunderstanding has taken place about the need for National Service and the effect of National Service on the Territorial Army. I do not think that all of us, certainly not the public, appreciated that the governing consideration which caused the need for National Service in peace time was the fact that, in the conditions immediately after the war, the Territorial Army had to be kept at a much greater state of readiness than had been required of it in earlier times of peace. As Lord Ogmore mentioned just now, two Territorial Army divisions
218
were required in the order of' battle for N.A.T.O. So in those conditions, with that state of readiness, there is no doubt in my mind that volunteer service alone was not enough, and that the decision to retain National Service was right. When we are thinking of the Territorial Army, however much we give priority to our appreciation of the volunteer, we ought not to forget the National Serviceman and the "Z" reservist because, whatever stories one may have read in the Press, and whatever grouses one may have heard, the vast bulk of them served usefully and contentedly in the Territorial units.
My Lords, we are now coming into a different phase of the world's history; and for a number of reasons the Territorial Army can, I suppose, go back to a reduced state of readiness. If that is right (I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, touched on this point in his speech), then it is also right, for a number of reasons, that we should dispense with National Service and go back to the pure voluntary system. That is what is in process of happening now; the wheel is turning fall circle, and we can, it seems, organise the Territorial Army on the basis of volunteering, and nothing else, at any rate for the immediate future; and history will repeat itself.
The figures of volunteers are quite interesting to those who study them. If we go back over the years, for fifty years or more, and look at the figures in the Estimates, we find that in ordinary times (I do not speak of times when the shadow of war falls on the country; but of the ordinary times) there is a steady figure of something round 200,000 people who are not merely ready to volunteer but cannot be prevented from volunteering, whatever you do to them, because that is the habit of certain people in this country, We shall always have those people, whatever we do; but whether we have more than the average or less than the average will depend on the conditions we create for the Territorial Army, a matter about which other noble Lords have spoken.
I do not myself look on that aspect as one of great doubt or difficulty. I am certain that those people will be there if they get reasonable treatment. What is much more important at the present time,

219
and much more difficult I think, is to make certain what the rôle of the Territorial Army is. That has been touched on by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and by my noble and gallant friend Lord Harding. We happen to be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the T.A., in a time which is particularly difficult for military thinking of all kinds, not only the T.A., because we have only recently, so to speak, been faced with the problem of nuclear warfare. We have not had enough experience, and may be not enough time, to think them out fully; until we do, and until we clear our minds of the problems of nuclear warfare as they affect the problems of what we call conventional forcesߞand the Territorial Army for this purpose of course comes under the category of a conventional force—we shall always have doubts about what can be done by any conventional forces, whether Territorial Army or some other force, under threats of the kind we are likely to experience in the nuclear age. We have talked about this matter in other debates connected with the Forces, and I will only repeat what I believe I have said before: I am quite certain that, when the fog rolls away from this particular problem, we shall find not only suitable but essential tasks for the conventional forces, and therefore for the Territorial Army. Whether those tasks lie at home, in Civil Defence, or abroad is a matter which is now hard to foresee; but if, as I hope, we go in that direction, I believe that we shall find that the Territorial Army will soon recover that sense of purpose which I admit it has been difficult to achieve for the reasons I have given, in recent years.
If we want to help it recover that sense of purpose, there are a number of ways in which we in this House can helpߞmany of them have been mentioned in this debate. After all, those of us who know the Territorial Army know quite wellߞand it is no good pretending we do notߞthat over the years the Territorial Army has had its full share of high-level encouragement and also of low-level pinpricks. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in his capacity as Chairman of the Council of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces' Associations, touched on that point, as others have done. I will not repeat them, for many of us in this House know what they are and other
220
noble Lords are waiting to address your Lordships. But we have also the constructive problems, one of which was mentioned just now: how is the Territorial Army to be fitted into the new towns? That is a matter which still needs a certain amount of attention, both on the Service side and on the new towns side.
Be those things as they may, my Lords, I believe that, to have its full effect, this debate must convey to the world outside two separate ideas. The first is that our sentiments towards the Territorial Army are those which have already been expressed in such full measure and, no doubt, will continue to be expressed throughout this debate. The second is that we have in all parts of the House noble Lords who watch continually over the affairs of the Territorial Army, of those who belong to it and of those who will belong to it in the futureߞfor example, the army cadets. We in this House are therefore playing our part to bring about those conditions which we wish to see created, and to help to create, whereby those of our citizens who decide to serve their Sovereign in the Territorial Army will be able to do so to their own happiness and in support of the defence of their country. I support this Resolution most heartily.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I wish to crave your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon on rising for the first time in this House. I have had a good deal of experience of speaking in other fields, but one of the things which has struck me particularly since coming to this House a few months ago has been the very high standard of debates which your Lordships have here; therefore I feel that I shall need all your Lordships' indulgence.
My reason for rising on this occasion is that for many years I have been concerned with the Territorial Army. Since the war I have restarted my old regiment —the London Irish Riflesߞand since retiring from its command I have been actively concerned in the Territorial Army Association of the County of London. There are two points which I should like to make to your Lordships this afternoon. The first is to emphasise the great value of the background and traditions of individual units of the

221
Territorial Army and the great value which attaches to the support, direct and indirect, of an active regimental association. I suggest that it should be the basis of any reorganisation of the Territorial Army that this great value should be retained, and I sometimes wonder whether that has been done in the past.
I am encouraged by the statement of the noble. Lord, Lord Mancroft, that no further reorganisation is impending for the Territorial Army; but, having looked at several reorganisations in the past, very much from ground level, I cannot help feeling that the value of these old established units has not always been taken fully into consideration. For instance, a couple of years ago we saw the abolition of the Anti-Aircraft Command, the disbandment of many long-established Territorial regiments and the amalgamation of others. With disbandment the whole value of the background and traditions of a particular unit is lost to the country. With the amalgamation of only two units, I believe that with care and attention most of the value of that background can be retained; but in the amalgamation of three or four regiments into one it is extremely difficult to avoid losing a great deal of it.
I fully realise the reasons for the abolition of Anti-Aircraft Command. But at about the same time the formation of forty-eight battalions of the Mobile Defence Corps was announced. They are part of the Army Emergency Reserve. It occurred to those who looked at that matter at low level, without any high-level knowledge, that their future was tied to National Service; and it seems to me that with the abolition of National Service that future is doubtful. Would it not have been much better if, at the time when those forty-eight battalions were formed, consideration had been given to retaining some of the anti-aircraft regiments and turning them, temporarily perhaps, to new rôles?
No Territorial Army unit likes being changed to a rOle which they feel is a non-fighting rôle. On the other hand, we in the Territorial Army have seen over the years many units change their roles and then change them back again; and I feel that any anti-aircraft unit would have preferred the rôle of mobile defence to complete disbandment. Again, is there no intention that this country shall have
222
in the future some reserve units concerned with guided missiles in the ground to-air rôle? I know that that responsibility has been given to the Royal Air Force, yet one wonders whether at some early date in the future the Territorial Army associations may not be asked to help with the formation of some reserve units for that purpose. If so, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider the value of these long-established units and try to retain the background which lies there.
The second point which I should like to make is in connection with recruiting. Some people may not realise that before the war something like 75 per cent. of the recruits to the Territorial Army came from young men between the ages of seventeen and twenty. Until a very short time ago the Territorial Army was not allowed to recruit those men on account of their being required for full-time National Service. A great many young men before the war left after doing their four years' service, due to reasons of family, wives, girl friends and the like; so in comparing the figures of to-day with the figures in the 'thirties, before 1938, one has probably to double the present figures or treble them, due to the fact that we are only just beginning to recruit the young men.
I feel that the whole of our efforts should be bent towards making all types of people in this country aware of the necessity for the Territorial Army. The noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, made the point very well, I thought, that it was necessary for everybody to understand the need for it. It is not only the employers who are concerned; it is also the people in the homes and the people who work beside the soldier, who work on the bench alongside the member of the Territorial Army. If everybody realises the necessity for the Territorial Army there will be no great difficulty about recruiting. And it is no one piece of publicity which will gain that awareness; it is the long-term effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government and everybody concerned with the Territorial Army to "put it across" on every possible occasion.
I was rather disturbed by what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said in

223
regard to the articles in the Daily Telegraph. It seems to me that if the training grants are to be based on 1956–57, it ignores the fact that in 1956–57 the Territorial Army was not in the main recruiting young men who had not done National Service. The great majority of its recruits had already done National Service and were therefore not in need of anything like so much training as the young men joining to-day and in the future. I understand that special arrangements are made for the recruits themselves to be allowed to do longer periods of week-end training, but they must have instructors and officers and N.C.O.s to look after them. There is also the question of men who are taking on a specialist responsibility, such as a rifleman who is to be trained in mortars or signals or some other particular specialist arm. How is he going to get the necessary training if his week-ends are restricted in this way?
I can foresee many complications from a commanding officer's point of view in trying to allocate the week-ends in the way that is most efficient for the unit. He has to do it at the beginning of the training year in trying to plan his training throughout the year, and he will be put in the position of saying, "You cannot go this week-end because we have to allot the pay this week-end for some other purpose in, say, two or three months hence." It seems to me that it may lead to a great many difficulties, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider the matter very carefully. Finally, I should like again to congratulate Lord Ogmore on introducing this debate. I am sure that the Territorial Army will appreciate it and will be glad of it in the same way as we are.
4.55 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Earl. Lord Courtown, as I am sure your Lordships would wish, on the maiden speech he has just delivered. The noble Earl obviously speaks from long and practical experience of the Territorial Army, in which I see he holds the Territorial Decoration and Clasp; and I am sure that your Lordships will also appreciate that he speaks from recent and up-to-date knowledge, which is not given to all of us. I was particularly attracted by
224
his suggestion that, to put it in a word or two, it was really the personal touch that was required on the part of men at the bench and men in the offices, and so forth, to aid in recruiting; and I hopeߞindeed I feel sureߞthat the Government and all those interested in the Territorial Army will read the noble Lord's speech with interest and profit. We hope that we shall hear the noble Lord very frequently again in this House.
If I had known beforehand of the long list of speakers I should not have troubled your Lordships with my few observations; but as a very early member of the Territorial Force (as it was in those days; I believe I joined the Officers Training Corps in about 1909) I feel that I ought to say a word or two in support of the Motion which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ogmore. In those pre-1914 days, and even in some later days, the Territorial Force was not always very highly regarded by some sections of the public. I recollect that on the outbreak of the 1914–18 war I was in camp with my unit and was at once sent home to purchase the horses and transport for the division, with a Government cheque book and carte blanche. Of course, we had very little motor transport in those days. We marched out of barracks on August 10, 1914, which I thought was a very creditable effort indeed. fully equipped in the fashion of those days as we were. As we marched out of barracks an ill-disposed person (I never knew who he was) in the crowd outside called out, "Look at them! A lot of bloody comics!" And that has remained in my mind, and I have no doubt in the minds of a great many who heard it, from that day to this. We felt it very much, because we were very proud to be so efficient as to be moving out of barracks at such an early date to we knew not what.
That view of the Territorial Army, I am glad to say, has long passed away. No fewer than thirty-three divisions of the Territorial Army served in the First World War, and twenty-seven in the Second, and it has been said by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that the Territorial Army is now a vital part of our fighting organisation, ready for any eventuality, probable or improbable.
Originally, of course, the Territorial Force was intended for home service

225
only, but I gather that the Territorial Army is now the Regular Army's trained reserve with no limitation whatever as to service. It has, indeed, been said to be the best and the cheapest reserve Army in the world to-day, and I have no doubt that that is the case. But I am riot altogether happy that even to-day it is really receiving the help and support that it deserves and which I think the country is entitled to expect, and there are one or two matters of comparative detail to which I should like to refer and which I think have not been mentioned hitherto. The first is that the standard of accommodation at a very large number of Territorial Army centres is still far below that which a volunteer is entitled to expect, and that fact, I am quite sure, is a distinct deterrent to voluntary recruiting.
The funds allocated annually for building new Territorial Army centres or for major modernisations, where these are feasible, are insufficient to allow the Territorial Army to be properly accommodated. I see from the Estimates for 1958–59 that the sum allotted is £155,000. That sum would provide only two or three good, modern Territorial Army centres. In my own city of Leeds the urgent need is to provide one new centre for the Royal Army Service Corps and one for Leeds University Officers' Training Corps, but so far as I know not a singe pound of that £155,000 has been allotted to the West Riding. The Royal Army Service Corps headquarters are at present, and have been for many years past, what in my young days was a girls' school in one of the main streets of the city. It has been scheduled for demolition and rebuilding for many years, yet nothing whatever has been done. I hope that the Government will give attention to this long-deferred requirement.
Then there is the question of dress, which has been mentioned in passing. Your Lordships are aware that the Territorial Army has not yet been issued with a No. 1 dress, except for its regimental bands, where those exist, and there seems to be no immediate prospect, so far as I gather, of obtaining a No. 1 dress. The best uniform that a volunteer has to wear to-day is battledress, and even that, I am told, is frequently issued to him in part-worn condition. There is no doubt that a smart turn-out would serve to encourage recruiting, and the
226
volunteer is surely entitled to be properly dressed. These matters of dress and accommodation should have immediate attention. May I say that to my knowledge a number of recruits buy their own uniform, at a cost of £14 to £15, and these could be purchased in hulk by the Army authorities for little more than half that sum. I submit that it is false economy to starve the Territorial Army financially to such an extent that it cannot fulfil its intended rôle happily and with credit to itself and pride to its members.
I think that this Government—indeed, all Governmentsߞhave to make up their minds. If security is to be the dominating factor, the Government must provide enough money to maintain the Territorial Army as an efficient force. If, on the other hand, finance is to be the dominating factorߞa premium, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, termed itߞthe Territorial Army must be reduced to a size which can be properly maintained for the money available. The issue in regard to the future of the Territorial Army is almost as simple as that. My Lords, I much hope that this debate, so happily initiated by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, will tend not only to more publicity for the Territorial Army but also to the Government and all concerned rendering what help they can to make it the popular, happy and efficient force which we want it to be. I support the Motion.
5.5 p.m.
LORD KENILWORTH: My Lords, as the fourth of the "new boys", I crave your Lordships' indulgence if I say anything out of order or do it in the wrong manner. The noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, spoke about his early service with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton. I enjoyed being in a regiment, as a private, with Field Marshal Sir William Slim, who was also a privateߞI was in the Coventry battalion and Sir William was in the Birmingham battalionߞso that the noble Lord and I have one thing in common. Like the noble Lord, I remained in the lesser ranks, though I had the honour of commanding a battalion at the beginning of this last war. I began as a private in the Territorial Army and ultimately became commanding officer, so perhaps that entitles me to say one or

227
two things about the difficulties that one comes across in the Territorial Army.
I thought that the volunteer Army had almost come to an end, but I agree with what has been said to-day by the ex-Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who is an ex-Territorial soldier of many years ago: that a volunteer Army must either become a real volunteer Army or go to pieces entirely. I feel that a volunteer Army must be voluntary all the way round in the area: we have to know the local authorities, the employers of labour and, equally important, the trade union officials. In 1939 I gave half my battalion away, rather than stick to it, and told the fellows in the second line to "get cracking". I found that, with the aid of the civic authorities, the trade unions and the employers, I doubled my battalion in less than three months. Stratford-on-Avon, where I had no standing at all, produced me a complete company in a fortnight; and the mayor of that borough was the person responsible for doing it.
I think that recruiting, tackled sensibly, can still achieve something; but as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has said, without military bands and decent uniforms it is a very hard job. I think that the War Office might give some help in the matter of band costs: they are expensive; the men have to be well dressed. But I found in 1938 and 1939, before there was any doubling, that with the use of the band, and by exercising an ancient privilege which had never been given to us, of marching out with colours flying and bayonets fixed, we could be sure of half a dozen recruits every week That pleased me, and in my brigade we had 95 per cent. two years running, which is what we are all hoping for in the Territorial Army. So that I do not despair of the Territorial soldier coming forward. I do not think that a lot of money will encourage him. He likes the company of his fellow men in a man's club; he likes a bit of discipline, much to everybody's surpriseߞbut he does. With good N.C.Os. and good officers, these things happen.
The noble and gallant Lord talked about the tragic position of losing two out of his three officers; but I had only one, who was adjutant, training officer and everything else. But we had lent to us the warrant officers and N.C.Os
228
of a Regular battalion, who were handpicked, probably, by the Colonel of the regiment. And that is where we have the backbone of our training: they are the fellows who have to be made more and more use of. A good N.C.O. is first-class value all the way through.
There is one little contentious matter that I want to mention. In yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT of another place there was reference to the reduction of age of subalterns in the Territorial Army and to the fact that they have to be approved by the commanding officerߞthat is the first thing that matters, anyway. They must also have Certificate A or B. or must qualify for it, or the equivalent; but, somewhat surprisingly, the whole application has to be submitted to the Command selection board. I feel that the worst way you can hit a commanding officer in the eye, so to speak, is to suggest that he is not a good chooser and that somebody else is going to vet the men he has chosen. If the commanding officer does not know what he wants, I think that no selection board a hundred miles away can know any better. With Certificate A or B essential, a commanding officer always has a protection against the fellow who merely thinks he wants to be a Territorial Army officer. I had many of them in 1939, and I told them that they were no use to me until they had a certificate.
The other point I should like to mention there is that it says that a young subaltern who has not got Certificate B has to go to a training unit for fifteen days in his second year. Frankly, I feel that the right place for a subaltern is with his men, and one cannot ask a subaltern both to do his camp and to go away for fifteen days' training. I suggest that if he had to go as soon as he reaches field rank it would do him a lot more good, because he will then be of real use when it comes to training a battalion. They seem to be able to spare a major, because I have looked through the Army List to-day and I do not think any Territorial battalion has fewer than five; and most have more. Those of your Lordships who were in the Territorial Army before the war will know that at that time we had only two; so that it would then have been more difficult. I say this with some feeling of understanding. I did not myself go to one of these senior officers' schools, but sent my second in command. There was nothing I regretted more than letting

229
him go and staying behind, but I thought that, as the father of the battalion, it was better I should stay with the family than leave somebody else to look after it. That is a point that I feel might be worthy of further consideration.
I should like, in conclusion, to say how grateful I am that we have all been able to be associated with the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. As one of the what I might call younger boys of the Territorial Army, I feel that I should like to say "Thank you" for it; but I do not think I am the right person to say it. I feel sure that all the Territorial Officers and men will be extremely pleased at the steps that have been taken.
5.13 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kenilworth on his maiden speech, and it is a real privilege to be able to do that to somebody who speaks from so much personal experience and can put his arguments so clearly and yet, at the same time, so mildly. I am sure all your Lordships will agree with me when I say that I hope we shall frequently hear him again in the future.
I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, wholeheartedly. Unlike most noble Lords who have spoken, I was never in the Territorial Army, but during two most enjoyable periods of my service as a Regular officer I was in close contact with the Territorial Army, and now again, as Chairman of an Association, I am in even closer contact with them. So I have had the opportunity of getting to know the sacrifices that are made by the volunteers. There is, however, one class of person who has not so far been mentioned in any of the congratulatory speeches, either at the Mansion House or in your Lordships' House, and that is the wives of the Territorial volunteers. These wives gladly endure lonely evenings and also sacrifice a large part of their holidays. It is quite clear that if they were not prepared to support their husbands in the Territorial Army the size of the Territorial Army would be so reduced that it would almost cease to exist. The employers have been referred to in some detail by my noble friend Lord Lambert, but I should like to say
230
a word of thanks to those employers who go to great trouble in arranging for their staff to attend the Territorial Army camps.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft dealt with the question of the cut in the training grant at week-end and Sunday training; and this was also dealt with by my noble friend Lord Courtown, with whom I agree entirely. My noble friend Lord Mancroft said that there would be some variation as from Command to Command in the number of days allowed for week-end and Sunday training. I was not absolutely clear what he meant by that, and I should like to make a suggestion to my noble friend who is to reply. Speaking on behalf of Scotland, I would say that this is a very real problem in the Highlands of Scotland, where individual men are widely scattered. The idea of evening drills is a most uneconomic method of carrying out that training, and infinitely better value can be obtained by getting the men in for an entire week-end, or even for the whole day on the Sunday. I would suggest that while the week-ends must be carefully controlledߞwe cannot have weekend training ad lib., as we should all agreeߞthere should be some flexibility in the matter, and in places like the Highlands of Scotland a good deal larger allowance for week-end training should be made.
Another point that is rather disturbing, more to the associations than to the Territorial Army itself—again it affects Scotland, although I do not know about other areasߞis the policy of selling drill-halls when the number of Territorial Army volunteers becomes low. On paper, this is an obvious economy, but it could be an expensive one. These places, although they are called drill-halls, are almost invariably an Army hut upon which probably a good deal of money has been spent; but when they are put up for sale they are virtually unsaleable and almost have to be given away. I think that this matter is still under consideration and that no final decision has as yet been made. I would ask my noble friend to go into the question carefully and make certain that no penny-wise policy is put into operation too quickly.
I am glad to say that everything connected with my contact with the financial

231
side of the Territorial Army, as a whole, is not entirely gloomy. The advent of the new general grant, which came in a short time ago, was looked upon with a good deal of suspicion, but I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that in my areaߞthat is, Berwick, Roxburgh and Selkirkߞthe grant which we have been given will cover our normal expenditure. Obviously a great deal of care has been taken to make certain that the means provided do meet the requirements, and I should like to thank my noble friend for that.
My noble friend, Lord Mancroft, touched on the difficulty of recruiting to very small units. There is one other aspect of this matter which might help in raising the general tone of self-esteem in these units, and that is the question of the officers commanding them. This, again, I know, is under consideration. They cannot, by virtue of the small size of their units, reach any sort of high rank; captain is probably the highest they can reach, and it would be a great help to their own self-esteem, and therefore the self-esteem of the unit itself, if it were possible by some means for them to be granted a higher rank. It has been found in the past by the War Office, as one knows, that it is perfectly easy to produce innumerable different varieties of rank ߞ temporary, war-substantive, local, et ceteraߞin order to meet various conditions, and I cannot believe it is beyond the powers of imagination of the War Office to think up some way in which these officers could be spared almost the mockery of their fellows by being much too old for the comparatively junior rank they hold.
The rôle of the Territorial Army was dealt with so completely by the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, that I do not think there is much more to say on it, except to stress the importance of its being made quite clear that its units will always be military units. In a leading article in The Times, I think last Monday, it was stated that it was almost infra dig. for the Territorial Army to be connected with civil defence. That is complete nonsense. The Territorial Army are connected with civil defence in exactly the same way as the Regular Army, which would have to do the work if it were available. But it is most important that it should be made clear to the
232
members of the Territorial Army that in dealing with civil defence they will remain in their military units and be under their military commanders. Finally, my Lords, I should like to commend to your Lordships the Territorial Army Jubilee pamphlet, called Twice a Citizen, which tells far more graphically than I can the achievements and the sacrifices of the Territorial Army which we are remembering in this their Jubilee year.
5.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is one of those happy occasions when the House can cast aside some of its differences and unite, as we have done this afternoon, in acclaiming the services of millions of men and women who have given loyal service to the Territorial Army and to the country during the last fifty years. I should like to be associated with those noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. Unlike them, I had only a brief time in the Territorial Army. I held only one rank and that was the rank from which the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, rose to his high position and the esteem that he now holds in the British Army. I should like to say for myself that I hope we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, on many occasions on defence matters. We have many noble Lords of great military and naval experience in your Lordships' House, but it is regrettable that we have few occasions for hearing from them of their experiences. In the case of the noble and gallant Lord, he has very recent experience, and I am sure the House and the country will benefit greatly from it.
We have heard, and we all agree, that the Territorial Army has set a great example of voluntary service to this country. I would submit that that example is not limited to this country. There are many volunteer defence forces throughout Her Majesty's Dominions and Colonies, and these defence forces are largely based upon the example and administration and organisation of the Territorial Army. These forces are relatively small. They are situated many miles from these shores, and it is highly possible that many in your Lordships' House and in the country have little or no knowledge of them. Like the Territorial Army in two world wars, these small defence forces have served

233
the Crown. In the last war the Singapore Defence Force, the Malayan Defence Force and the Hong Kong Defence Force withstood the full brunt of a ruthless attack from Japan. They suffered terrible hardships in camp, but they came out will their spirits unbroken. Therefore I would submit that when we do honour to the Territorial Army we should acknowledge also the services of those defence forces.
I would submit that one cannot consider the Territorial Army in isolation, just as one cannot consider in isolation the other Regular Forces, for if one link in our chain of defence is weak our total strength is gravely imperilled. I believe we must consider the strength and the role of the Territorial Army against the background of recent military cuts, which we must all agree are causing grave disquiet amongst our N.A.T.O. Allies. By 1963 the Regular Army will be reduced to approximately 165,000 men. If National Service is concluded by that date and the recruiting target not reached, the Regular Army will be well below strength, and therefore it is a vital necessity that the first line of reserve, the Territorial Army, is brought up to its maximum establishment.
With regard to the article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph two days ago and which has been alluded to on various occasions, I would say that nothing, I believe, could be more damaging to the efforts of associations in raising volunteers than that statement, and I am sure we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft for giving an explanation this afternoon. We shall have to consider that very carefully. As I understand the position, there have been certain abuses in that certain personnel of the Territorial Army have been attending week-end training periods in excess of normal requirements. If these abuses have taken place, surely it only required the attention of the commanding officers to be drawn to it. Cannot the Treasury, cannot the War Office, trust the commanding officers? I understand that the position of officers and instructors will be seriously affected through these cuts.
The noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, in a tine maiden speech this afternoon, drew your Lordships' attention to the Answer to a Written Question appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place on
234
June 23. I should like to ask the Minister who will be replying whether it is the fact that young men between the ages of 20 and 30 can now become officers in the Territorial Army if they possess certificates A and B, but otherwise must join the ranks and obtain a satisfactory report from one camp. Does that mean that young men could come into the Territorial Army with those certificates and become officers without doing any service in the ranks? If that is so, I think it is a serious mistake. I appreciate that a young man who has got his A or B officer's certificate may know the rules and the regulationsߞhe may know his job; but it will never replace the knowledge and experience that he gains by serving in the ranks for six months or so. I think that was recognised during the last war.
I see that I have been speaking a good deal longer than I intended, but there are one or two points about which I should like to ask the Minister. The firstߞand I have given him notice of these questions —is whether the Territorial Army can be embodied or mobilised in part in the event of an emergency, for instance another Suez. If that is the case—and I believe that it is; certainly it has been hinted in the Press that it is possible—I would ask the Minister on what basis these men would be mobilised. Would they receive the same rates of pay, based on their years of service; in other words, would they be on the same basis completely as the Regular forces with whom they would be serving?
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister whether any legislation exists to protect the interests of the volunteer, when mobilised, so far as his employment is concerned, and whether there is any existing method of assisting the volunteer and his family in the event of difficulties arising as the result of a reduction in his incomeߞdifficulties such as inability to pay house mortgage, hire purchase and educational fees. Thirdly, in the event of such mobilisation, would the Territorial units retain their separate identity, or could a Territorial soldier be subject to posting outside his Territorial unit into one of the Regular units? I think these are all important points. I have no doubt that legislation does exist, and that there is protection, but if the noble Earl

235
this afternoon could give us some information I think it would have a useful effect on the recruiting.
My last point is perhaps the most important. It has not been touched upon so far this afternoon, but I raise it against the background of a visit I made two weeks ago to the Strategic Air Command in the United States. I refer to the question of bringing the Territorial Army and our defence forces generally on to the alert. In the past, this country has always had a brief period, at least, to mobilise its reserve forces. As I understand it, in the event of a nuclear attack on this country the most warning we could anticipate, if we were attacked by bombers, is two to three hours. In the event of attack by missiles, the time would be ten to fifteen minutes. I think we should remember that the aggressor in this case will always have the initiative. It may not be possible to detect the build-up of the enemy forces, and therefore the problem of mobilising and alerting the Territorial Army arises. It is absolutely essential that the whole procedure of alerting these defences should be streamlined and made as efficient as possible.
I should like to ask the Minister who is replying to-day whether he can tell us something about the system for bringing the forces on to the alert. In view of the short warning we can anticipate, I think it is also essential that the equipment of the Territorial Army should be dispersed and deployed throughout the country; and if it is possible I believe the equipment of the Territorial units should be brought up to war establishment as soon as possible. My Lords, I think that is all the time for which I should detain your Lordships. I should like once again to join with other Members of this House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for raising this Motion, and to be associated with all in wishing the Territorial Army "all the best" in the future.
5.37 p.m.
TILE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those four noble Lords who have addressed this House for the first time to-day. They have all, in their own very experienced way, added a great deal to this debate. I must praise the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has moved this
236
most excellent appreciation of the Territorial Army, and I wish to join him in this appreciation. It so happens that the Territorial Army and I celebrate our Golden Jubilees virtually at the same time. I merely say this because it so happens that I have exactly 30 years' very personal knowledge of this Army, for I received my commission in 1928 and have had almost continuous service and contact ever since, first with my own old unit, and latterly with my county Territorial Auxiliary Forces Association.
I think that in expressing an appreciation one must be allowed to reminisce a little. The Force was very small in 1928. The backbone of it were the veterans from the First World War. They inspired the then younger men who were beginning to join in small numbers. In those days, I can remember two young soldiers who, every time they went to camp for their annual training, lost their jobs. There were no paid holidays in those days and there was a good deal of unemployment, but they served on and served well. I can remember the year, I think it was in 1932, in the depth of the slump, when Government economy cancelled altogether the annual camp with pay. But many from my own unitߞand it must have been the same in many other units —went to their regimental depots to continue their training.
I can remember in the mid-1930s, on one of the hottest days of the year, training on the Sussex Downs. We were in full marching order. Over the hill came a party of hikers clad only in shorts and open shirts. As soon as they saw us they started chanting, "There goes the army that will never be wanted." I remember the busy days of August, 1939. My battalion was ordered to embody a week before war broke out. Our strength was up to war establishment. The postcards summoning the men had gone out. Not a man failed to turn up on the day. Their achievement in war needs no re-telling from me. But what an adaptable army the Territorial Army is, absorbing nearly to saturation point the National Servicemen, and now, free once more in its spirit and tradition, living on for further service to the country ߞthe cheapest of armies, as many have said, and have said proudly. But I add my plea to the plea of other noble Lords: please do not let it be too cheap. Give

237
this great volunteer force the best professional advisers, and let there be sufficient of them.
My own unit was a country unit, and at one moment my own company covered three drill halls. For a brief period before the war I was attached to a London unit and the whole of that unit was under one roof. As a result, the demands on instructors were much easier than if they had had to travel to three different drill-halls for one company alone. I hope that there will also be sufficient of the right equipment and that imagination will not have to play too big a part. Give the commanding officers practical backing as well as encouragement when they lay on the tough hobby in their training.
Finally, I should like to add my plea to that of my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell in mentioning the Territorial soldier's wife. Do not deprive her of her marriage allowance when her soldier husband has earned it. I say that, because there is a very pernickety regulation which says that no marriage allowance is payable unless the husband has clone three days' training. There can be no doubt in our minds that all ranks of the Territorial Army will carry out to the full the arduous duties which may be imposed upon them.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, like so many noble Lords I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having brought forward this Motion. Like my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell and others, I have never served in the Territorial Army, but in the days before the war I was fortunate enough to be associated with them. I remember that I had a very pleasant fortnight's duty commanding a demonstration platoon at what was then called "Territorial Officers' Fortnight" at Sandhurst; and on other occasions I was machine gun instructor to various Territorial Army units. What always struck me on those occasions was the intense keenness of all ranks in the Territorial Army to learn. Probably not infrequently Territorial officers and men knew more than I did, but it was always pleasant to work with them because of their great keenness to learn. I was also at the receiving end of help from the Territorial Army, for when I had the honour to command the Westminster Battalion of the Home Guard the Terri-
238
torial Army was of great assistance to me, and I believe that all Home Guard commanders invariably had extremely good, willing and quick assistance from Territorial as well as from Regular Army units.
The few points that I wish to bring forward have already been mentioned, but I feel that they deserve some emphasis. One of the most important points was that mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Harding of Petherton in his splendid maiden speechߞthe importance of making certain that everyone in this country realises the need for the Territorial Army. I do not think that that can be said too often. It goes for all the Services, of course, and I do not think enough bas been said upon that. The second point is that, now that the Territorial Army knows the rôole which it is expected to perform, it is to be hoped, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, that they will be allowed to get on with it without any major changes in the future. Major changes are hard enough to bear in a Regular Army, when the staff and formations are there all the time; but for a Territorial Army unit, which meets infrequently and does not have so much time for training, they present a most difficult problem.
The question of equipment has been brought up several times, and was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. To my mind, Territorial Army equipment must be up-to-date and available. As the noble Earl said, imagination is all very well but it can be taken too far. Some of us who served in the Regular Army can remember what was called a "flagged enemy" and the Territorial Army has often had to imagine a "flagged vehicle", for I believe that such things as troop-carrying vehicles, which I understand are in very short supply, even in the Regular Army, are non-existent in the Territorial Army. When one wants to make training really stick—and nowadays troop movements are invariably quick, and troops have to be carried about ߞsomething must be done to ensure that this training can become realistic. The practice of borrowing from Regular Army units is never very popular and never really works, for nearly always if a vehicle is borrowed from the Regular Army its driver has to be taken with it, so that Territorial Army drivers never

239
get a chance. In any case I think that the Regular Army should not have this extra commitment of having to lend its precious equipment.
There are one or two other points which have been brought up and which I consider extremely important. One is the question of uniforms. We all know what a uniform means to a man, and in these days one sees men and youths walking about in extraordinary clothes. It means a great deal to young people in the Territorial Army to wear a smart uniform, and possibly we may be able to change some of the youth population of this country. When they see how smart a Territorial can look—and a Territorial Army soldier can look as smart as a Regular soldier—they may say to themselves, "Why not get out of this, and join up with the Territorial Army?" That is a point which I think is very important. The question of bands has been brought up. There again, it is hardly necessary for me to repeat the points already made. On several recent occasions when the Royal Marines beat Retreat large numbers of people went to listen-and people always flock anywhere to hear a military band. People from all parts of the world and all parts of England go to watch the Changing of the Guard day by day; and they do so largely to hear the military band. So from the point of view of morale, I think it is most important that there should be bands.
Another important point is that when pay and allowances are due to Territorial officers and men they should be paid at once, with no haggling and niggling about it. Nothing is more annoying, when you know you are entitled to money, than to have to wait and haggle about it. There is a further point that I should like to bring forward. Many noble Lords have spoken about the end of the National Serviceman in the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army is now going back to what it should be, a volunteer force, but I should not like it to go out from your Lordships' House that, as a nation, we are not grateful to the National Servicemen for what they have done ever since National Service was instituted. I think that would be a pity, and it would be untrue. We all know what a magnificent performance the National Servicemen
240
have put up, and we should have been very badly placed without them. Except for joining once more in congratulating the Territorial Army on its past, and expressing every confidence in its future, I have no more to say.
5.53 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, we are fortunate that my noble friend Lord Ogmore has chosen so opportune an occasion for bringing before your Lordships this Resolution of congratulation, so well and roundly phrasedߞcongratulation for the past and an expression of confidence in the future. We are also fortunate to-day in that the spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government are two noble Lords who have practical experience of the Territorial Army. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has already spoken; he has a long experience of the Territorial Army, both in peace and in war. He is one of those to whom congratulations on the past are extended. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, belongs to the younger generation. I very well remember in his maiden speech in your Lordships' House his speaking with an appearance and, I believe, the reality of great authority, and certainly the reality of great and sincere interest in the needs and requirements of the Territorial Army. There could be no one more acceptable to your Lordships' House than the noble Earl, who is himself an officer on the active list of the Territorial Army, to make the final speech in this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. When he speaks on behalf of Her Majesty's Government he will also on this occasion be speaking, as I believe, for the House as a whole from the Government Front Bench, for we are of one mind upon this subject.
When somewhat over fifty years ago I was gazetted to the Volunteer Force, and not long afterwards patted on the shoulder in complimentary fashion by Mr. Haldane's own hand on becoming an original officer of the Territorial Force, I could scarcely have thought then that fifty years later I should be standing here in your Lordships' House holding an appointment in that same Territorial Army and speaking on a Motion of congratulation for its half century of the past and confidence in and good wishes for its future. I think that that is an unusual experience; it is one which touches me

241
very deeply. The discussion to-day has been remarkable for the unanimity of opinion as regards both the virtues and the prospects of the Territorial Army and as to certain matters to which attention might reasonably be given in the future for removing difficulties.
I look back upon the past and I feel that what has been achieved by the Territorial Army in the last fifty years is not less than amazing. My noble friend, Lord Ogmore, spoke of the mobilisation in 1938 of the Territorial Army. Perhaps too little has been said of that; but also too little has been said of the partial mobilisation, three or four weeks before the declaration of war in 1939, of I know not how much of the Army, but at least of the regiment with which I was and am associated. In 1938, though there was no Proclamation so far as I remember, I cannot recall that there was any man absent from his place. When the regiment marched out from its headquarters in Regent's Park to its war station, it marched forth, to whatever the future might bring, complete with all its young manhood. In 1939, beginning in July, there was always a battery for the defence of London at its war station, and I cannot recall there having been any absentee there either. That is very creditable to the young manhood there represented, in that particular instance the young men of London.
It has been said by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, that the British public must be convinced of the need for the Territorial Army. That is profoundly true. Recruiting is not particularly easy for the Regular Forces of the Crown; it is infinitely more difficult for a volunteer force, composed of men and women engaged in their civilian life in the pursuit of a livelihood and concerned, too, with those interests which are most relevant to young manhood and young womanhood. It is the establishment of a public spirit amongst the public at large favourable to a volunteer force which will be the vital factor in bringing young men and women into the Territorial Army.
I am particularly impressed by anything that comes from the lips of the noble and gallant Field Marshal. Lord Mancroft claimed some measure of reflected glory from the fact that he served
242
in the same division as the noble and gallant Field Marshal; I can make a closer claim than that, for the noble and gallant Field Marshal started his military career in the Territorial Regiment which is part of the now amalgamated regiment with which I am associated. If, as I heard him generously acknowledge, he owes something to the regiment and to the Territorial Army of the First World War, the regiment owes a great deal to him. I will tell your Lordships why. Throughout his stepping up in the heirarchy, he has kept in touch with his old Territorial regiment. Only a few weeks ago he came to an officers' dinner of his old regiment; and it was encouraging beyond anything I had imagined to find the spirit of old comradeship which the noble and gallant Field Marshal displayed and the electrifying effect it had en the minds and temper of the regiment. I might say to the noble and gallant Field Marshal that his influence is far greater than he may sometimes imagine. That sort of simple act of kindly guesthood is of infinite value.
He is not alone in keeping in touch with his Territorial regiment. I know of others who occupy places prominent in the public mind and who do the same. They may think that they are just dining for old times' sake with their own comrades. They are doing much more. They are giving prestige to the Territorial Army and they are giving confidence to those who now serve that their efforts are regarded as important.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who referred to recruiting, that I have watched with much interest the Press advertisements calling for recruits for Her Majesty's Forces. I congratulate those responsible on the form which those appeals take. I think that many of them have been first rate. But I enter a caveat. I think that they are useful and very likely will have the desired effect for the Regular Forces of the Crown, but I do not think that they are anything like so appropriate for the volunteer forces. These require an entirely different form of approach. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers, but in the middle of the '30sߞI do not mean the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who shakes his head; I know that he does not remember; he is so young that he was scarcely there; I was addressing myself to the

243
noble Lord, Lord Mancroftߞthere was great requirement for recruits for the Territorial Army. Of course, great aid was given by the fact that Hitler was impending, but the ordinary recruiting methods, whether for the Armed Forces or for civil defence, were not securing the required results.
At that time an organisation was formed which became known as the National Defence Public Interests Committee, to which, as occasion arose, the War Office would appeal for help in securing recruits. Whenever the Director General of the Territorial Army, who at that time was a member of the Army Council, had a particular unit which he wished to fill, at all events in London or the Home Counties, he would come to the chairman of that committee and ask him to find the recruits. Probably the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will remember something of this. Methods that were entirely new at that time were adopted, and the results were remarkable. I suggest that it might be worth while looking up the War Office records of that time to see whether there is anything to be learned from that experience.
I agree with what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with regard to wives. We really must remember the wives. A tremendous amount depends upon the good will of the wives. I know of one commanding officer whose Territorial duties always kept him away from home and his wife complained bitterly that she never saw him. He retired; and now his wife complains bitterly that she does not know what to do with him. However I suppose a happy medium can be found.
The noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, in a notable maiden speech upon which I join in congratulating him, spoke of methods of recruitment in the provinces. I am unable to say anything about that, for my own experience is limited to London and its neighbourhood, but I can well understand that in the new towns, for instance, the experience to which he referred might be of great advantage.
I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite has thought of reverting to the practice to which my noble friend Lord Ogmore referred, of having someone at the War Office who would be there by
244
the side of the Director of the Territorial Army. There was, of course, a Deputy-Director General in the person of General Sir John Brown, a devoted Territorial, who died only the other day. He was never really quite accepted in that capacity at the War Office. Listening to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who is the Chairman of the Council of Territorial Associations, it occurred to me to wonder whether some particular member of that Council might not be invited to be, not perhaps so much in an official capacity as informally, adviser on civilian aspects of recruiting and other matters relating to the Territorial Army, which is something different from any other part of the Armed Forces with which the Service Departments are concerned.
In the course of to-day's discussion it has been said that the Territorials are part-time soldiersߞpart-time indeed but also pastime; and it is important that conditions should be created for the Territorial Army which would give them not merely confidence in their day-to-day military work but also satisfaction and enjoyment in the general military environment in which they may find themselves.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would let me interrupt him on the important point he has raised about getting proper advice on Territorial conditions at the War Office? There is the opposite point of view, which is the one that I have held. If there is one Territorial officer in the War Office to advise, he will not be an expert on everything. If, on the other hand, the Regular soldier who is filling the post is free to consult the best Territorial opinion on any subject that he may find, he is even better off than he would be with a full-time Territorial adviser.
LORD NATHAN: Naturally there is great force in what the noble Viscount says, as there is in everything he says upon a subject upon which he is so much of an expert. I think, however, that there is a difference between leaving the Director of the Territorial Army open to consult whom he will and there being somebody whose duty it is to be there to be consulted, and to consult whom the Director has a duty or responsibility. It is a question not so much of the civilian

245
actually concerned but of the relations between the two; it might work better in one way than the other. I merely throw that out as a suggestion that is worth considering.
One can make great mistakes about recruiting. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who, so far as I remember, had a responsibility in this respect, may remember that when I was at the War Office and he was one of its most distinguished officers the order of battle of the Territorial Army was being arranged and discussed amongst us; and it was presented to me as including a parachute brigade. I took the view that the Territorial Army was not suited to have a parachute brigade and there would be very few recruits from the civilian army to fill it. I felt that these young men could not afford to run the risk of breaking art arm or leg or neck; their civilian work was so important to them that they could not afford to be put out of action. I can tell your LordshipsߞI think it is most creditable to the Territorial Army, though perhaps discreditable to me—that I was absolutely wrong about that. Of all the units within the Territorial Army, the one that was filled first and has remained full all the time has been the parachute brigade. I think that that is worth recording, because, in my view, it is infinitely creditable to the civilian soldiers.
An old man speaking of experiences extending over a long period can easily outrun his welcome, and I will say little more. I join with those who say that equipment should be up to date in all its various aspects. It is not only incongruous to ask young men to give their time to public service of this kind unless you provide them with the proper equipment for the purpose, but unwise, and perhaps dangerous not so to provide them, in another respect. Differently from the war conditions of the past, it may well happen in the war with which we might be confronted in the future that the only weapons they will ever have will be those they have upon the outbreak of war. I will not enlarge upon that, because it is obvious. I would only say that it seems to me essential that they should be armed at the earliest possible moment that the arms can be provided, with the weapons they will be required to use in the event of war suddenly coming upon us; because it must be assumed that if war does come upon us, it will come suddenly.
246
I am a little disturbed about the reference that has been made to a reduction of payment for training outside the annual camp and the week-day drills. The week-end camp in the Territorial Army is of great importance, first of all for training purposes, and also because it brings these lads together, gives them an opportunity of getting to know one another and creates mutual confidence. I do not like the idea of a commanding officer having to say to a keen young man: "No, you cannot have a week-end training because the money will not run to it." I think we should make every effort to see that there shall never be a "No" to a keen young man who is anxious to pursue his training. After all, he is there in the public interest; let us help him.
In joining with the rest of your Lordships in supporting this Motion, and doing so with an infinitely warm feeling, looking back upon so long an association with the Territorial Army, I should like to give your Lordships a small quotation. It is from Trevelyan's English Social History. It is:
" Another sign of the self-respect and self-reliance of the English common folk was training for military service. It was only during the long period of peace after Waterloo that men began to regard it as part of English liberty not to be trained for defence. In all previous ages the opposite and more national idea prevailed."
The history of the Territorial Army of the last fifty years is full of records of achievement and courage and glory. We may be fully confident in passing this Motion that the record of the Territorial Army of to-day will also be one of achievement and courage and glory.
6.17 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, before I have the honour of replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has put down to congratulate the Territorial Army, with your Lordships' permission I should like from this Dispatch Box to sayߞand I think I may say it on behalf of the Territorial Army ߞhow much we appreciate the honour that Her Majesty The Queen and the Royal Family paid to the Territorial Army by carrying out the inspection and review in Hyde Park and in other places this week-end. Her Majesty The Queen Mother inspected the Irish contingent of the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland,

247
which was a magnificent parade, and Her Majesty The Queen will be inspecting the Scottish contingents in a fortnight's time at Holyrood. I am sure that the Territorial Army feel it a great honour that the Royal Family should in this way recognise the importance of the need for the Territorial Army:
I feel that we must also congratulate London District and the staffs who made possible such a parade for Londoners and your Lordships to see on that Sunday. I saw from the back regions a little of the preparation that is required for such a gathering, and I think Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend must in a considerable way be due for congratulation for foreseeing the Golden Jubilee Celebration such a long time away, as they must have done to make it the success it undoubtedly was. I think that, finally, thanks are due to all the Regular soldiers who carried out the duties as marshals and instructors to the Territorial Army for the purposes of that particular parade. I have no doubt that it will be a long time before ordinary people such as ourselves will again be addressed in this manner: "Gentlemen will you please move to your right" or "to your left" by Guards' sergeant-majors. I only hope that they saw and feltߞwhich I am certain they did—a little of the spirit that was there on that great and magnificent parade, which it was such an honour to have been in.
So many of your Lordships to-day have mentioned the rôle of the Territorial Army that. before I go further, in order to clear up certain other things I have to say, I think I should mention that rôle. The noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, who made such a magnificent maiden speech to your Lordships, and whom I know your Lordships will wish to hear on many occasions in the future, referred especially to this rôle. My Lords, there can be no concrete rôle. We cannot say exactly what each Territorial serviceman will do, but the general rôle is, I believe, very well known and definite indeed, as the noble and gallant Lord said. The Territorial Army is training a reserve of organised and disciplined manpower. Come nuclear war, come a strategic war, come any sort of war or defence requirement, that kind of body will always be
248
required, whether it is abroadߞwhich is possibleߞor whether it is at home; and at present, if one envisaged a nuclear war, it would seem most likely that such a body would be required at home.
I believe that it is the duty of all of us to emphasise the need for home defence, and to bring it out of the somewhat Cinderella state in which it has unfortunately been regarded for the past few years by some of the Territorial Army and also by the country as a whole. We must appreciate that home defence will be a role that any organised and disciplined body of manpower will be required to carry out, whether they be Regular soldiers, Territorial Army, A.E.R., Royal Navy or Royal Air Force; and there may or may not be time to call them out according to the rules. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, also were concerned with this rôle of the Territorial Army. No particular type of war can be envisaged, and providing the Territorial Army can be organised and disciplined, as indeed it is to-day, and can be strengthened on the lines so many of your Lordships have mentioned, that role will indeed have been fulfilled.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend, I beg to thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for his contribution to the debate in your Lordships' House to-day. The Association to which the noble Duke has given so much time and thought is very much to be credited for the success not only of the Golden Jubilee celebrations but also of the Territorial Army to which all your Lordships have given such kind credit. Without the hard work done in the back regions by such as the noble Duke and his fellow Presidents, and by chairmen of Territorial Army associations, such a reserve of manpower as I have mentioned would not be possible to-day. I feel quite certain that your Lordships' House will indeed be proud, reading the list of people attending the Territorial Army dinner over the week-end, to see so many names included as chairmen or presidents or high officers of their various associations, just as we have heard of noble Lords who have been speaking in the debate to-day.
My Lords, I have taken uniform as my third point, because nearly every noble

249
Lord who has spoken in the debate has mentioned uniforms for the Territorial Army. As we heard in the last debate on the Regular Army, it is by no means certain exactly what sort of uniform the Regular Army will wear. User trials are being carried out in certain units of the Regular Army, and when a decision has been made a uniform will be provided. Until that decision has been made, it is impossible to provide a set uniform, other than battledress, for the Territorial Army. I regret that this irritating and trying period of waiting for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army alike must continue. Meanwhile, of course, bands have already been issued with No. 1 dress in the Territorial Army. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend very much appreciates what a smart uniform does to attract volunteers, especially a uniform which embodies all the traditions and peculiarities of regiments when they are on parade.
I have no doubt that any of your Lordships who saw the parade last Sunday will have seen practically every adaptation and peculiarity there can be in uniform, let alone No. 1 dress. I do congratulate whoever it was in London District who allowed the order to go through that Territorial Army regiments would wear what they were accustomed to wearing; because, of course, in the first place, every unit and officer and man would wear exactly the same. Had that order been held to, there is no doubt that every member of the Territorial Army, each regiment, would have worn exactly what its Colonel decided he would wear.
LORD LAWSON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but is there any limit to the time when the Territorials are going to wear the armband? They have to wear the armband in the meantime while the uniform is being made.
EARL BATHURST: We have progressed a long way from that. Battle-dress will still continue to be issued, with the regimental badges or flashes which the regiment wears. I think we have advanced further than armbands. It is the No. 1 dress I am referring to. Meanwhile, of course, any member of the Territorial Army may purchase his own No. 1 dress, should he so wish, and is not prevented from wearing it on any
250
suitable occasion when No. 1 dress should be worn. The noble Lords, Lord Kenilworth, Lord Ogmore, Lord Goschen and Lord Milner of Leeds, all mentioned this question of dress, and I have no doubt that the feeling of your Lordships' House as to whether No. 1 dress is a smart dress, together with the feelings of the Territorial Army, and no doubt the watchers of that parade, will to a considerable extent influence the opinion of my right honourable friend at such time as a decision is made.
LORD OGMORE: Before the noble Earl leaves the question of uniform would he comment upon the statement I made (I had authority for it), that all the uniforms at the review have been, or are going to be, "whipped away" from the Territorial Army and put into Regular store? Is that correct, and, if so, cannot that decision be reversed?
EARL BATHURST: I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that point to my notice; I was going to comment on it. At present the members of the Territorial Army who were on that parade have their uniforms, but they are to go back to the central store for re-issue to Regular Army or other units. It is not possible to issue those uniforms to the Territorial Army until a decision has been made as to what the Regular Army will be wearing.
LORD OGMORE: Is it not a fact that this is a most pinchbeck attitude on the part of the Government? Here is the Jubilee parade, celebrating fifty years of the Territorial Army; and the men who turn out on it cannot keep the uniforms they wore with the special insignia of the units; they must go back into the general store. We may be poor, but surely we are not as poor as all that.
EARL BATHURST: There must be many members of the Territorial Army and of your Lordships' House who feel the same way as does the noble Lord opposite, but it is not possible to issue these uniforms to the Territorial Army until the further decision has been made for the Regular Army.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked if it was desirable for officers to have service in the ranks. The officers' training corps will be of even greater importance now that National Service is ending. The officers' training corps were formed, first

251
of all, in 1908 and, together with the Territorial Army, are celebrating their Golden Jubilee this year. There are sixteen major universities which run officers' training corps and which have 1,780 male members and 332 women members. Unfortunately, as National Service has already begun to taper away for young men, these officers' training corps have lost in the last two years a considerable number of their recruits and members. It is hoped, however, that, with the new entry of young officers to the Territorial Army which my noble friend Lord Mancroft has described, new life will be given to the officers' training corps, which will provide certificates A and B for potential young officers.
As for the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised, about a young officer or a young potential officer joining the ranks, no doubt that would be, to a large extent, a matter for the individual concerned and his commanding officer. If the commanding officer thought that he should for a period go through the ranks, no doubt he would tell such an officer that he would have to do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Earl not agree that it was felt at the beginning of the last war that a young officer, or a young potential officer, should serve in the ranks? It should not be left to the choice of the commanding officer or of the individual. I think that, as a matter of principle, a man should serve at least a short period in the ranks, particularly in a volunteer and practically civilian Army, to understand the rankers' position.
EARL BATHURST: I think the reason for that would be that officers were then made up virtually like the results of the operation of a sausage machine. This plan will cover such a small number that already they will be almost handpicked at the start. I have no doubt, too, that the first word a colonel would say to such a potential officer (as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, told me, before he made his excellent maiden speech, was his method) would be to ask the roan whether he had been to an officers' training corps and if he said, "No," the colonel would say, "Go and join one." I suspect that that would be the sort of method that would be used when a potential officer joined a unit.
252
I am sure your Lordships welcome the fact that it will be possible to bring into the Territorial Army a young officer, which of course at the present time, until National Service ceases, is quite impossible. We hope that the officers' training corps in the universities will begin to build up a new strength and a new lease of life, because, with these officers' training corps in the universities begins Army interest and pre-Service training for any undergraduate who may be considering joining the Regular Army, especially as a highly technical officer, of whom so many are needed and will be needed in the Territorial Army of the future.
Several noble Lords mentioned the importance of the Cadet Forces, especially now that National Service is reaching the conclusion of its life. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, particularly referred to this point, although I think he must have had in mind the naval point of view. But I am sure that all your Lordships will appreciate what he meant when he said that it was extremely important that young men or boys should be given the right idea for joining in the service of their country and learning about the discipline under which they will have to serve. As your Lordships know, my noble and gallant friend Lord Bridgeman has done much for the Cadet Force throughout the country. Your Lordships will appreciate the success that he made of it during the last war. Anything that noble Lords in your Lordships' House to-day, and those noble Lords who are listed at the Territorial Army Dinner, can do to strengthen the membership both of the Army Cadet Force and the Combined Cadet Forces will have a direct bearing on the strength and the health of the Territorial Army in the near future, when National Service ends.
I think I should refer your Lordships to the Amery Report, which says that all future officer cadets must pass a selection board of four members. That is an innovation, and it will mean a good deal to the standard of instructors which the Army Cadet Force is able to employ. In regard to the C.C.F., the instructors are mainly schoolmasters, so that the difficulty of providing instruction with C.C.F. units is not, as a rule, quite so great.
I would now beg your Lordships' indulgence while I congratulate, on behalf

253
of your Lordships and my right honourable friend, all the women's services who took and are taking part, in the Golden Jubilee celebrations. This year is the Territorial Army Golden Jubilee. The Auxiliary Territorial Serviceߞthe old A.T.S.—is approaching its twenty-first birthday. This Service was formed in 1939, with a target of 20,000 women, to be recruited to augment the manpower of our forces and to make more men available for fighting. At the outbreak of war, when hardy a year had gone by, 17,600 members had already enlisted in the A.T.S. Surely that must be a record for recruiting for any body of a national defence organisation of its sort, even bearing in mind the terrible emergency of the time. At the peak period of its strength, the A.T.S. had 210,000 members.
There is no need to emphasise the tremendous value and the help given by the Auxiliary Territorial Service, and, indeed, all the women's corps, to the Services with whom they were working. In 1947, Vie A.T.S. formed its Territorial Army Associate. In 1949, the A.T.S. was converted to the Women's Royal Army Corps, and it, too, has its Territorial Army Associate units. It is said that girls grow up or mature more quickly than young men do. Certainly it would seem to be so in the case of the Women's Royal Army Corps, for already it has decidedߞand firmly decided, I understandߞon exactly what sort of uniform its members are going to wear. They like it; they look smart in it, and I understand that it is a considerable recruiting draw to the women's Services.
I am quite certain that every one of your Lordships would wish to congratulate the members of the Women's Royal Army Corps on their turnout and their marching on the parade, and to commiserate with them on what must have been a most difficult and trying experience of marching in such weather conditions. Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend will be most grateful for anything your Lordships may be able to do to help recruit more women to the Women's Royal Army Corps or, by means of local Territorial Army associations, to help units to become strongerߞbecause more women than ever before are wanted in the Territorial Army to stand ready should at emergency occur.
254
There is one part of the Women's Services that receives but little publicity and which I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention. That is the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. Your Lordships may remember seeing them in their very smart grey uniforms on the recent parade. This is a very small band of woman, numbering not many more than a hundred throughout the country, and their position is extremely difficult. It is almost an all-officer unit, yet to qualify to become an officer—that is, a nursing sister—in the Corps, three years' full-time training as a nursing sister is required. There must he very few women able to carry out such training, and even those who are able to do so may be earmarked, as a qualified sister, perhaps for the special services which her hospital provides. Any help that any of your Lordships may be able to give through Territorial Army associations, or such influence as your Lordships may have in providing more nurses, whether as fully trained officer sisters or other ranks for the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps will be of tremendous assistance and greatly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend. For training, this Corps is attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps hospitals, and its members have fortnightly training throughout the course of the year in exactly the same way as the rest of the Territorial Army.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the ladies may I take it that he would wish to include in his congratulations to members of the Women's Corps that very fine Corps, the First Aid Nursing Yeomanryߞknown as the Fannies "ߞwhich did particularly fine work in the last war?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for bringing the "Fannies" to your Lordships' attention. In practice, of course, they are no longer in existence and are not part of the Territorial Army; but they played a wonderful part.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, may I say that the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry are in existence. Her Royal Highness Princess Alice inspected them last week or the week before.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, I believe they must exist only on paper. I believe that they are not recognised as part of the Territorial Army. However, that makes no difference to the magnificent part they played in the last war, as the noble Lord. Lord Rea, has said.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Malmesbury, referred to the equipment of the Territorial Army. It is true that equipment is never exactly what any serving soldier would like it to be; but it is fair to say, first, that the scale of equipment of any Territorial Army unit is as good as it possibly can be; and, secondly, that it is sufficient to enable reasonable training to be carried out at unit strength. My right honourable friend will take all the trouble he possibly can to make certain that equipment will be made available to the Territorial Army.
The noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, referred to the permanent staff position of Territorial Army units and especially to the fact that in most cases training majors may be withdrawn from units. With more Regular Army commitments throughout the world, and with the rundown taking effect, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Regular Army parent units to provide permanent staff for their Territorial Army units. Territorial Army units are most grateful for the great efforts being made by parent units to provide any permanent staff.
In the view of my right honourable friend, however, the least essential category of permanent staff (though perhaps that is not quite the way to put it) provided by Regular Army units is the training major; and those are the personnel who can most easily be dispensed with. It is true, however, that even though the National Service commitment is gradually drawing to a close the rôle of the Army is becoming more and more complicated; and with commanding officers having still less time to deal with such problems, it may still be necessary to retain the services of the training major. If it should be shown in the near future that the training major should be regarded as indispensable there will, of course, be reconsideration of the matter by my right honourable friend. At present, there are 959 permanent officers
256
and 3,832 other ranks administering Territorial Army units in headquarters formations and as instructors, which is a fairly small administrative and instructive force for an Army of 84,600. But I would assure the noble and gallant Field Marshal that that matter will be under review in the near future, should it be seen that the training major is required in Territorial Army units. I will certainly bear in mind the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, with regard to scattered units, especially with regard to the Highlands, and will bring it before my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, like the noble and gallant Field Marshal, was especially concerned with the mobilisation plans. Under Section 23 of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, a Royal Proclamation must be read before any reserve forces can be called out for permanent service. A Royal Proclamation may or may not be able to be read, but that is the law of the land. Territorial Army and other Auxiliary Forces can then be called out for permanent service, at home or overseas, or for any other service. Under Section 25 of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, however, a Secretary of State may call out forces of the Territorial Army for home defence only without such a Proclamation, and therefore it is quite obvious that although Territorial Army units may be earmarked for overseas or home service they cannot be used as such until all the provisions of the 1953 Act have been comlied with.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked how such mobilisation would be accomplished. In fact, the main method, as noble Lords will be aware, is by Post Office registered letter or telegram or telephone or any other such method as can be used through the Post Office. Obviously, that may or may not be practicable in such situations as the noble Lord opposite was envisaging, in which case, as is the case at present, every commanding officer must have a plan, and that plan must include a method of calling out his own volunteer members. He has their names and addresses. If his telephone is out of order or if his local post office is out of order he will have to use some other method. He must have a plan by which

257
to call them should he be so ordered, whether under Section 25 or Section 23 of the Auxiliary Services Act.
LORD OGMORE: As this is a modern age, what about a more modern method, such as by television or radio? Is it not possible to call them out by that means and is it not a much easier method? The other method relies on all the members having telephones, which I very much doubt.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it is possible that the stations would be out of order. One can imagine that it would not really be safe to rely on such a method. It would be up to the commanding officer to call out and to collect together his own volunteers should such emergencies exist.
LORD OGMORE: I do not wish to detain the noble Earl, but it is rather important. Presumably the sixth battalion of the Loamshire Fusiliers, for example, are not likely to be called out on their own. If anybody is to be called out it will probably involve a pretty big proportion of the Territorial Army, as it did in 1938. In those circumstances, is it not rather idle to think of commanding officers solemnly trying to ring up men all over the place? Would it not be through radio or television that a blanket call-up could be made?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it has been known for some time that newspapers and all methods could be used or would he used should such an emergency exist. I am saying what the normal method would be, and supposing normal facilities were not available what steps would then be taken, as they would be taken in a plan at the lowest unit level.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, paid a special tribute to the National Servicemen and to the Class Z men who have done so much in the service of the country in war time and also in the Territorial Army. The noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Harding of Petherton, will indeed know what the service has been, and realises fully the services that these National Servicemen have rendered. Now the Territorial Army goes forward to be an all volunteer force in the new era that is arriving. I should like just to add my thanks to those of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for the service that the National Servicemen and the Class Z men have done under
258
the old réegime, or the régime from 1947, for the Territorial Army.
As we move forward into the new volunteer period, the period which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has mentioned and compared to the period of his time, I believe that the Territorial Army will be, as ever, prepared and, as ever, ready to carry out the great services to which so many of your Lordships have referred in the course of the debate. Lastly, I want only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for initiating this debate, and all the other noble Lords who have taken part in it and given such inspiration to the Territorial Army by their speeches; to congratulate the noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches upon the Territorial Army; and to thank them for their great contribution, which I know will be read most carefully by those to whom the Territorial Army means so much.
On Question, Resolution agreed to, nemine dissentiente.

CRUELTY IN THE WHALING INDUSTRY
6.54 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose to draw attention to the cruelty involved in the present method of whaling; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House. If any justification were required I think it would be in the terms of the resolution carried at the Conference at Geneva a few weeks ago relating to the sea; that is, the United Nations' Conference about which your Lordships will remember there was disagreement over the extent of territorial waters and fishing limits. But the Conference agreed (as the noble Viscount on the Woolsack has just said on the Resolution we have just passed) nemine dissentiente to a resolution couched in these words:
"The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, requests States to prescribe, by all means available to them, those methods for the capture and killing of marine life, especially of whales and seals, which will spare them suffering to the greatest exert 'possible."
The reason why these two marine animals are referred to and singled out specially is that they are mammals and, as such, have a nervous system similar to that of the land mammals and are subject to

259
physical pain comparable to that of land mammals under similar treatment. My Motion deals solely with whales. I do not refer to-day to the question of seals, because it is an entirely separate matter and merits entirely different treatment.
I propose to begin by reciting a few facts which I believe are not in dispute, and they will speak for themselves. I shall then direct your Lordships' attention to a new method that is being tried for the killing of whales, on which there is some difference of opinion, especially with regard to its success—and by "success" I refer not merely to its humanity but also to its efficiency for the purpose for which it is designed. Then, finally, I shall make an appeal to the Government. Perhaps at this stage I should make one disclaimer. I have not myself taken part or witnessed any whaling expeditions, but I base my case on the testimony of those who have had direct experience. Moreover, I have been at considerable pains to have my facts checked by expert members of the whaling industry, and where there is a divergence of view I shall not attempt to disguise that fact from your Lordships.
Whaling has a long history. The original method was that comparatively small boats went out after a whale; they directed at it, and pierced it with, an ordinary harpoon. The whale carried this harpoon in its body and dragged the boat about with it for a period lasting several days, until at last it expired from exhaustion and loss of blood. I believe that that original method has been superseded entirely. The present method, which I shall describe later, uses much larger boats, catcher ships, with a factory ship to which the killed whales are taken; and these catcher ships use what is known as the explosive harpoon.
In 1946, a conference was held in Washington, out of which grew the International Whaling Commission to regulate the industry. That Commission has its headquarters in London and its official office is that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here in Whitehall. One of the main functions of this Commission is to regulate the number of whales that may be killed in a single whaling season, which lasts from the late autumn to the spring. The reason for doing that is that at one time there was an Arctic whaling industry,
260
which came to an end because they killed so many whales that either there were none left at all or they all migrated to another part of the oceans. So to-day one of the principal functions of this Commission is to impose for all whaling companies taking part an aggregate limit to the number of whales they may kill in one season. By what seems, to an outsider, to be a peculiar method the limit is stated not as so many whales but as the number of "blue whale units." the practical effect of which is that it amounts to something like 25,000 whales a year.
There are many experts who think that this limit is far too high and that, unless it is reduced, the whale is likely to become extinct in the Antarctic, as it has already become extinct in the Arctic. That is a matter on which I should not like to express any opinion, particularly as I know that there are others who take an entirely different view. But the fact, important as it is, has no direct relevance to the Motion I am moving to-day; therefore, I do not propose to refer to it any further.
I now come to describe the actual method of killing whales at the present time. The catcher ship, having sighted a whale, pursued it and caught up with it, fires into it a harpoon. Almost immediately after it has entered the body of the whale the explosive head of the harpoon explodes, not infrequently in the whale's intestines. But owing to the enormous bulk of a whaleߞfor your Lordships must realise that some of these great whales are ninety feet in length and proportionately large in bulkߞthis does not result in the immediate death of the whale. Dr. Lillie, who has taken a very active part in this industry and who was himself, some little time back, a surgeon in a whaling fleet, takes the view that the whale survives for something like an hour; and he reports an extreme case (I do not suggest this is typical, but I instance it to show your Lordships what can happen) of a female whale carrying young that was struggling for five hours with the harpoons, of which as many as nine were in its body, before it was dead.
I am informed that to-day the time of killing a whale has been considerably reduced by the process of putting additional explosive harpoons into the whale

261
after the first one. I am informed by an expert authority on behalf of the whaling companies that the average time of whale killing has now been reduced to about half an hour. Of course, I am not in a position to check that statement, but I have no reason to believe it to be a little optimistic. It may be correct, and I am not going to dispute what I am told by good authority of this kind. It is also saidߞand this is also trueߞthat, putting aside the question of humanity, it pays the whaling companies to kill the whales as quickly as possible, because in that way they are able to catch a larger number of whales in a day.
When, after the vast struggles and torments it undergoes, the whale is at last disposed of, it is inflated so that it floats, and a flag is put on it, so that the catcher ship can proceed to kill other whales, return and pick up its prey and take them ultimately to the factory ship. That is the actual process, and I think that the facts speak for themselves.
Your Lordships are aware that in recent years most civilised countries have concerned themselves extensively with improving the method of slaughtering domestic land animals so as to reduce to a minimum the time taken and the amount of pain inflicted in killing. I do not think that I am going too far in saying that in many cases the time required for killing has been brought down to a matter of seconds. If it were proposed to inflict on a domestic land animal anything like the torture which is inflicted on these whales, and that it should go on for even an average of half an hour ߞand still more, of course, if it went on longerߞI am perfectly certain that it would arouse among large masses of people in this country a feeling of horror which it would be difficult, to allay. It may be said that that is a question of domestic land animals, and that here we are dealing with wild sea animals; but I venture to suggest that that does not alter the intrinsic merits of the case. The question is: what are we to do with regard to this matter?ߞa matter which I think is contemplated by the Geneva resolution to which I have already referred.
If there were only two alternatives, one to kill whales by the present method and the other not to kill whales at all, the question would arise: are we entitled to carry on an industry on those lines?
That would be an ethical question, upon which I do not propose to embark at the present time; but I submit to your Lordships that it is not the question at the moment. The question now is whether we cannot find a superior, more rapid and more humane method of killing whales which does not involve the intense cruelty which the present method undoubtedly does. Dr. Lillie, to whom I have already referredߞwho is well known for all he has written and the part he has taken for exposing this question and others have invented a new method of dealing with this problem, known as the electric harpoon.
The harpoon has an electric cable connecting it with the ship, where there is an electric generator, and when the harpoon strikes the body of the whale the electricity is turned on. It is claimed by those who favour this method, first, that the whale is almost invariably stunned immediately the electricity is turned on; secondly, that the whale dies much more rapidly, and in quite a short time; and thirdly, that owing to the rapid death, the contamination of the flesh which is injured is much reduced, with the result that the flesh is saleable, owing to the lack of putrefaction, which is not the case to the same extent at the present time. That would be of particular value to those countries which make a point of selling the flesh as well as the oil. I may say that the oil is not affected one way or the other. As I said, I believe the Japanese are the people who still sell the flesh, although we used to at one time. I remember during the war that I had the opportunity of going to a good club where we were frequently given whale to eat, and I did not find it at all appetising.
Here I want to pay a tribute to Sir Vyvian Board, who, when he was managing director of the Hector Whaling Company, induced the company to spend no less than £100,000 on experimenting on this new process of killing whales. It is the opinion of several people that the experiments reached a high degree of success which justified their adoption. I told your Lordships that I was not going to mislead you as to differences of opinion, and I have to tell you that there is a considerable divergence of opinion about the success of these experiments. Some of the experts of the

263
company say that the experiments were not a success. As against that, Mr. Marsden, who is an electrical expert, who tested out this electric method in person some years ago and who has had reports of the more recent experimental expedition that went out in the season of 1956–57, takes the view that, broadly, these experiments were successful. That is the divergence between them; and I am forced to try to find what is the truth as to these divergent opinions, which I do not think are reconcilable.
What happened was that in some of the experiments the crew were not fully acquainted with or accustomed to the new method and they failed to reach its proper conclusion. It is essential that the amount of electricity used shall be adequate and of a sufficiently high voltage. It is claimed by Mr. Marsden and his assistants that when a crew fully acquainted with the method and fully trained to use the apparatus apply it in the proper way, it is thoroughly successful, far more efficient, more rapid and humane than the other method. There are involved, of course, a certain number of people who are accustomed to using the old scheme. They do not like being asked to use new tackle and a newfangled project; and there are some of the older gunners who do not want to lose their "know-how" and who may bring a certain amount of deliberate opposition to the coming into being of a new scheme. The net result of all that is that some further experimental trial is probably desirable. It is estimated by Mr. Marsden and Dr. Lillie that this will cost something like £10,000. The ship has to be hired; it has to be fitted up and sent out for the season, and a crew has to be trained in order to work it. The company, which has spent £100,000, is not prepared at the present time to continue the experiment, which may involve at least another E10.000, and the question is, what is to be done?
It is here that I come to Her Majesty's Government. What I ask the Government to do is, first and foremost, to take an active, direct and positive interest in this new scheme. The Government have a considerable responsibility. As I have already pointed out, the headquarters of the Whaling Commission is actually in our British Ministry of Agriculture,
264
Fisheries and Food, which shows that in the eyes of the whaling concerns Britain is still a leading, and perhaps the leading, maritime country of the world; and from the Geneva Conference, to which I have already referred, it is evident that the United Nations regard this as a matter of supreme importance. After all, £10,000 in these modern days is not very much money and is neither here nor there. Surely, it would be an outrageous thing if this scheme were allowed to die down and the present cruelty were continued for the sake of spending a sum of £10,000.
I do not think it is too much to ask the Government to find this money. I would remind them that the country which finds this money and proves (if it is proved) that this electric method is the best and most efficient, as it is held out to be, stands to profit considerably from that finding. But the Government may say, "The Anglo-Norwegian Company, the Hector Whaling Company, has already spent £100,000 on it. Let some other nation come in." If that is the Government's point of view, I shall regret it. But even then, what will the Government do to support such a proposal? Will the Government take some initiative in moving to get this money raised and the experiment put on a proper footing? I believe that that would be in accord with the Government traditions in this country, and I believe that the Government and this country would gain by this action. But I would not disguise from your Lordships that I am concerned primarily in this matter with the cruelty involved to these marine animals that share the world with us. I believe that I am by no means alone, in this animal-loving country, in wanting to remove from the civilisation of the world this blot in its treatment of the animals which live in the sea. I beg to move for Papers.
7.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS-MOUTH: My Lords I must ask for the indulgence of your Lordships on this first occasion I have had the honour to speak in your Lordships' House. I venture to do so partly by reason of the principles which are involved in the Motion and partly through an interest in whaling which started when, as a member of the British Graham Land Expedition, I spent

265
a month in South Georgia at Leith Harbour, a whaling station, when we were on our way back from the Antarctic in 1937, and from there took passage to Las Palmas in company with several of the Norwegian gunners whose friendship and stories were greatly enjoyed. This interest was continued in the post-war years when I was Director of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge.
The best known reference to whales in the scriptures might lead one to suppose that in relation to the wording of Lord Pethick-Lawrence's Motion the boot could be on the other foot, though in point of fact the whale in question in that incident is depicted in the friendliest of roles as a lifeboat and rescuer, coming to the rescue when Jonah's shipmates threw him overboard, and then catapulting him safely on to terra firma. Whether a whale airborne to Coney Island might be regarded as a reciprocal gesture I rather doubt. There is, however, a general principle which runs through Holy Writ which applies to this Motion: the principle that man's sovereignty over the natural creation is to be regarded not only as a right but also as a stewardship for which he bears responsibility to the Creator.
That principle obviously has a wide application and wide implications. Frequently the principle is recognised and observed. Frequently the principle is threatened. Frequently the principle is flouted. The view that man is a sort of monster callously and irresponsibly engaged, out of his lust for gain and power, upon the rape of the earth, and for that matter the rape of the sea and even of the air, regardless of the waste of natural resources, regardless of the disfigurement of the earth's natural beauty and regardless of the suffering inflicted upon the animal kingdom—that view is, of course, a distorted one; it does not represent the whole picture. But there is enough truth in it to justify our serious concern. It is the more urgent and essential that we should be concerned at a time when through the rapid development of science and technology man's capacity to master the whole world has been and is being enormously extended and increased.
Limitation of suffering so far as is practicable is one important factor in the morally responsible exercise of man's sovereignty over the natural creation. The question is how much suffering is inflicted on whales in the present method of their
266
killing and to what extent that suffering can be reduced or limited. I do not think it can be denied that the explosive grenade harpoon of the type developed some 80 or 90 years ago by Svend Foyn frequently involves a great deal of suffering, and this is the method still in general use in killing whales to-day.
The time taken, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, referred, between the explosion of the charge when the grenade hits the whale and the death of the whale varies a good deal. It depends very largely, of course, upon where the whale is hit, and that in turn on the skill of the gunner, the weather and the elusiveness of the whale when being pursued. If the whale is hit in the heart, or if its back is broken, or if the grenade penetrates its thick skull and explodes inside its brain, it may be killed instantly. If the whale is hit in the stomach, and that quite often happens, there can be a long period, 30 minutes, 40 minutes, sometimes an hour, or even in exceptional cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said, though I think they are very exceptional cases, four or five hours, before the whale dies. There are, as far as I am aware, no accurate statistics available by which one can estimate the average length of time between when the shot hits the whale arid the time the whale dies. But if the estimate given by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, of half an hour is one which would be generally accepted, the time between the wounding and death is probably greater than that which applies to any other creature and to any other mammal which is killed by man for food or for other purposes.
A great deal, of course, depends on the skill of the gunner, and an estimate of the average time for a highly-skilled Norwegian gunner (and there are a number of gunners in this class) is probably of the order of five minutes. The number of these highly-skilled gunners is, of course, limited, and at the same time the number of whaling expeditions from various countries proceeding to southern areas is increasing. The proportion of less skilled gunners, particularly among companies and from countries relatively new to whaling, is therefore tending to grow, and accordingly the suffering to the whale is likely to become greater on that account.

267
The infliction of suffering on animals is a subject on which strong emotions can be aroused. I believe that much harm is done to the case of those who have animal welfare at heart, and indeed to the truth of the situation, by ascribing to animals the same feelings and the same reactions to pain as those experienced by human beings, and even sometimes by presenting animal suffering in an even more significant light than the sufferings of man. We do not live like whales; we do not think like whales; we do not imagine like whales. We can never know precisely what the whale does feel. But, granted that the suffering of wounded whales may be quite different in grade and intensity from the suffering which man would experience under the same conditions, all the evidence goes to show that whales, as other mammals, do suffer when wounded.
The brain of a whale is absolutely larger than that of any other animal and the cerebral hemispheres are elaborately folded. Little is known in detail about the sensory equipment or powers of the animal, but the nature of the brain and nerve structure is such as to suggest that it is a creature Which can feel pain acutely. For instance, the delicate covering of the brain is very responsive to inflammation, giving rise to intense headache in human beings and in other higher animals; and there is good reason to suppose that a whale which had its meningeal membranes damaged by a grenade or harpoon which missed the main substance of the brain (in which case of course it would be killed outright) would feel intense pain.
Or to take another instance, the stomach of the whaleߞI must apologise for these anatomical details, but they are germane to my argument. The stomach of the whale has two sets of nerves in the stomach wall, the meissners plexus, a purely sympathetic set of nerves coming from the sympathetic roots of the lumbar region, and the auerbachs plexus connected with the vagal nerve. Those sets of nerves in the stomach wall will reflect pain, and do so even with the relatively small centre of inflammation like a stomach lesion or an ulcer. When a grenade bursts within the stomach of a whale the pain suffered as the result of the laceration of the stomach walls must be of a very acute order and, as I have
268
I already indicated, such pain may be sustained for quite a long period of time —sometimes an hour or more.
Even if it is mistaken to compare the nature of the suffering in an animal or a mammal with that of a human being,this still does not alter the fact that severe and continued pain is frequently inflicted on whales by the present method of their killing; and it does not exonerate us from taking every practicable step which is possible to limit such suffering to the minimum. And this for two reasons: first, out of consideration to the creature which is placed under our responsible domination, and secondly, out of consideration for the men who do the job. To submit men to inflict suffering on animals like that which occurs in the present-day method of whaling is to ask them to do something essentially distasteful and abhorrent. The death flurry of a harpooned whale is a most gruesome sight. To submit men to this kind of experience as part of their daily work is to make them liable to become insensitive, callous and even brutal. That, I submit, is a very serious matter.
But is it possible, practically, to remedy the situation? The answer to that question, I believe, is, not immediately—by which I mean that there is no apparatus available which will kill whales painlessly and which could be supplied to the whaling companies straight away. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has already indicated, the amount of knowledge already gained in a method of killing by electrocution is far enough advanced to give promise of success, provided some further research is undertaken. There are two particular technical difficulties in the electrical method which have not been so far successfully overcome. The first is to find a really satisfactory way of including an electrical conductor in a rope which will not break due to the differential stretch between the rope and the conductor, which will keep the electrified rope sufficiently light to be practically useful, and which will prevent its unlaying as it flies out from its coil.
That is one difficulty not yet successfully overcome. There is a second—namely, to devise a connection between the rope and the harpoon which can be quickly, simply and safely handled by a seaman on a deck covered with ice and

269
salt water. Already much progress has been made, and it would not, I think, be over-optimistic to describe the position as one of near-success—though, of course, one can never tell in advance, with working apparatus of this kind, exactly how such a research project will work out in practice and how long it is going to take to complete a satisfactory method.
Whilst at the present stage one must still, I believe, keep an open mind as to the extent and the nature of pain inflicted on whales by different types of injury—by harpoon, grenade or by electrical or other methods—from the experiments already made in electrical harpooning it appears as if this may well be a significantly more humane method than the Svend Foyn harpoon, because the average period between the harpoon hitting the whale and the death of the whale is likely, in the case of the electrical method, to be shorter; and electrocution which paralyses the nerve tracts is generally considered to cause less acute pain than the type of wound which is commonly inflicted by the explosive grenade. It would be a mistake, I believe, to limit further research only to electrical methods, or at this stage to pre-judge the question as to, whether such a method will necessarily be the most efficient humane method of killing which is economically feasible to operate.
The possibility of carbon dioxide shells or rockets fired from a catcher or from a helicopter deserves examination. It is reported that a harpoon has been invented of such a kind by Wetlesen in Norway which releases two and a half cubic feet of carbonic acid upon striking the whale, and the expansion of the gas causes acute hemorrhage and stops the heart in a matter of seconds. Furthermore, it prevents the carcase from sinking, which is an obvious economic advantage. That is another method which I suggest should be further considered, and further experimentation should be made upon it. There may be other methods of quite a different kind which a research party could produce.
Although I do not base my argument on economic grounds but on grounds of reducing suffering, the economic factor is naturally important. I have no information as to the cost of the carbonic acid method, but I am informed that the cost of fitting out a catcher with an
270
electrical harpoon equipment like that used in the experiments until recently undertaken by the Hector Whaling Company works out at about £3,000 to £4,000 per catcher, and that the expendable parts of the equipment are perhaps double the cost of the explosive killing, These figures, whilst approximate, nevertheless indicate that the electrical method is unlikely materially to raise the overall cost of an expedition provided it is once developed as a reliable and efficient method, when one takes into account particularly on the credit side two factors to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has referred: the saving in time in hunting and the smaller wastage of meat. Electrical harpooning therefore, or other more humane methods, might indeed prove cheaper than the present method, but it is really still too early to say.
There is, however, one further point which needs consideration, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has also referred—the attitude of the whaling crews and particularly of the gunners, for experiments already undertaken show how important this is. It must be remembered that the gunners are immensely proud of their craft and it is not unnatural that a gunner will he reluctant to limit his own inherent skill by adopting new methods until or unless he has been convinced that they are really going to work efficiently, safely and with a reasonable measure of success. That will not he achieved until further research has been undertaken.
A good deal in the way of research has already been done, but the contribution made since the war by the Hector Whaling Company, formerly United Whalers, is, I venture to suggest, most notable. They have spent a lot of money on the experiment, rather more, I am told, than the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—in the region of £118,000. Now that the whaling industry as a whole is going through more difficult economic times, and since the industry is competitive, it is asking a good deal to expect an individual company to bear the financial brunt of such further researches as are needed, and I should have earnestly hoped that some means might be devised to make funds available. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, I feel that

271
an estimate of £10,000 would be overoptimistic for the amount of money that will be required.
The experiments themselves, at least in their testing stage, would, of course, need to be carried out in the context of an actual whaling expedition, and clearly, therefore, co-operation with one or more whaling companies would be completely essential. In order not to alienate crews, it would be necessary, when carrying out the experimentation, to compensate crews on their pay and bonus method for catches they would lose when the equipment did not work or when there were delays caused in testing or altering the experimental gear. I hope that it may be possible for such research to be put in hand and at an early date.
As your Lordships are fully aware, delay in scientific and technical research of this kind means waste, not necessarily of apparatus but in the use which can be made of past experience; for some of the knowledge and practical experience which has been gained in the last few years might not be readily available if the matter were allowed to stand over for a further period. In any event, where suffering is involved relief becomes a matter of urgency—a matter of moral urgency. By bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has brought nearer home a wrong that needs to be righted. If whales were hunted by our own crews and our own gunners in the seas around this country instead of in the distant seas of the Southern Ocean I am sure that public opinion and public conscience would have faced this issue long before to-day. Out of sight, out of mind. But is the principle really any different from that of our own slaughterhouses? And if we have found fit to make killing in our slaughterhouses more humane here at home, why not in the slaughterhouses of the Southern Seas?
7.45 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, it is my good fortune to follow the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth, and I am sure it would be the wish of your Lordships that I should not only congratulate him on a maiden speech outstanding both in knowledge and in the manner of its presentation, but also express the hope that we may hear
272
him often in the future. It is particularly gratifying that it should fall to me to welcome his speech, not only because we have known each other for almost forty years but because I have been unable to find any other Member of your Lordships' House who shares with us firsthand experience of the Antarctic whaling industry.
In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, would seem to have relied on somewhat limited information; and, indeed, judging from what he has said, one might go so far as to suggest that some of his sources may have lacked balance in their impressions of the industry. In order to see this problem in its true perspective, it may be useful first briefly to review the reasons for whaling and to examine the structure of the world's whaling industry. So long as the human race remains carnivorous, we must kill in order to eat. Most of such killing is done in slaughterhouses over which there is a greater or lesser degree of control, but it must be borne in mind that conditions in some slaughterhouses, even in this country, are even now considered to be in such need of improvement as to necessitate a new Act of Parliament.
Uncontrolled killing for human consumption embraces the fishing industry, the whaling industry and, to a lesser degree, the catching of game. The whaling industry produces about 500,000 tons of edible oils per annum, of which approximately 100,000 tons is for human consumption in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will be aware that, whereas in ancient whaling the carcase was flensed—that is to say, stripped of its blubber and cast adrift—in modern whaling, by regulation, all useful parts of the whale must be worked up; and in addition to the edible oil to which I have referred the Antarctic expeditions produce for Japan about 60,000 tons per annum of frozen whalemeat for human consumption. Furthermore, the industry produces some 30,000 tons per annum of animal feedstuffs in the form of meat meal, almost all of which is consumed in Great Britain.
Before dealing with how these products are harvested, I would point out that the question inevitably arises whether they could be replaced from other sources. Under present conditions it could be argued that if whaling were to cease the

273
world might still be able to produce, at a price, both the oils and fats, and the animal protein. from other sources; but that would not have been true in the immediate post-war period when the yield of the whaling fleets represented almost 15 per cent. of the very limited supply of edible fats outside the dollar area. Moreover, whale oil is unique in that it can be held in strategic reserve almost indefinitely, and certainly it keeps better in storage than any other edible fat.
Thus far my remarks have referred to the baleen whale, which is the primary target of the expeditions; but one must not overlook the catch of sperm whale, which yields an oil that is in fact a liquid wax, with unique industrial applications, and the ambergris so necessary in the manufacture of perfumes. In considering whether any change could be introduced in the techniques of whaling, even if it were desirable, it is essential to bear in mind that this industry is perhaps the supreme example of individual enterprise. In the recent Antarctic season there were twenty pelagic expeditions on the whaling grounds from five countries, including Japan and the Soviet Union. These twenty expeditions operate in fierce competition each to take as large a share as possible of the restricted world limit catch. Of these twenty expeditions, only three were British, and your Lordships will appreciate that any change in technique could not reasonably be undertaken by the expeditions of one country if it were in any way to give rise to practical or economic handicaps in relation to the others. Your Lordships may like for a moment to consider the broad economics of this industry. The catch of the British expeditions is effectively home-produced food, and if this had to be replaced by purchases from abroad, the loss in foreign exchange would be not far short of £7 million per annum.
In these remarks, I hope to have shown why whaling continues; and I turn now to how it is done. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the exhibits in the Natural History Museum, and there has already been a reference to the fact that a large whale can be ninety feet long. But even having been to the whaling grounds, I find it useful to remind myself that the blue whale is the largest animal that has ever lived on the earth, and that an average blue whale is in size
274
approximately equivalent to twenty-five fully grown elephants. It is important to bear this fact in mind when considering the mechanism of killing.
To seek this animal—and I would remind your Lordships that the whale is not a fish but a warm-blooded mammal —requires an expedition which, apart from the few land stations, includes a floating factory ship, usually of 20,000 tons or more, about ten shooting catchers and ancillary craft, such as whale tow boats. In addition it requires tanker transportation to carry fuel oil to the whaling grounds and whale oil homewards. One whaling manager was recently asked how much it cost to kill a whale, and he replied that the first whale of the season cost him almost £2 million, but that subsequent whales cost rather less. It is a fact that the cost of sending out an expedition can be as high as £2 million. This point is important when one considers any question of the deviation of effort which is an essential part of any experiment in new techniques; for the expedition may operate only until the world limit is reached, and in recent seasons this has meant, in both fair weather and foul, that the operating season has been restricted to something between sixty and seventy days.
Your Lordships will undoubtedly have in mind an impression of the whaling industry based partly on the ancient techniques of the open boat and the hand-thrown harpoon. The modern catcher is a highly specialised craft, capable of sixteen knots or more, and no longer depends solely on "Thar she blows" from the masthead, but is assisted by such techniques as "Asdic" and the helicopter. This high-speed boat finds and chases the whale, and must be so skilfully handled that the gunner on the forward platform is not much more than thirty yards from the quarry when it rises for the three seconds that it is exposed to the shot. The harpoon weighs about 170 lb., carries at its head an explosive grenade fired by a time fuse and is shackled to the light forerunner rope. Again, in modern whaling the synthetic fibres such as nylon and Terylene have replaced the weaker, heavier ropes formerly used. Lt may seem brutal to attack with an explosive harpoon of almost two cwt., but it must be borne in mind that this would be equivalent to a missile of 2 oz. shot at a deer.

275
The gunner wants to kill quickly, and with a good shot behind the shoulder blades the whale is killed instantly. As has been said, it is impossible to know accurately how many whales are killed immediately, but it is estimated that up to 30 per cent. are thus killed, and that, whereas in the old days of weaker ropes and slower catchers, and before that in the days of open boats, there might elapse very long periods of fight, the average time now to catch a whale in the Antarctic is of the order of fifteen minutes; and it is very seldom that the whale is not killed and tied up alongside the catcher within half an hour. It is also most important to bear in mind that, unlike the deer forest or the grouse moor or the salmon river, it is almost unknown, with present methods, for a wounded whale to get away.
Quite apart from the question of humane killing, it has always been in the interests of the whalers to kill as quickly as possible in order to free the boat for further operations. Gas harpoons have been tried, the poison curare has been tried, and it is over twenty-five years now since the experiments with electric harpoons were first carried out. It may be that electric aneæsthesia, followed by a killer harpoon, is more humane and more efficient than the present method, and there are those who believe that this is so. Despite all that has been said, however, there is no positive knowledge whether the whale has any sense of pain; nor is it known whether, if there is any sense of pain, the whale is necessarily anæsthetised by an electric shock, even though that shock may induce paralysis. I refer to the so-called electric curarisation effect, which is known to have occurred with the killing of pigs.
On the question of whether the whale has any sense of pain, I recall having seen a whale held fast by a harpoon, yet continuing to swim on its course, sometimes even towing the catcher without any apparent struggle. If new and improved methods of killing are to come into force, they will come through the efforts of the whalers to improve their competitive position in the industry. I submit that this is a valuable industry and one which should be encouraged to proceed in the way in which it is going. I would remind your Lordships that
276
throughout history this industry has cradled many of the finest seamen and that where whaling is strong the Merchant Navy also has been strong. The industry has its full share of "cranks" and "crackpots," and I suggest that irresponsible, inadequately-informed criticism might be allowed to remain in the province of the more sensational section of the weekly Press, if they wish to print it.
7.57 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth. I am sure we are all grateful to him for giving us the benefit both of his experience and of his knowledge. I felt that in his speech, whilst keeping his feet well on the ground, he expressed the voice of humanity and of morality.
My interest in this matter stems from my connection with the association which looks after the interests of officers of the Merchant Navy, and on that account I have attended whaling conferences. I remember, in particular, one conference which I attended at a whaling headquarters at Sandifjord in Norway, and it was one of the most interesting experiences I have ever enjoyed. The gunners are a most remarkable race of men, and it may interest your Lordships to know that a first-class gunner may earn anything up to £5,000 in a season. I have a particular interest in this matter of gunners because so far the Norwegian gunners have formed practically a "closed shop". In fact I know of only one English gunner who has ever broken into the charmed circle, and he did not stay there very long: he is certainly out of the whaling industry at the present moment.
The difficulty that is brought forward as an excuse for this "closed shop" is that a great deal of use is made of radiotelephony on the whaling grounds, and that few Englishmen who go to sea are sufficiently well acquainted with the Norwegian language to enable them to follow proceedings in that language over the radio-telephone. All connected with whaling are a hardy race. I was interested to hear that at Sandifjord there are men who do not come home with the expedition but over-winter down

277
in South Georgia and join up with the expedition when it comes out again. I do not know what life is like in South Georgia, but I gather that it is pretty tough and I think that men who of their own choice would over-winter down there when they might come home must be an exceptional and tough body of men.
I have not been to South Georgia, but I have been aboard a factory ship which had come back from an expedition and had been lying at Sandifjord for some months and had been scrubbed and painted. Even then, I could not eat my lunch, such was the smell still remaining. When I apologised to the Captain for my inability to eat the very good lunch he had prepared for me, he said, "You have nothing to be ashamed of. Men who have been on expedition after expedition still cannot eat when the separator is working." If these men are not knocked out by the smell until the separator is working, they must indeed be a hardy race.
To come back to the question of cruelty, to my mind the important point is how far it is wanton cruelty. I am clear that the men who direct the British whaling industry would not tolerate wanton cruelty for a moment. As I shall show in a short time, their efforts are directed at removing the stain of cruelty which undoubtedly at the present moment rests upon the industry. Modern whaling dates from 1864, with the introduction of the first steam whale catcher. Before then, and afterwards, many whales escaped wounded and in many cases a long time elapsed between the harpooning and the final despatch of the whale. The whole effort from 1864 onwards was to reduce the time taken to kill a whale: that was the governing idea behind all the improvements which were attempted. As a result of what was done, certainly fewer wounded whales got away and the time between wounding and death decreased. The proportion of whales killed immediately on the bursting of grenades greatly increased while the damage to those not killed and the time required to draw a whale to the catcher to be killed by another grenade decreased. To illustrate the improvement in speed which has been made possible by modern methods, I would point out that during the 1957–58 season one gunner took twenty-nine whales in the course of twenty-four hours—that is, including the
278
hours of darkness To grasp what that involves, it must be remembered that very generous time must be allowed for catching up a school after killing a whale.
As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out, whaling is a highly competitive international industry and every expedition strains to catch the maximum number of whales within the permitted total in the course of the expedition. As regards what has been said about the permitted total, I am not at all sure that other countries which send out expeditions are quite as scrupulous as British expeditions are in observing the quota. At any rate, the fact remains that every hour of the season is of importance to the expedition, and the quicker the whale is killed, the sooner after the next one. So there is a strong economic pressure in favour of swift killing.
Many experiments have been made to substitute for the grenade some method which would cause immediate death. Already reference has been made to experiments with gas, with CO2, and with curari, but there has been an immense amount of experiment with electricity, and I should like to give a few facts in respect of that. These experiments began about 1932 and an outstandingly able gunner experimented in a British whale catcher in the season 1935–36. A Norwegian group followed up these experiments with electricity in the same season and again in 1939–40, and further trials followed after the end of the war. Experiments were carried out by the combined Norwegian companies, but they were abandoned after 1952–53, partly due to there being a lack of information about the amount of current required to kill a whale. In 1948, in Britain, the Universities Federation of Animal Welfare secured the co-operation of a British whaling company and of a leading manufacturer of electrical equipment and a catcher was sent out with electric killing apparatus.
The same company tried out another method of electrical killing in 1949–50 in the Antarctic. In that season fifty whales were killed electrically and useful data was obtained, particularly concerning the whale's reactions and the time necessary to render it unconscious and killed. Work was started on a new type of spigot gun firing a heavier electric

279
harpoon, and that was tried, unsuccessfully, in 1951. Further trials in 1952 at first looked encouraging. The sponsoring company sent the equipment to the Antarctic for the 1952–53 season. Again a number of whales were killed electrically, but disappointingly the equipment did not fulfil its promise. Another experimental team was sent to the Antarctic in 1953–54 with modified equipment, which was not a success.
The cost of producing equipment was mounting and it did not look as if the industry would invest in the equipment, as it was becoming too expensive and the results were not entirely encouraging. In 1956, it was decided to modify the electrical equipment in the hope of making it cheaper to produce. This modified equipment was tried out in the 1956–57 Antarctic season, but again it failed to prove itself. Since then further development work has been held up. On the information available to date (it may not be the final or conclusive information), it does not look as if electric killing will prove any quicker than the existing methods. Electricity can kill whales successfully, but before it can come into extensive use much more experimental work must be done; and at the moment, the fact must be faced that no satisfactory electric whaling equipment is available for sale to the whaling companies. It cannot be said how much expenditure would be involved in research and experiment to perfect the equipment, but some work continues on a harpoon using gas which is to be tried out in Iceland. I trust that I have not wearied your Lordships in giving those facts about electrical equipment to date, and I think they bear out my opening statement that there is not wanton cruelty on the part of the whaling companies; that they have tried, and are still trying, hard to find a satisfactory electrical equipment which will still further reduce the time taken in killing a whale.
I have only two things to say, in conclusion. I feel that we may perhaps be able to place some hope in the work of the scientists. At present the scientists seem to me to be proving themselves the worst enemy that mankind has ever encountered in its long history—these nuclear weapons are all the work of the scientists—but perhaps they and the chemists might turn some attention to a
280
gentler pursuit and see whether it is possible to produce in the laboratory some of the products with which the whale is now killed. I do not know whether that is a wild hope, but as there seems to be the idea abroad that there is nothing to-day the scientists and chemists cannot do, perhaps they can do that. Incidentally, whaling is not a cheap industry to run, and possibly what could be done in the laboratory would reduce the cost.
The other thing I have to say is this. I imagine that the Government, and especially the Department of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, are in touch with the leaders of the whaling industry in regard to this matter of cruelty to the whale, which has more than once occupied considerable attention, and I am sure that the Department of the noble Earl is very much alive to it. I wonder if they have consulted with the leaders of the whaling industry to ascertain whether they would welcome some Government assistance for development and research. I do not, of course, speak on behalf of the whaling industry, and for all I know they might not welcome the Government's taking a hand in this matter. But it has occurred to me to wonder whether possibly, as has already been suggested, the Government could come to the assistance of the industry, with sums which I do not think need be particularly large, although perhaps larger than was mentioned by the noble Lord who moved the Motion. It seems to me that it would indeed be money well spent to try to forward an enterprise which would finally put an end to what I am sorry to say is, as it exists at the present moment, a most barbarous and cruel matter.
8.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, this subject has been so exhaustively debated that I do not intend to delay your Lordships for more than a few minutes, more particularly as so many of the speakers have first-hand knowledge of whaling, which I cannot profess to have. The only reason I intervene in the debate is that I have read Dr. Lillie's wonderful book, The Path Through Penguin City, from cover to cover; and after reading that book, and hearing the remarkable speech of the right reverend Prelate, I am convinced that there must be some cruelty in the

281
present method of whaling and I think it is our bounden duty to support the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in his Motion.
There is one side of the matter, apart from the cruelty, that I should like to stress. I do not think the serious diminution in the whaling population can be divorced from this question of modern and easy methods of killing whales. These, so far as I understand, have brought the industry in the northern hemisphere practically to a standstill, so scarce have the whales become. So far as I can see, the whole history of whaling has virtually been one of exploitation and then practically extermination of the whales. First, it was the waters of Spitzbergen; then it was East and West Queensland. All these waters have been —I cannot say fished out, because the whale is not a fish, but a mammal, as has been said a number of times; but they have all been exploited. I am told that in the waters of the North Pacific the Californian great whale has been entirely exterminated by whaling activities. Now all hands are turned to Antarctica, and it seems to me that there is a grave danger of the same thing happening there. The total permissible quota of blue whales, about which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, spoke—was it 60,000?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the actual figure is something like 14,000 units. I daresay the noble Earl Who is to reply can give the exact figure, but it is about 14,000 units, which works out at about 25,000 whales.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Dr. Lillie, who, it has been said, is a man having expert knowledge of the subject, considers that this is far too high a figure for an animal that produces only one offspring every two or three years. That is a most important point. Another point to which I must make reference is that, to my mind, the whaling industry cannot be a very efficient one if it loses £10 million annually through waste of meat and oil through putrefaction; and that is the figure that Dr. Lillie places as the annual Antarctica loss to the whaling industry.
I will not detain your Lordships further, except to say that I always feel that our wild life is a great heritage: something that has been handed on to us,
282
and something in trust that we have to hand on to others: whether it be life on land or marine life, it is the same thing. I believe that we are far too slow to realise our responsibility towards our fellow creatures of the world. But perhaps we are learning slowly. The law demands now that some birds and animals must have more protection, and in some instances even vermin must be humanely killed. As the right reverend Prelate said, these poor whales live so far away that nobody cares about them and nobody knows anything about them. If we did, it might be quite a different story. That is why I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has done a great service in bringing this matter to the notice of your Lordships' House, and I trust that his efforts to bring about some more humane method of killing these whales will be crowned with success.
8.20 p.m.
LoRD DOWDING: My Lords, I have some hesitation in intervening in tins debate on account of the number of very well-informed speeches that have been made on the subject. I have only two points to raise. One is perhaps a rather amateur query about the electrical method of killing. An electric current has to pass in a closed circuit from battery back to battery, and in the other two normal methods of killing creatures by electricity great pains are taken to ensure that the electric current passes through the brain of the creature to be killed. When animals are being electrically stunned in slaughterhouses there is a kind of caliper which ensures that the electric current shall pass cleanly through the head from side to side and through the brain. In the other form of killing creatures by electricity, which is practised in America, the victim is seated in a chair and the current passes through his head to the seat and so it is ensured that the current shall pass through the brain.
I do not understand how you can ensure that any amount of current which it is practical to pass through can kill a large animal like a whale, if it depends on the passage of electricity from the point of delivery to the body of the whale either back towards the water, by water return, or possibly to another forerunner conducter which makes a closed circuit I back to the battery. I mention this

283
because I had intended to give the same kind of information which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has given about the large number of experiments which have been made with electrical apparatus. I venture to suggest that the invention of electrical apparatus will cost very much more than the £10,000 which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, indicated in his opening speech. I should say myself, knowing very little about it, that the delivery of a more lethal charge of gas or paralysing charge of curare, or something that could be delivered into a single place in the whale, have very much more prospect of ensuring the quick and painless death of the whale than continuing experiments with electrical apparatus. That is one of the points I want to make.
The other point is that I do not think it has really been put to the noble Earl who will reply to this debate that he should tell us what the Government is doing to comply with this obligation which has been put upon our Government, in company with other Governments, by the resolution unanimously adopted by the United Nations which has been read out by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I think we should all very much like to know just what the Government are doing about that and what they propose to do.
8.25 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, we have, I think, had a remarkable afternoon, in that we have had a full hand of maiden speeches, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, that each and every one has been an ace. But if one can have one better ace than another, if I might be permitted to say so I feel that the right reverend Prelate gets undoubtedly the best ace. I hope that we shall hear from him on many occasions in the future. We are in sore need of counsel of the type which he gave the House this afternoon.
I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Pethick-Lawrence, for drawing the attention of the House to the question of cruelty to whales. I have no doubt that all noble Lords share his concern to prevent any avoidable cruelty to animals. It is right that we should
284
consider the methods used in killing whales which, after all, by their very nature and because of their size and of the difficulty of hunting them in the dangerous Antarctic waters, must almost inevitably involve some degrees of cruelty. As I think has been admitted by most noble Lords, the modern explosive harpoon used for the catching of whales is an efficient weapon which often kills instantaneously. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was at some pains to point that out.
But though we must keep the question of cruelty in proper perspective, I think there is no room for complacency in this matter. We must face the fact that there are occasions when the explosive harpoon fails to kill quickly and when considerable suffering is involved before the whale eventually dies. What we really are considering this evening is whether this suffering is in fact avoidable. I think the real question is whether other means of killing whales can be found which are more humane than the existing explosive harpoon. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said it is very much in the interests of the industry as a whole and of the whaling companies themselves, their gunners and their crews, that quick killing should be developed as far as practicable. In the Antarctic, where about 80 per cent. of the world catch is taken, the catch is controlled by an overall limit which last year was actually 14,500 blue whale units, and I believe I am correct in saying was of the order of some 25,000 whales all told. As your Lordships know, when the catch reaches the total the season comes to an end. Therefore it is obviously very much in the interests of everybody concerned that they should get as high a percentage of the total catch as quickly as possible. I would once again emphasise that it is very much in the interests of each and every catcher, apart from any humanitarian feelings that they have, to see that the kill is made as quickly and as cleanly as possible.
As has been pointed out by various noble Lords, the companies engaged in whaling have in no way been blind to the advantages which they can gain from quick killing. Much work has been done to evolve a substitute. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has given us a most detailed account of the experiments

285
which have been conducted by one particular company. But I think all noble Lords would agree that the attempts to get a really satisfactory alternative have not been successful up to now. It is in the electric harpoon, to which many noble Lords have referred, that I think there is the greatest possibility. But we cannot assume for a moment that the electric harpoon has already been developed to a stage where it can prove to be a practical alternative.
There is not any bias on behalf of the commercial interests to try to prevent its use. As the noble Lords, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Winster, have said, this company has spent something in the region of £100,000 in an attempt to develop that harpoon, and with their expedition in the 1956–57 season they took out a specially fitted catcher and made special arrangements for paying the crew extra money, and so forth, in order that they could carry out experiments in natural conditions. But the information that I have is that, as the result of those experiments, the firm is no longer convinced that electric whaling will ensure quicker killing than the present method. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord said as to the company being optimistic, and that with a further £10,000 they might be able to get the right answer. I should very much like to hear more of that, because, frankly, it is the first intimation that I have had that that is likely. If the noble Lord could let me have some more information, or if the company could give their views on this to my Department, I should be happy to arrange that.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not want to mislead the noble Earl. Es he suggesting that I am saying that the Hector Whaling Company would like to pursue further inquiries? If I gave that impression, that was not correct.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am sorry; I am afraid I must have misunderstood the noble Lord. I was under the impression that he was saying that the company felt that they were in sight of success. I am afraid I got the wrong impression.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not the Hector Whaling Company; it is Mr. Marsden and Dr. Lillie and their associates who have that view, and Mr. Marsden has had personal experience in the Antarctic.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I thank the noble Lord. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, other types of harpoon have been tried out. There is the carbon dioxide harpoon which he mentioned. But at present neither that nor any other substitute has reached the stage of technical development where it could compete commercially with the explosive harpoon, or could in fact guarantee any more humane killings. But, as I have mentioned, commercial success and humanity do, in fact, tend to go together, and in the absence of any satisfactory substitute for the explosive harpoon that weapon must continue to be used. Indeed, I think it would be wrong to encourage the hope that a satisfactory substitute will easily be found.
Nevertheless, I think your Lordships are entitled to ask what steps have been taken to ensure that the possibility of developing substitutes is kept to the fore and that all reasonable efforts are taken to that end. I have explained that there are these powerful incentives for the industry to develop a more effective substitute, and the question which I think arises is: How can we help the industry in ensuring that all reasonable lines of inquiry are explored?
There is one line, I think, to which recent developments have laid emphasis. The noble Lord who moved this Motion read out in detail the resolution which was passed at Geneva. That resolution is undoubtedly a request which all reasonable men will heed, and one to which those interested in whaling will undoubtedly give special attention. This week a meeting of the International Whaling Commission is taking place at The Hague. As your Lordships know, the Commission is an organisation designed to promote international co-operation in the conservation of the whale stocks, and this meeting will be attended by representatives of nearly all the countries interested in whaling, all of which subscribed to the resolution to which the noble Lord referred. The. United Kingdom Commissioner has instructions to refer to the resolution passed at Geneva and to invoke its full consideration by the Commission. I hope that that will encourage all interested countries to renew their efforts to find a satisfactory substitute for the explosive harpoon.

287
My Lords, we have heard many interesting views on this subject this evening. I feel that basically it is a responsibility that must lie primarily with the industry. We will assist in such ways as we can, but I feel that the primary responsibility lies with the industry. It is more in their interests than those of anybody else to produce a satisfactory substitute, and I feel that, with a little encouragement, in due course—I repeat, in due course—a satisfactory substitute may be found.
8.40 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, at this late hour your Lordships will certainly not expect another speech from me. I should like to thank those who have taken part in this debate, and I would add my compliments to the right reverend Prelate for his able and most interesting speech, to which I listened with deep attention and pleasure. I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with what we have been told by the noble Earl representing Her Majesty's Government. I had hoped that he would have been able to go a little further than he has done, and give more encouragement
288
to trying to find a more humane method of killing whales. As I understand, however, he has said that the High Commissioners have been instructed to call attention, at the Whaling Commission, to this resolution carried at Geneva. With that small ray of hope, I am afraid that I have to leave the matter for tonight. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Third Report from the Select Committee, made and to be printed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.