Sitting of 22 May 1963

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

    Redundancy
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Labour what definition governs the administrative practice in his Department for a termination of employment on the grounds of redundancy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): A distinction between termination of employment on grounds of redundancy and termination on other grounds is not required for purposes of paying unemployment benefit and the question of a definition does not arise for the purposes of administration.
    Firms with redundancy or severance pay schemes usually define the circumstances in which severance pay will be given. Generally this is when a worker is discharged because the employer decides that the work he has been doing is no longer required and where there is no immediate prospect of his being reengaged.
    Sir Richard Glyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would he agree that it is most desirable that there should be a firm definition of redundancy which would be understood both within his Department and generally outside? Will he take steps to make the definition that he has now given more widely known?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the definition I gave was merely related to the normal practice of firms which have severance pay schemes. The question of the definition of redundancy in a wider sense is now one of the
    408
    complicated matters which is being considered. I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says.

    Apprenticeship Periods
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been achieved in securing agreement between employers and unions for the reduction of apprenticeship periods; which trades have accepted reductions; and what hopes there are for early agreement in other trades.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The building industry at national level in England and Wales has accepted a four-year apprenticeship and four regions are now operating it. The hotel and catering industry and the retail meat trade have also shortened their apprenticeship. The engineering, heating and ventilating and electrical contracting industries and the building industry in Scotland are also considering a shortening of apprenticeship. But the delay is most disappointing. My right hon. Friend hopes that employers and national unions throughout industry will urgently consider the relevance of their apprenticeship periods to modern conditions and training methods
    Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that if this country is to increase its skill, as it is vital that it should do, and there is to be a transfer of people from one skill to another, it is absolutely vital that this problem should be dealt with right across the unions and that more of them should reduce their periods of apprenticeship very quickly in order that this can be done?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to appreciate that it is very dangerous to generalise or to be dogmatic in this matter. We would all agree that the important thing is that the period of apprenticeship should be realistic in relation to the time that it takes to produce a trained worker in present circumstances.
    Mr. Prentice: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the generalisations of which his hon. Friend may have been guilty was his reference to the need of changes throughout the unions? We are talking here about one of many aspects if apprenticeships are to

    409
    be brought up to date. We would all like to see the conservative attitude on both sides of industry brought up to date in ibis respect.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to what I said in my original Answer, which was that my right hon. Friend hopes that employers and national unions throughout industry will urgently consider the relevance of their apprenticeship periods. It is a matter for all concerned.

    REDUCTIONS IN NORMAL WEEKLY HOURS OF WORK AGREED SINCE 1ST JANUARY, 1962

    Industry

    Change in Hours

    Operative Date of Reduction

    Pot Still Malt Distilling—Scotland

    …

    …

    44–42

    October, 1962

    Harris Tweed Manufacture (mill workers in spinning section)—Outer Hebrides

    …

    …

    45–43

    February, 1962

    Hosiery Manufacture—Scotland

    …

    …

    43½–42½

    March, 1962

    Boot and Shoe Manufacture—Rossendale Valley

    …

    …

    43¾–42½

    April, 1962

    Roofing Felt Manufacture—Great Britain

    …

    …

    43–42

    July, 1962

    Screen Printing and Display Production—Great Britain

    …

    …

    42–41

    January, 1963

    41–40

    January, 1964

    Exhibition Stand Construction, etc.—Great Britain

    …

    …

    42–40

    March, 1963

    Exhibition Electrical Industry

    …

    …

    42–40

    March, 1963

    Paper Making, Paper Coating, etc. (day workers only)—United Kingdom

    …

    …

    43–42

    March, 1962

    Animal Gat Trade—England and Wales

    …

    …

    42½–42

    April, 1963

    Drawing Office Materials Manufacture—Great Britain

    …

    …

    42–42

    January, 1962

    Building Industry—Scotland

    …

    …

    42–40

    November, 1963

    Plumbing Trade—Scotland

    …

    …

    42–40

    October, 1962

    Electrical Contracting Industry—England and Wales and Northern Ireland

    …

    …

    42–40

    September, 1964

    Heating, Ventilating and Domestic Engineering (Installation and Maintenance)—Great Britain

    …

    …

    42–40

    February, 1965

    Painting Trade—Scotland

    …

    …

    42–40

    November, 1963

    Dock Labour—Great Britain

    …

    …

    44–42

    August, 1962

    Dock Labour (British Transport Commission)

    …

    …

    44–42

    April, 1962

    Cold Storage—Great Britain

    …

    …

    44–42

    September, 1962

    Buffer Food Depots—England and Wales

    …

    …

    46–44

    July, 1962

    44–42

    March, 1963

    Retail Pharmacy (pharmacists only)—England and Wales

    …

    …

    46–44

    March, 1963

    Retail Saddlery and Leather Goods Trade—Great Britain

    …

    …

    45–43

    March, 1962

    Coal and Coke Distribution—Great Britain excluding London Region

    …

    …

    44–42

    January, 1962

    Cine-Film Production (Technical and general grades in film laboratories)—Great Britain

    …

    …

    42½–41

    December, 1962

    41–40

    December, 1963

    Cine-Film Production (Clerical workers)—Great Britain

    …

    …

    38½–37½

    December, 1962

    Catering—British Transport Hotel and Catering (Restaurant Car and Depot Staff

    …

    …

    44–42

    January, 1962

    Acton
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Labour the number of wholly unemployed registered at Acton Employment Exchange at the latest date for which figures are available; and the totals in each preceding month of 1963.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Three hundred and eighty-nine at 13th May, 1963, compared with 451 in April, 474 in March, 508 in February and 529 in January.

    Hours of Work
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour how many trades and professions have negotiated reductions in hours of working since 1st January, 1962; which they are; and what were the hours of working before and after such reductions.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the reply consists of a tabular statement. I will, with per-mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. Holland: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these figures show a reassuring trend for the people of Acton? Could he give me a basis of comparison between the employment situation in this area and the national average?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the national figure. In April, the percentage in the Greater London area was 1·5 compared

    411
    with the national average of 2·7. The Greater London area percentage fell to 1·3 on 13th May.

    Remploy Factory, Dalmuir
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to increase the capacity of the Remploy factory at Dalmuir, Dunbartonshire, to accept more disabled persons.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The Dalmuir factory is being moved into larger premises at Anniesland in the autumn. This will enable Remploy to introduce a new trade and thereby employ more disabled people.
    Mr. Bence: I thank the hon. Member for the letter that he has sent to me. In that letter he states that within the next 18 months another 30 places will be provided. Is he satisfied that the provision of 30 places in 18 months in sufficient to cope with the increasing number of disabled people coming on to the employment exchange in the area?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that this is just one of the Remploy factories in the area, and that an extension on these lines is at least a help toward solving what is a difficult problem.
    Mr. Lawson: Can the Minister tell us whether there are to be similar extensions in, for example, the factory at Motherwell? His words seemed to suggest that there is to be an all-round extension. Is that the case?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry if my words suggested that. That is wrong. I said that there was to be an extension in one factory in this area, and that there were other Remploy factories in the area. Remploy is always reviewing its trading position in particular areas. The extension at Dalmuir is welcome. I merely referred to the fact that there were other Remploy factories in the area.

    Shipbuilding and Ship-Repairing Workers, Clyde
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour what reduction has taken place in the number of men employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries on the Clyde since 1957; and what steps he is taking to place these men in alternative employment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The number of males employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing on the Clyde declined by 8,300 between mid-1957 and mid-1962, the latest date for which figures are available. Our local officers are continuing their efforts to place unemployed shipyard workers by submitting them to suitable vacancies.
    Mr. Bence: I am shocked at those figures—no less than 8,000 jobs lost in six years in the Clyde Valley. Will the hon. Gentleman do something drastic quickly, because many of these men will leave Scotland? It may be that many already have left. The fewer the number of skilled men we have as a result, the more difficult it will be to bring new industries to the area.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Member that it is not our desire that these men should leave Scotland. That is why my right hon. Friend has announced stepping up our retraining facilities. Anything that can be done to persuade men to take these retraining courses will be extremely valuable.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who take an interest in shipping and shipbuilding matters are profoundly disturbed about the competitive position of the British shipbuilding industry? In discussions with his other colleagues in the Government, can the Minister give an undertaking that some form of inquiry will be conducted into the competitive ability of the British shipbuilding industry at present?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking that goes any wider than the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I can only remind him that a working party, representing both sides of the industry, is meeting under a senior official of the Ministry for the purpose of discussing ways of improving labour relations in the industry. I have no doubt that both sides can help in that working party.
    Mr. Bence: I am amazed at the statement that because we have lost 8,000 skilled men we shall have training centres to train some more men for jobs that are disappearing. This seems nonsensical.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I did not suggest that. I suggested—and I am sure that I will

    413
    carry the hon. Member with me in this —that if we are to keep these men in Scotland they will need to be retrained in the new skills necessary for the industries we hope to attract to Scotland. These industries will require skilled labour.

    Shotts and Wishaw
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the Shotts and Wishaw employment exchanges in April, 1962, and April, 1963; and what percentages of insured workers these figures represent.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In Shotts there were 350, or 5·3 per cent. unemployed in April, 1962, compared with 663 or 10 per cent. last month. In Wishaw there were 1,183 unemployed in April, 1962, compared with 1,534 last month. A percentage rate is not available for Wishaw, but the rate for the North Lanarkshire travel to-work group of which it is part was 6·2 per cent. in April, 1962, and 8·2 per cent. last month.
    Miss Herbison: Does not the Minister agree that these figures show that the heavy unemployment in these areas is not a seasonal matter, but that there is something basically wrong? What does he propose to do to ensure that these many decent men and women will find work soon?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that the problems in the area are not of a seasonal nature, and I also agree that this is a matter of concern to us all. The hon. Lady knows the measures which the Government have taken and are taking, both before and during the Budget, to improve the position. I would point out further that the value of the two advance factories at Shotts and one each at Bathgate and Airdrie are part of the Government measures which have particular relevance to this area. It takes time for these measures to take effect, but as they do so I am sure that they will prove to be the right method of tackling this problem.
    Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are continually being told about these travel-to-work areas? Is he also aware that from Airdrie only 17 have found employment with B.M.C., and from Shotts and the villages surrounding it only 14 have been employed there
    414
    up to date? We do not want talk about the Budget; we want real evidence that work is coming to this area.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I can only tell the hon. Lady that we trust that the measures we have taken will soon give her that evidence.

    Airdrie and Coatbridge
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the Airdrie and Coatbridge employment exchanges in April, 1962, and April, 1963; and what percentage of insured workers these figures represent.
    Mr. Whitelaw: There were 1,135 unemployed at Airdrie and 1,770 at Coat-bridge in April, 1962, compared with 1,543 and 2,159 respectively in the same month this year. Both these areas are in the North Lanarkshire travel-to-work group, in which the rate of unemployment in April, 1962, was 6·2 per cent. compared with 8·2 per cent. last month.
    Miss Herbison: Do not these figures once again show the serious nature of unemployment in this area? The Minister speaks of the travel-to-work radius, but has he ever considered where the jobs are going, and also that if they are outside the area covered by the employment exchange there is little chance of the people getting work? In conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, will the hon. Gentleman try to find work —something which the Government have been unable to do, as a result of their policies, for the 12 years they have been ruling this country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot accept that we have been unable to find work for 12 years.
    Mr. Willis: The Government have had 12 years.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As I said before, what we are doing now will, I hope, give mounting evidence of the success of the Government's policy.

    Meat Trade (Young Persons)
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the continuing unemployment amongst school leavers, what consultations have taken place between

    415
    his officers, national or local, and representatives of the retail meat trade, with a view to the employment of young persons in that trade.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The Youth Employment Service has regular contacts with the trade at many levels. Careers literature about the trade has been issued by the Central Youth Employment Executive to schools and to youth employment officers, who have regard to oportunities in the trade when advising and placing young people. Our officers also act as assessors to the National Joint Apprenticeship Council and to regional apprenticeship committees. The development of training opportunities in the trade is of great importance in making the career attractive to young people.
    Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the meat trade is anxious to train many more of these young people? Will he draw the attention of his officers to the fact that there are some excellent training and apprenticeship schemes in the trade? If I send him a booklet on the subject, will he see that it is drawn to the attention of his officers?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with what the hon. Members says. I have here a very attractive booklet. I do not know whether it is the same as that which the hon. Member has offered to send me.
    Mr. Royle: It is.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Member that this descriptive literature, giving details of training opportunities, has been circulated by the Central Youth Employment Executive to youth employment officers and schools. Anything further that we can do in this field we certainly will do.

    Lost Working Days (Strikes and Unemployment)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost in the year ended 31st March, 1963, due to strikes, both official and unofficial, and the number lost due to unemployment for the same period.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The number of working days lost in Great Britain through strikes
    416
    in the year ended 31st March, 1963, was 1,900,000. The number of man-days of unemployment in the same period was about 140 million.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he and those hon. Members who sit on the benches behind him are so concerned about the relatively small number of days lost due to industrial disputes and appear to be unconcerned about the very large number of days lost through unemployment? [HON. MEMBERS:"Nonsense"] Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, instead of putting Motions on the Order Paper which are critical of trade unions, his hon. Friends might begin to be more critical of the Government about the way in which this very big problem has been dealt with?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wish in any way to be complacent about either of these reasons for losing productive resources.

    Railway Workers, St. Helens
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour the number of railway workers registered as unemployed, at the latest convenient date, at the St. Helens Employment Exchange.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Twelve on 13th May. These may include persons last employed by private manufacturers of rolling stock and equipment.
    Mr. Spriggs: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what effect the closures of railway workshops and the Beeching Plan for closures in the St. Helens area will have on the figures which he has just given?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is far too early to give any forecasts of that sort. I would hope that the effect would not be very great.

    Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries, Clyde Valley
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Labour the number of mouldmakers employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Labour the number of millwrights

    417
    employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Minister of Labour the number of engine fitters employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of fitters employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of turners employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Labour the number of universal grinders employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Labour the number of patternmakers employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour the number of millers employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Labour the number of moulders employed in the engineering and shipbuilding industries of the Clyde Valley in 1957 and at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In February, 1957, there were 1,082 fitters and 185 turners employed in shipbuilding and ship-repairing compared with 780 fitters and 100 turners in February, 1963, in the areas covered by the Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock and Dumbarton groups of employment exchanges. Information is not available about other occupations in shipbuilding or ship-repairing or about the numbers employed in different occupations in the engineering industry.
    Mr. Small: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that these Questions relate to highly-skilled workers in a craft
    418
    section of industry and that the decline in their numbers is really staggering? Has he any proposal designed to arrest that decline? Will he make an effort to see that we retain men skilled in these crafts, as retraining does not enable a high earning capacity to be attained.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Bringing new industries to an area and retraining skilled labour to man those industries is part of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Millan: Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary improve on his statistics a little? It is disturbing that the figures are not available. Is he aware that there is considerable concern about reductions in the traditional skills on the Clyde and corresponding reductions in apprenticeship facilities, and that there exists a need to look urgently at the apprenticeship schemes generally, to improve training schemes and to do all else that is necessary to give young people opportunities on leaving school?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend has recently arranged for information about the important occupations in a sample of firms in the manufacturing industries only to be collected. These would not he available on a local basis such as Clydeside.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept the decline as being inevitable or has he any positive proposal to arrest it?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The positive proposal to arrest this decline must be the introduction into the area of new and expanding industries to take the place of the older traditional industries which are bound to decline somewhat.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the decline in the number of skilled people employed in the west of Scotland is due to migration to England or because they have found employment in other industries and occupations?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I could not give an exact answer to that question without notice. I should imagine, however, that it is due to a variety of reasons.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the Minister agree that the loss of or the reduction in the

    419
    number of skilled workers in this important part of the country is a matter of first importance not only to Scotland but to Britain? Does he consider that perhaps the fact that this country lags behind other countries in the building of ships may be explained in terms of this kind of loss, and will he see that he and his right hon. Friends do more than they have done over the past 12 years to meet this growing difficulty?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It would be a mistake for me, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, to generalise and to specify that we are not as competitive in the shipbuilding industry as we would wish to be. At the same time, we have to accept that this is part of a problem which exists throughout the world. I do not think that it is confined to Clydeside or anywhere else. I accept that the loss of skilled people is worrying for any area, and that is why the Government are determined to do so much to get new firms and industries into the area.
    Mr. Ross: But surely the Government have not started to bring these new industries to the area this week? Surely the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given show a drop of at least 30 per cent. in respect of those trades about which he has given figures? Are not the Government concerned about this, and the fact that those areas and these industries, the engineering and shipbuilding industries, are what the prosperity of the Clyde was built upon? Have not the Government a coherent policy to arrest the decline, or support the prosperity of that area with new industry to employ these skilled trades?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I should have thought that the Government have a far more coherent policy for dealing with this problem than has been suggested by anyone else.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how the Government's retraining policy is determined when they do not appear to have information about the types of industry in which jobs are declining? Surely it is important to obtain this information if the Government are to tackle the problem?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It would be fair to say that we have a considerable amount
    420
    of information, certainly sufficient upon which to base sound training proposals.
    Mr. P. Williams: Does the earlier answer by my hon. Friend mean that the Government accept as inevitable a decline in the shipbuilding industry, whether on the Clyde or elsewhere? If this is so, surely it is worth while trying to find the reason. Is it—as has been suggested by the placing within the last 24 hours of an order with a Japanese yard—because of cost, or it is because of the absence of credit facilities? The House ought to have an answer on these matters.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that anything in my answer could be read any wider than merely stating what is already happening in this industry. The subjects to which my hon. Friend referred are wider, and they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Callaghan: May I advert to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary that it was not for him to give reasons why the shipbuilding industry was less competitive than it should be? Does the hon. Gentleman know that in fact the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde is as competitive as anywhere in the world and that the modernisation which has taken place in some of the shipyards there will stand comparison with that in any other yard, and does not he think that he should modify his statement?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What I was saying referred to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. South (Mr. P. Williams). I certainly agree with the hon. Member about modernisation and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity of saying so. The fact is, however, that orders are being placed in other parts of the world, and that is something we have to face.

    Training Centres, Glasgow Area
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Minister of Labour what he estimates will be the annual output of retrained and rehabilitated people from his existing and proposed retraining centres in the Glasgow area; and what is the estimated number requiring retraining in the same area.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I estimate the annual output from Government Training Centres will be about 1,000; the annual output from the Industrial Rehabilitation Unit: is about 870. It is not possible to estimate the number requiring retraining but the training programme has been geared to the expected redundancies and to supplying the needs of expanding industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Carmichael: From the figures given in reply to previous Questions, would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the number of places required for retraining is much greater than 1,800 a year? Is he aware that I understand that frequently people are trained to do jobs such as welding, although there is a surplus of welders on the Clyde? Does not he think that a complete reappraisal of the training scheme policy, particularly in the old industrial areas, is urgen ly required?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that in our retraining programme we are taking those matters into account.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been decided at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Bishopston to reduce the intake of apprentices in 1963 from 12 to 6, and how does he reconcile that with his statement?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has referred me to a particular instance. We must extend Government training facilities. Of course, one would hope that industries which are brought to Scotland will also extend their training facilities.

    Labourers, Glasgow (Classification)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Minister of Labour how his Department in the Glasgow area arrives at the classifications, light labourer, and heavy labourer; and what procedure is available to allow someone classified as the former to be reclassified as the latter.
    Mr. Whitelaw: A heavy labourer is one who can do heavy work such as shovelling or stacking heavy materials; a light labourer is one who cannot do such heavy work. Anyone registering at an employment exchange may ask to be reclassified.
    Mr. Carmichael: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that frequently people are classified in the employment exchange on the basis of the last job they did and not of their record over a period? People find great difficulty in getting reclassified in the Glasgow area. The officers of his Department tend to take the lowest possible wage for light labourers prevailing in the area. This classification can mean anything from 10s. to £1 for an individual who is on National Assistance and affected by the wage stop. Will the Department look into this matter?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think I can assure the hon. Member that our local officers do this classification in the light of their local knowledge and experience. An applicant's classification is reviewed after each spell of employment and also periodically, with the object of improving his prospects of getting work. This is one of the main objects of classification.
    Miss Herbison: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that in areas of high unemployment it is an advantage to a man to be classified as a heavy rather than a light labourer, even if he is not able to do the job? A miner in my constituency who was earning £22 10s. a week was classified as a light labourer and the wage was set at £7 10s. a week. It is because of such cases of hardship that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) is concerned.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this to my attention and I shall see that it is brought to the attention of our officers.

    Wages
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Labour in how many cases wages fall below what is paid in unemployment benefit and National Assistance allowances; what information he has from his wages inspectors of the number of firms paying lower wages rates than the above benefits and allowances; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitelaw: One hundred and thirty-five industrial agreements and wages regulation orders fix a basic rate for some workers below the average level

    423
    of unemployment benefit and National Assistance allowances appropriate to an unemployed man with a wife and two children dependent on him. At least 97 per cent. of men engaged in manual work, however, are estimated to earn more than this. Information on the number of firms concerned is not available.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to issue instructions to Ministry of Labour officers throughout the country not to submit unemployed workers for jobs where the wages offered are below subsistence standards according to the National Assistance levels? Will he make a very careful study of this matter and report back to the House on the number of firms actually paying starvation wages?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Without wishing to endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall certainly note his point about what our local officers do in offering particular jobs.

    North-East Scotland
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Labour how many men have had to leave the north-east coast of Scotland in the last 10 years in order to find employment elsewhere; how many of them were tradesmen; and what record is still retained of their respective skills.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I regret that the information requested cannot be furnished from the Ministry's records. A special analysis at the employment exchanges at Banff, Buckle, Fraserburgh and Peterhead shows that since January, 1962, 599 men were placed away from home, 323 of whom were skilled tradesmen. In all cases registration documents are retained for a period of at least five years.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of these men would return to the area if they had an opportunity to work there, and that their skill and training would provide an invaluable basis for whatever industries wished to establish themselves in the area? Therefore, is it not possible to keep some record of what would be available should industry expand again in that part of the country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As I think my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the
    424
    President of the Board of Trade is doing all he can to encourage industries to go into this development district. I note the other points he has made.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister any record of the particular trades and industries in the City of Aberdeen affected by this terrible exodus? Will he consult with the relevant Ministers, particularly the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with a view to asking them to redeem their promises to stop this terrible exodus?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that I have not the particular figures with me at present. However, I note what he has said.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the President of the Board of Trade why in the first three months of this year more industrial development certificates were issued for the Midlands than for the whole of Scotland? How does he hope to begin to solve the problem while that is still going on?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will no doubt note what the hon. Member has said.

    Furniture Industry
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Labour the total number unemployed at the latest available date for over six weeks and the total number on short-time in the furniture industry expressed as percentages of the total employed in the industry nationally and in Wycombe. respectively.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. The estimated number of operatives in the industry working short-time in March was 6,800 or 9·4 per cent. of the total number of operatives employed. Figures on a precisely comparable basis are not available for High Wycombe, but 220 or 2·5 per cent. of the employees in that area are believed to be on short time.
    Mr. Hall: While welcoming the improvement in the short-time working in the industry shown by that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend why it is not

    425
    possible to give the figures asked for in the first part of the Question? Surely an analysis of the figures would not involve any statistical problem, and they would be most helpful.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but figures of the duration of unemployment are available only in respect of the total number unemployed and they are not available for individual industries.

    Cumnock
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour the unemployment figures at Cumnock Employment Exchange on 15th May; haw they compare with the figures of last year; and how he proposes to bring about a reduction in those figures.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 13th May, the day of the count, there were 1,167 unemployed, compared with 422 a year ago. Our local officers are already doing all they can to place these workers in employment.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there would have been a much larger number of unemployed if men had not been sent to England and their families split up and if others did not have to travel long distances by bus, adding considerably to their working day? Does he realise that it is now six months since the Barony Colliery disaster and we are still waiting for a decision when the pit will reopen and about a power station? What can the hon. Gentleman do about that?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Member will appreciate, these figures have been largely influenced by the closure of the Barony Colliery. I understand that the National Coal Board is confident that it will be able to re-absorb nearly all these men within daily travelling distance within the next few months.
    29. Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Labour what records he maintains of men who have had to leave the north-east of Scotland in the last 10 years to find work elsewhere, who would be willing to return provided suitable employment could be obtained near their old homes.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Records of this kind are maintained only in connection with
    426
    the Resettlement Transfer Scheme, under which a man may exercise an option to return home as soon as suitable work becomes available for him. In the last two years, only two men have expressed such a preference.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first reaction to the prospect of additional employment in the north-east of Scotland is the application of hundreds of men who have had to leave the area to return to work there? Is it not, therefore, of the greatest value to prospective employers of labour in the area that they should have some record easily available of the skills and the training which would return to it provided these men could get work there?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly look into the point made by my hon. Friend.

    Skilled Labour Requirements (Study)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour how many officers of his Department are engaged in the study designed to estimate the demand for skilled labour in five years' time; when he expects them to complete this task; what steps he will then take to make their findings known; whether this is the first operation of its kind carried on by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitelaw: A small research unit has recently been set up in the Ministry to study future needs for skilled manpower. The study of manpower statistics and information has long been a normal function of the Ministry and the work of the unit, which will be concerned particularly with the skilled engineering and building trades, is designed to supplement this. At present the number of staff employed full-time is two but many others will also be involved as required. Some results should be available next year and my right hon. Friend will consider the question of publication in due course.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not clear from the recent Report of the National Economic Development Council that what is badly needed is a manpower budget going some years ahead in terms of skilled manpower? Was it not equally

    427
    clear from the hon. Gentleman's reply just now to my hon. Friends from Scotland that there is great confusion on Clydeside and elsewhere about the relationship of training programmes to needs? Will a unit of two people really cope with this problem? Should not the Ministry have many more people working on it and doing so with a great sense of urgency?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I made clear in my original Answer that the number of staff employed full time was two but that many others will also be involved in this research. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the importance of this work is considerable. If necessary, and as it develops, the number of staff will be increased.

    Wages Council Inspectorate
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour the present strength of the Wages Council Inspectorate; what percentage of establishments covered by Wages Councils was inspected in 1962; what percentage of those inspected was found to be falling below the statutory standards of wages or conditions; and whether he will increase the establishment of this Inspectorate so as to provide greater protection for the workers concerned.
    Mr. Whitelaw: There are at present 144 inspectors who are engaged full time on visiting employers' premises. In 1962, 9·3 per cent. of the total number of establishments known to be covered by Wages Regulation Orders were visited by inspectors. The percentage of these establishments where some underpayment was discovered was 17·5 per cent. My right hon. Friend does not propose to increase the establishment of the Inspectorate.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not rather scandalous that, of the establishments that were inspected, 17·5 per cent. were paying below Wages Council rates, the Wages Council rates themselves being among the lowest in the country? Does not this tie up with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply just now to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) about the number of people who are earning less than National Assistance levels? Surely, there should be more inspectors to see that these bad em-
    428
    ployers are brought into line on these very low minimum rates of pay.
    Mr. Whitelaw: One would certainly agree with the hon. Member that it is most unsatisfactory if any workers are paid less than the wage to which they are legally entitled. At the same time, although there has been a small reduction in the number of inspectors, I am assured that they do every bit as much inspection and that they achieve it by improved methods of working. This is, I am sure. what everybody would wish.
    Mr. Prentice: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a minority of employers are so bad that they will cheat in this respect unless they are inspected frequently? Is it not clear that the existing establishment of inspectors cannot inspect frequently? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again from this point of view?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly note what the hon. Member has said, but I have no evidence that extra inspection is needed.

    Commonwealth Immigrants (Vouchers)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Labour how many applications for employment vouchers he has received under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; how many he has issued; how many have lapsed; and how many successful applicants have taken advantage of such vouchers.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Up to 17th May, 122,185 applications had been received and 40,250 vouchers had been issued. Vouchers totalling 3,968 had been returned to the Ministry because their validity had expired or because the holders no longer required them. Up to the end of April, 10,147 Commonwealth citizens had used their vouchers to enter the country.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of the continuing high level of unemployment and the fact that according to figures supplied by my hon. Friend, another 30,000 immigrants can enter the country within the next few months against vouchers already issued, does he not consider that the issue of vouchers should be suspended until

    429
    the position improves? Is it not deplorable that so many vouchers should be issued to immigrants to enter the country to the detriment of British nationals who are seeking work?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Over the past few months, arrivals of voucher holders have been only a few hundred a week. There is no evidence that this rate is likely to be stepped up. I should also point out that the figure of 26,371 unemployed, which I gave to my hon. Friend in a Written Answer on 20th May, was 4,380 below the figure for April and some 11,000 below the figure for July, 1962, when the control began.

    Remploy Factories, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to secure the establishment of additional Remploy factories in Scotland to provide employment for the disabled.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In order to employ more severely disabled people in Scotland, the Remploy factories at Aberdeen and Dundee have recently been extended, the factory at Cowdenbeath will be extended shortly and the one at Dalmuir will be moved into new premises.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome these additional facilities but that if he examines the figures which he gave to other Scottish Members and myself three or four weeks ago about the number of disabled persons in Scotland, he will see that there is still clearly a need for several more Remploy factories in Scotland?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What one must do in considering, this matter—and I appreciate what the hon. Member says—is to remember that Remploy is dealing with the severely disabled only and that some of the figures which were given apply to the disabled generally. One must also appreciate the problem of siting the Remploy factories in the areas where improvement is required. In some of the scattered areas, there are unemployed severely disabled people whom it would be impossible to cover by Remploy factories We feel that the number of factories in Scotland is coping with the prospective demand.
    Mr. Stodart: Does my hon. Friend recall that in a letter which he wrote to me last August, he made clear that the Remploy factory in Glasgow was working at 100 per cent. capacity? Does not this show that there is need and room for an extension of the factory in the Glasgow area?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I should assure my hon. Friend that in reply to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) I referred to the extension of the factory at Dalmuir on its going into new premises at Anniesland, which is in the Glasgow area. I note, however, what my hon. Friend has said and also what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said.
    Mr. Millan: Does not the Minister realise that there are no fewer that 2,400 registered disabled unemployed in Glasgow and that what is needed is an extension of facilities not merely for the severely disabled, but also for the less severely disabled, who in some cases also find it impossible to get jobs?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I take the point made by the hon. Member. In this regard, it would be right to refer to the sheltered workshops which are provided by the local authorities and the voluntary bodies. I was fortunate enough to go to open one of these in Falkirk and I think that an extension of them is extremely valuable.

    Young People, Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the number of young people totally unemployed in Fife county increased from 370 in mid May, 1962, to 625 in May, 1963; and to what extent the measures he proposes will arrest the deterioration.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir. But the final figure for May is 610. Much of the county is scheduled as a development district and young persons, like older workers, should benefit from the recent measures taken to assist these areas. The Youth Employment Service will continue to do all it can to find suitable jobs for unemployed young people.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that we are sick and tired of hearing what the Government are going to do? Is he aware that they have been going

    431
    to do things for 12 years but that virtually nothing has happened? Would it not be a good idea if Members of the Treasury Bench were paid by results?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would not seek to comment on that last point. I would, however, say to the hon. Member that I am not stating what the Government are going to do or what will happen. Both to the hon. Member and to many of his hon. Friends this afternoon, I have been stating what the Government have done and the results that will be achieved thereby.

    Disabled Persons, West Midland Region
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour the average proportionate unemployment among disabled persons in the West Midland region; how this compares with the proportion unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what steps he is taking to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Whitelaw: On 8th April, 1963, 7·4 per cent. of registered disabled persons were unemployed in the Midlands Region compared with 11·9 per cent. in New castle-under-Lyme. The disablement resettlement officers will continue their efforts to find work for the disabled persons who are unemployed. The position is expected to improve with the general employment situation.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise from that, as in Scotland, in many parts of England the situation is extremely serious, especially where more than 10 per cent. of registered disabled persons are unable to find work? Does he appreciate the special tragedy of many of these men from the pits, and so on, who year after year are unable to find any suitable work? Will he now take urgent steps to provide suitable work in these areas where there is such a high level of disabled unemployed?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly accept the problem which the inability to find jobs creates for disabled persons, and I share the hon. Member's concern in that. As to Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Midlands Region, however, I would hope that this position, too, will improve with the general improvement of the economic situation.
    Dr. King: Will the Minister seriously consider the setting up of a committee to examine how far we are meeting our obligations to the severely disabled, on the one hand, in institutions like Remploy and the partially disabled, on the other hand, when we are asking employers to take a certain percentage of such disabled men? This is a serious problem demanding serious consideration on the part of the Minister. Will he assure us that he will look into it?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly assure the hon. Member that I will look into it, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend and our Department are constantly doing. We recognise that this is a serious and urgent problem.

    EGYPT
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether there has been any change in the volume and character of Egyptian propaganda and subversion against British territories and interests in the Middle East and Africa since the announcement of the extension of the United Arabic Republic to Syria and Iraq and the President of the Board of Trade's visit to Cairo; whether he will defer further direct British aid to Egypt until a more peaceful atmosphere prevails; and whether Her Majesty's Government will seek means, if possible in co-operation with the United Kingdom's co-signatories of the Tripartite Declaration, to give effect to the purposes of that Declaration, and otherwise clarify and stabilise the position.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): There has been no noticeable change in the volume or character of Egyptian propaganda about British territories and interests in the Middle East and Africa in the period mentioned. I have no present evidence of attempts at direct subversion.
    The credit made available in August, 1962, is now almost wholly committed. No fresh credit is under consideration at present.
    As to the third part of the Question, I can add nothing to the reply my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 8th April and to that which my right

    433
    hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) on 14th May.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why was British aid offered to the United Arab Republic at the very time that Cairo radio was howling for the death of King Hussein? While the statements made by President Kennedy, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal are welcome as far as they go, does my hon. Friend think that the position of the Western Powers is sufficiently clear to deter aggression against friendly States in the Middle East, which could bring on general war?
    Mr. Godber: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would say that this loan was arranged largely to assist British exports, and my hon. Friend should not ignore the implications there. On the second part, I am quite confident that the States concerned are fully aware of the considerations involved.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister of State unaware of the prime objective of President Nasser, which is to gain complete control over the whole of the Arab countries—which he may well do in the course of a year or so—and that when he has done that he may begin to blackmail this country and interfere with British interests?
    Mr. Godber: I am aware of all the implications in this area, but I am also aware of the fact that it is dangerous to predict what is likely to happen in the Middle East.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply on the question of the Tripartite Declaration was rather ambiguous? Does he recall the assurances given by the Lord Privy Seal some weeks ago in the House to the effect that he would seriously consider the concept of extending the United Nations presence around the frontiers of Israel and Jordan? What has been done about that?
    Mr. Godber: My reply on this matter was a direct reference to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said in relation to the Tripartite Declaration, and I have nothing to add in relation to that matter.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister of State see if anything can be done to persuade the United States to put a little pressure on President Nasser to see that the financial aid which the Americans have been giving to Egypt is not spent on buying Russian arms and indulging in propaganda which is disturbing to peace?
    Mr. Godber: I should like to look at that point, although I am not aware that it has been so used.

    YEMEN
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the most recent information he has received from the United Nations Organisation, following its mission to that country, about the withdrawal of foreign forces from Yemen, and about Egyptian air bombardment of civilian targets.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): On 29th April the Secretary-General reported progress to the Security Council; I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Library of the House. He has sent an officer to make arrangements with the countries concerned for the establishment of observer groups to supervise disengagement.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my hon. Friend any idea when the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Yemen is likely to be complete? Has there been any international protest from the United Nations or from individual member States of the United Nations against the cruel and wanton bombardment of the civilian population by Egyptian aircraft?
    Mr. Thomas: Regarding the first part of that supplementary question, T am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any idea as to time. The Secretary General has not yet fixed a date and the observers are not yet in place. On the second part, I do not think that this would help the Secretary-General's efforts at the moment.
    Sir G. Nicholson: I think that my hon. Friend used the word "supervise". Is he aware that that word may be variously interpreted? Did my hon. Friend mean that there is some power in the hands

    435
    of the observers, or are they merely observers pure and simple with a watching brief?
    Mr. Thomas: They will be observers on the spot in order to see that disengagement has taken place, and to report.

    ABERDEEN TRAWLER"MILWOOD"(DETENTION)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Aberdeen trawler"Milwood"is detained in Reykjavik by Icelandic authorities without any court order, notwithstanding guarantees offered by her owners; and what steps he is taking to protect British interests there and in particular to support the trawler owners' offer of guarantees.
    Mr. P. Thomas: I understand that the trawler "Milwood" is detained upon a ruling by the judge of the Icelandic court which is conducting an inquiry into the incident, pending the conclusion of the inquiry or until otherwise decided. Until the inquiry is finished, I do not think that it would be in the owners' interests for me to make any public comment or to initiate any action at this stage.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the order of the court was made after the capture of this trawler in mid-ocean, that the rule of law should be observed and that the presence or absence of Mr. Smith in Reykjavik is quite a different matter from the detention of this trawler—a money-making concern—which is losing large sums of money for the owners? Would it not be right for the Government to accede to the request of the owners of the trawler to back the guarantee which the owners gave in Reykjavik for its release? Surely the Government should back that and let the trawler be released. It has nothing to do with the presence or absence of Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Thomas: Regarding the hon. and learned Member's comments on the rule of law. I am sure that he will agree that I cannot comment on the legal procedures of another country. I am advised, however, that there is nothing in international law to preclude the detention of the trawler pending the completion of the inquiry. As to the absence of Skipper Smith, I agree that this is a different matter, but the hon. and learned Member
    436
    will understand that although we have no power, and would not wish to have any power, to compel Mr. Smith to stand trial in Iceland, it is our hope that he will do so; and that may well resolve this difficult matter.
    Mr. Hoy: Have the British Government been invited to take part in an inquiry? If so, will the Foreign Office be officially represented?
    Mr. Thomas: Our representatives are in continuous touch with the Icelandic Government over this matter.

    NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MULTILATERALNUCLEAR FORCE)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council of Ministers which is to consider the United States new proposals for the reorganisation of European defence.
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the participation of the German Federal Republic in a multilateral nuclear force of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Godber: These Questions presumably refer to the American proposal for the creation of a mixed-manned force of surface ships carrying the Polaris missile. We have given a general welcome to the concept of such a force. No decisions are expected at Ottawa on the proposals for the creation of this force. The Federal Government of Germany, like other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, would, of course, be fully entitled to participate in any multilateral force which may be set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not that Answer indicate that the Government have changed their policy in regard to a European organisation for defence and that they have succumbed or are about to succumb to the blandishments of the United States? If that is the policy, it will be sternly resisted by many hon.

    437
    Members and, I believe, by many people in this country. Can we have an assurance that before the Government definitely decide to accept the United States' proposal for a mixed force, the House of Commons will be consulted?
    Mr. Godber: There is no change of policy at all. This is exactly in accord with the arrangements laid down in the Nassau communiqué. This is a development from it, proposed by the United States. As I have said, there are no commitments in regard to it. This is a matter which is subject to discussion at the present time and, of course, the House will be informed of any developments when they take place.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister of State not aware that a great deal of public feeling exists in this country against the West Germans having access to nuclear arms in any way? Will he bear this in mind? How does this affect the attempts that were being made at one stage for a nuclear-free zone in Europe?
    Mr. Godher: If such a force were set up it would be a multilateral one and would be multilaterally controlled. It would not be a question of the Germans having sole possession of these weapons.
    Sir J. Maitland: Does giving a welcome mean that we are committed to taking part in this operation if it comes about?
    Mr. Godber: I said that we have given a welcome to the concept of such a force. Obviously, all the aspects of such a force must be discussed. This has not yet been brought to any question of finality. I have merely said that we have accepted it and have welcomed it in principle.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable disquiet about the attitude of the Government towards this matter? Can he say whether, in his view, these proposals make any sense at all from the military point of view? Does he further realise that there are grave dangers in anything that tends to the spreading of nuclear weapons? May I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) that before any film decisions are
    438
    taken we will have an opportunity of debating the matter in the House?
    Mr. Godber: I suggest that questions on the military aspect should be put to the Minister of Defence. On the question of proliferation, in my view this would have exactly the reverse effect. It would tend to prevent proliferation into fresh national hands, and I think that that is a very important aspect of the whole problem.
    Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever the political advantages of this idea, it makes military nonsense, and will be very expensive?
    Mr. Godber: I have just said that questions on the military side should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. I should prefer to confine myself to the political aspects which, for the reasons I have just given, I think are certainly very important.
    Mr. Grimond: What do the Government mean by saying that they give a welcome to the concept? Does this mean that they give a welcome to the force, or not? Secondly, what do they mean by saying that this follows out the Nassau Agreement? Does this mean that we are prepared to give up the British independent deterrent in favour of some European multilateral deterrent, or not? Who is to control this force? Is it to be controlled by some European authority, or by the Americans?
    Mr. Godber: I said that we gave a welcome to the concept— I should have thought that was plain English; that we have accepted the principle of the idea. It depends entirely on how the idea is worked out. As I have indicated, it has not been worked out. The whole question in relation to the Nassau Agreement is quite clear, in that we there committed our V-bomber force, or undertook to commit it, and to provide, subsequently, Polaris submarines. But there was also definite provision in Articles 8 and 9 of the Nassau communiqué for the provision of a multilateral force. This falls entirely within that concept, and it is for that reason I referred to the communiqué.
    Mr. Grimond: Who is to control it?
    Mr. Godber: I have indicated that if such a force is to be set up the question

    439
    of control must be worked out in N.A.T.O. itself, but it has not yet been worked out.
    Sir G. Nabarro: In any event, can the Nassau proposals now be tenable, as France has contracted out and refuses to have anything at all to do with a mixed force armed with Polaris missiles?
    Mr. Godber: The Nassau proposals were Anglo-American proposals. It is quite clear that they are certainly tenable, and will remain so.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not deplorable that Her Majesty's Government should have been prepared to welcome this proposal in principle without having a view on whether or not it is militarily practicable? Secondly, on the political question, is it not the case that under this proposal Western Germany will assume a nuclear role at least five years before she could have hoped to have done so by any other means? Is it not also the case that the West German Government have accepted the proposal only on the understanding that once such a force becomes operational, the unanimity rule will be superseded by some sort of majority rule for control?
    Mr. Godber: On the question of accepting the principle without consideration of military effectiveness, I did not say that. I said that questions of military concern should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. With regard to control, it is not true that any definite decisions have been taken by the Germans or anyone else. This is an American proposal that has been put before N.A.T.O., and it is subject to consideration at the present time. No decisions have been
    440
    taken in relation to it. I have expressed the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it, and I think that that is where the general position rests.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of a Government decision to have a debate on the subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BILL PRESENTED
  LAW REFORM (SUCCESSION ETC.) (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to assimilate and amend the law of Scotland with respect to the succession to the heritable and moveable property of deceased parsons; to amend the law relating to the legal rights exigible out of such property and to the administration of deceased persons' estates and other property passing on death; to provide for adopted persons to be treated for certain purposes as children of their adopters; to make new provision as to the financial rights and obligations of the parties to a marriage on divorce in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Noble; supported by Lady Tweeds muir; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock,—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

SUPPLY

  19TH ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1963–64
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £70, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the following services connected with Agriculture, namely:—

  Civil. ESTIMATES. 1963–64

  £

  Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  10

  Class V, Vote 2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  10

  Class V, Vote 3, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

  10

  Class V, Vote 4, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

  10

  Class V, Vote 5, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

  10

  Class V, Vote 6, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

  10

  Class V. Vote 7, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)

  10

  Total

  £70

  AGRICULTURE
  3.35 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Pearl (Workington): On a point of order, Sir William. I was under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture was to make a statement to the Committee. I understand that it will be part of his speech, but we are informed today that the right hon. Gentleman did, in fact, make the statement to a meeting of the Conservative Party last night at the House. This is an unusual procedure, and it is also rather embarrassing. There has been a leak—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) probably has a different conception of standard in this House from mine. I hope so.
  The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help the Committee by telling me what the point of order is
  Mr. Peart: May I ask the Minister Whether he will make the statement now, so that the House may be informet?
  The Chairman: that is not a point of order. It is for hon. Members to make their speeches. I cannot tell them what to say.
  Lieut.- Colonel Sir Walter Bromley- Davenport: On a point of order that is not a point of order, sir William—
  The Chairman: Order. If it is not a point of order, it is not for me to deal with.
  3.37 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The problems facing agriculture in the developed Western world were nowhere better illustrated than at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meeting in Geneva which ended last night. As never before in the G.A.T.T., the willingness of many countries to see tariffs on industrial goods throughout the developed world reduced was tempered by, and even made conditional upon, progress in improving the state of trade in temperate agricultural products.
  Thanks to the scientific revolution in agriculture which has led to spectacular increases in productivity, output in agriculture in the developed world has tended to outstrip the level of commercial demand for food. Faced with this situation, the traditional exporting countries have found it increasingly difficult to dispose of their production at remunerative prices.
  The result has been plain to see—growing surpluses, depressed prices, unstable marketing conditions. Different countries have felt the effect of this in different ways, but all of them have found it difficult to secure for their agricultural industries a proper share in the general improvement in living standards. They have responded to it in different ways. There has been increased protection against foreign competition, but, at the same time, agricultural exporters have been increasing their pressure on world markets. There

  443
  have been many attempts to control production, and even to take both land and people out of agriculture.
  Here, at home, agriculture has been protected to some extent inasmuch as returns have been kept up by the deficiency payments system. But it has been apparent for some time now, and certainly to me ever since I have been Minister of Agriculture, that we could not hope to insulate ourselves completely from this general malaise. This we have seen most strikingly in the depressed state of our market for major commodities—so much so that our efforts to implement the spirit of the Agriculutre Acts as regards fair returns to farmers have resulted in a rise in the estimates of Exchequer cost of agricultural support of more than one-third, or over £100 million, in the last three years.
  This has been the cause of growing concern to Government, taxpayer and farmer alike. Our overseas suppliers have also been concerned at their falling returns on our market, often brought about by the competition of dumped or subsidised supplies. It has been plain for some time that these difficulties were likely to increase rather than to diminish. I should like to remind the Committee of what I said in a debate two years ago, on 12th June, 1961, on the subject of dumping:
  "…;we have seen a significant stepping up of this offloading, both in terms of the number of commodities and the number of countries involved. Of course, if this is only a passing phase, we should be able to control it. But is it? Are there not signs that in the years ahead world food surpluses are likely to increase yet more? If so, are not the pressures and strains on our free market likely to grow rather than diminish?
  It is true that behind our support system we have the 1957 anti-dumping legislation, but that legislation was designed to deal with specific incidents and it was not designed to give blanket protection against falling world prices. And it is not man enough for that. This trend is creating major difficulties for us and we must deal with them in the short term as best we can with the measures which are open to us. If it looks like becoming a permanent feature, so that wide ranges of foodstuffs come on to our free market at uneconomic prices, we will have seriously to consider adapting our system in order to prevent our objective from being thwarted. Otherwise, we will find our farmers constantly at the mercy of imports at uneconomic prices, with Exchequer payments rising to unpredictable
  444
  heights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1961; Val. 642, c. 57–8.]
  And so, indeed, it has turned out to be.
  We then, in July, 1961, went into the Common Market negotiations. In the meantime, during the eighteen months that these negotiations lasted, pressures on our market and, therefore, on our system continued. This was the background to the Price Review this year, which began only a matter of days after the Common Market negotiations had broken down.
  Therefore, while it was clear that we would need to make some changes in our system, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House of Commons so in the post-Brussels debate, the extent to which we could use the Price Review for this was, naturally, limited because of the time factor. But those which we did make in certain of the guarantee arrangements were to my mind more important than the adjustments of the actual guaranteed prices, in which overall we made no net change, from the point of view of Review arithmetic, in the value of the guarantees.
  We have related the guarantee for eggs to an indicator price representing the price which the Marketing Board can reasonably be expected to secure when normal supply and demand are in balance. While this in itself should lead to greater stability in the egg market, we have made provision for the guarantee payments to be adjusted if imports rise above a certain level and the market is depressed.
  For pigs, we greatly improved the effectiveness of the flexible guarantee arrangements and we also made a start on withdrawing the special stabilising arrangements which have been a somewhat artificial element in the balance of supplies between the pork and bacon markets. We have shown that we are making our own contribution to more orderly marketing in the pig industry and we shall be looking to our overseas suppliers to play their part. This we are discussing with Denmark and other suppliers.
  We also gave notice in the Review that we shall be considering changes in the method of calculating the guarantee payments for fatstock, that is to say, the

  445
  weekly calculations and the seasonal scale. What we have in mind here is the need for producers to pay more attention to the level of market prices through the year and to refrain from unloading supplies on a weak market because of the attraction of subsidy as opposed to the attraction of the market.
  The most important of the commodities where we did make changes in the guaranteed price was milk. This is the commodity that has caused more difficulties in successive Reviews over the years than any other. We have been living with a spiral of rising milk production resulting in a higher proportion being sold at unprofitable prices for manufacture and the pool price paid to producers thereby being reduced. Encouragement to increase production would merely have aggravated this spiral. However, there was evidence this year that the rise in production more nearly matched the rise in sales on the liquid market, and, therefore, we felt able to increase the guaranteed price by ½d. a gallon.
  This, along with the increase in the standard quantity, has meant an extra £6 million for the dairy industry. We looked at the increase in the guaranteed price very carefully, but I was convinced that to have given any bigger increase would have been to run a grave risk of setting off again the spiral of higher production and lower average returns. A greater increase might have had immediate attractions, but it certainly would not have been in the long-term interests of the dairy industry.
  While the Review as a whole was disagreed and some individual price determinations, notably for milk, were included in that disagreement, I believe that what underlines the anxiety felt in the industry is the growing awareness of the new situation brought about by the altered supply and demand pattern which has changed a seller's market into a buyer's market, coupled with a feeling of impotence in having to sit back and see imports coming in without restriction and total supplies of home and imported foods pulling down farm-gate prices and thus forcing up the subsidy bill. These combine to put at risk our whole system of support. It is this which, fundamentally, is causing anxiety over the future, and it is with the future that I should like to deal.
  446
  In the White Paper following the Review we said that changes were needed in our system and we gave notice of our intention to discuss proposals to this end with leaders of the industry and with our overseas suppliers. I should like to tell the Committee about the broad approach on which the Government have decided. We adhere to our system of support through guaranteed prices and deficiency payments and intend to adapt it to present circumstances by bringing about greater market stability. This is desirable in the interests of the farming community and to avoid inflation of the cost of agricultural support by sudden and unpredictable falls in market prices.
  There are two factors in this problem. The first is the market price which determines the rate of subsidy. This can be undermined from time to time by imports coming in at unduly low prices. Secondly, for cereals and meat there is no limit to the quantity of home production on which the subsidy is paid. We have concentrated our first attention on fatstock and cereals, and for good reason. The estimates that I have put in this year for the total cost of support for agriculture were, in round figures, £360 million. Of this, £120 million were for direct farming grants we can always predict what they are to cost and they are firmly in the control of the Government, to be altered as necessary from one year to another. Of the remaining £240 million, £210 million represented the cost of support for cereals and meat, leaving only £30 million to cover all the other major commodities.
  Indeed, the rise in our estimates of £100 million in the last three years is all accounted for by cereals and meat. Moreover, in these sectors the prospect is one of increasing total supplies in our market, and measures to prevent our market prices from being undermined are necessary not only in our own interests, but also in those of our overseas suppliers.
  The Government, therefore, intend to secure greater stability in the market for cereals and fatstock by a system of control of imports or import prices, combined with the extension at home of the standard quantity concept into these commodities. As the Committee will know, the standard quantity is an accepted principle under the Agriculture Acts,

  447
  which authorise the guarantee to be related to such part of our production as it is in the national interest to produce at home. It already applies in one way or another to milk, pigs, eggs, sugar beet and potatoes.
  It will take some time to settle the precise application of this policy both on the home side and on imports, and the measures to be introduced may well be different in detail for the different commodities. We shall, of course, be discussing this with the leaders of the agricultural industry, and these discussions will include consideration of other changes in the machinery of our guarantee arrangements, as we foreshadowed in the Review White Paper. We shall also have discussions with the trade organisations principally concerned.
  I hope that the Committee will appreciate that at this point I cannot go into any great detail, but I should like to give an indication of the extent of the changes we have in mind and how our broad approach will affect the consumer, the food trades, farmers and our overseas suppliers. First, the consumer. Let me say at once that we do not intend to restrict supplies in order to raise market prices. We should start from broadly the present level of supplies. We are not aiming to raise prices, but to iron out the more violent fluctuations in the market. In other words, we are aiming to put a floor or a bottom into the market.
  I believe that this approach will win a broad measure of support in the Committee, apart, perhaps, from the Liberal Party, who, as I understand, would like to see us reject our system and go over to a full-blooded managed market system. It follows, also, that there will be no significant interference with the operations of the food trades beyond what may be necessary to ensure that there is a floor in the market. The Government's aim is certainly to leave the maximum freedom to the trade, consistent with their objective of ensuring that there is a stable market.
  For the producer there will, I believe, be many advantages in this new approach. Farmers have disliked seeing the rising Exchequer bill at least as much as any other section of the community. Their record of improvements in efficiency and
  448
  productivity stands high in comparison with other industries. Productivity per man has been increasing by 5 per cent. per annum. Yet this tends to be obscured by the fact that the Exchequer support bill has also been rising so fast, due to weak market prices calling for a higher deficiency payment on each unit of production.
  I grant that there have been occasions when the home farmer, either because of the quantity produced of a particular commodity or the way in which our system as it now is leaves him to market it, has been a partial or even a main contributor to this, but the fact that we are the only big commercial free importer of food in the world has meant that time and again our market has been undermined for reasons over which our agricultural industry has no control whatsoever.
  We have seen barley down to £14 a ton—a totally unrealistic price for any country to be able to deliver it here economically. Equally, during the last few months, as in 1961, we have seen the price of fat cattle in our markets forced down to 110s. a cwt. On the other hand, during the calendar year 1962 the average return from our markets for fat cattle was 142s. a cwt. compared with a guaranteed price of 167s. This was a year when there happened to be, perhaps more by good luck than by good management, a satisfactory and steady supply of beef from all sources throughout the year, and, consequently, a stable market. What we want to see is this sort of pattern being the rule rather than the exception.
  1 believe that the incentive to improve marketing of home produce, which must be an important feature of our system, has been seriously weakened by the knowledge that, no matter what is done for home production, it could be thwarted or brought to nought by the importation of supplies from abroad at low prices. The action that we have in mind to prevent imports of cereals and meat disrupting the market and the improvements in the guarantee arrangements at home will, we believe, provide a new stimulus to improving our marketing machinery. In that connection, we hope to have in the autumn the report of Sir Reginald Verdon Smith's committee on fatstock marketing and its advice on how this vital part of our marketing system should be reformed.

  449
  Though the farmers, to say nothing of the taxpayers, will be relieved to have a greater measure of stability in market prices, they will be the first to appreciate that, as a great trading nation, it must be in our national interest to decide these arrangements with the concurrence of our Commonwealth and other overseas suppliers to whom we have our obligations under various international agreements. In reaching agreement with them on measures which they should take to contribute to the stabilising of our market, we must be prepared to make our own contribution to that same end. That is why, on the home front, we will be introducing standard quantities and the other changes that I have mentioned in our deficiency payments system.
  In the preliminary discussions that we have had recently with some of our overseas suppliers, in the E.F.T.A. meetings, with the Commonwealth Trade Ministers and in the G.A.T.T., we have found a good deal of understanding for our general thesis that if they are to obtain a reasonable return from our market there must be some control over the conditions under which it is supplied.
  Often in the past, different countries have complained to us of the low prices that they are getting on our market, but they cannot expect, in times of surplus. to have both limitless access in terms of quantity and, at the same time, to be sure of getting a reasonable price. With the entry to all other world markets restricted, it is not possible to keep our market completely open and free in times of surplus without having violent falls in prices from time to time. Surely, therefore, it is in their interest, every bit as much as in ours, to secure more orderly marketing arrangements.
  The detailed arrangements for the different commodities which we would aim to agree with our overseas suppliers might well need to include a body to keep under review the level of supplies and also the phasing of those supplies in our markets in the light of changes in the pattern here and overseas and other factors, such as the opening up of new markets. But whether or not a body of this kind will be necessary, and, if so, what form it should take, will depend on the arrangements we finally make. We are keeping an open mind
  450
  about it. It would be unwise to decide on the machinery before we can see clearly what its task would be.
  In working out the proper balance between home-grown and imported food we should, as I have said, start from broadly the present level of supplies. We want arrangements which will ensure fair access to our market at reasonable prices, both to the overseas supplier and to our home producer. We do not wish them to be rigid, but to be as flexible as can be consonant with their fulfilling their purpose. This will be particularly necessary where the control would be on a quantitative basis. Where it would be better for the control to be exercised on the price of imports, our approach would be to establish minimum import prices to prevent the market falling to unreasonably low levels, leaving the market to run normally above the minimum price level.
  The best method in each case can be discussed, but we hope and believe that, on such a basis, we will be able to reach agreement with our trading partners and that they will recognise that arrangements of this kind are likely to be more satisfactory than the prospect of unbridled competition in an overloaded market. At the same time, the fact that greater stability in our market will benefit our overseas suppliers means that this may be at some cost to our import bill. We shall expect these benefits to be taken into account in the overall balance of concessions which will he struck in the forthcoming trade negotiations.
  What of the opportunities for growth? Both our standard of living and our population are rising. The forecast is a population of 70 million people by the end of the century. This will mean a rising demand for food and a growing market which will offer opportunities both to the home producer and to exporting countries. It is obviously not possible to be precise over proportions. Plainly, they will vary in the event from one commodity to another, and many factors will play upon them, not the least being the competitive position of our home producers in relation to overseas suppliers. But I have no doubt that, in the discussions we will he having, our overseas suppliers will appreciate that we could not agree upon arrangements which would not provide full opportunities to

  451
  our farmers to secure a proper share of the growth of demand on our own market.
  In the longer term, much will, I believe, turn on the successful conclusion of international commodity arrangements. At last week's meeting of the Commonwealth Trade Ministers and, even more recently, of the G.A.T.T., we have affirmed our policy of support for such long-term solutions. I want to remind the Committee of the policy of the Government towards this. It was set out in a declaration made after the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September last year. Their statement declared their desire
  "…;to maintain and expand world trade in commodities and to improve the organisation of the world market in a manner fair alike to producers and to consumers."
  The statement went on:
  "They will support a fresh and vigorous approach to the negotiation of international commodity agreements to this end. In any such approach principles of price, production and trade access would need to be applied on a commodity by commodity basis so as to encourage maximum consumption without over-stimulating production and to offer to efficient producing countries adequate access and stable prices at a fair and reasonable level.
  They believe that in the disposal of any surplus agricultural products opportunity should be taken to the fullest extent compatible with the legitimate interests of traditional suppliers to meet the needs of those peoples of the world who are in want."
  This was said, of course, in the context of our negotiations with the Common Market. But, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech in the post-Brussels debate on 11th February, the failure of the negotiations with the E.E.C. in no way relieved us of the need to fit our agricultural policies into our overseas trading arrangements, although he was at pains to underline the need for adequate reciprocity in any arrangements we made so as to safeguard our balance of payments position. We have since reaffirmed our intention to co-operate with the Commonwealth in dealing with the various world agreements which can be of such benefit to the economies of the less developed countries.
  We shall be pursuing our objectives in the working groups for meat and cereals which will meet shortly under the
  452
  G.A.T.T.—indeed, arrangements were made early today for an early meeting—arid also, where appropriate, we will be having discussions on a bilateral basis. We will do all we can to reach agreements which we believe will be advantageous to both parties. The Committee will realise that world-wide commodity agreements in the full sense of the word cannot be arrived at quickly or easily, and it will be the Government's intention to use the G.A.T.T. forum to discuss what has to be done in the short-term to bring about the stability we seek.
  I have given the Committee an account of where we have got to in the development of our policy. It may be summed up by saying that our intention is, while adhering to the principles of the 1947 and 1957 Acts, to adapt and to tailor out existing system of support to the new conditions of today. Though our attention has so far been concentrated, for good and obvious reasons, on fatstock and cereals, we believe that this new policy will have great advantages for agriculture as a whole, for small farmers as well as large, because it will serve to preserve our system of support—to which the whole industry attaches so much importance—by removing the pressures and strains which at present are weighing on it and putting it at risk.
  We cannot judge today how long the process of discussion with our overseas suppliers will take. But I believe that it will be a satisfaction and a relief to the industry to know that this is the policy which the Government have decided upon, that our system of support will be assured and that it will provide a solid base for future opportunity.
  We believe that it is a responsible policy in world terms. It will provide sound assurances for British agriculture, with opportunity for growth, and also the maintenance of trade with our traditional suppliers on a basis which is mutually advantageous.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington): I refer again to what I said when I raised a point of order at the beginning of this debate. We are having the debate because the Opposition chose a Supply day for it and normally, in courtesy, we allow the Government spokesman to make a statement first, if necessary. I

  453
  still believe it to be discourteous to this Committee for the Minister to have made his statement last night to a private meeting upstairs. The Times has revealed this today.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: It was inaccurate.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has a habit of shouting from a seated position. If he wishes to interrupt, let him do so honourably, and I will give way.
  The Times has given a full account and I should like to place it on record that we object to this sort of treatment.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The account in The Times is grossly inaccurate. A full and frank exchange of views took place between my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the back benches.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Because I was there. That is how I know. That was a perfectly honourable course; there was nothing dishonourable about it. My right hon. Friend made no statement in advance of his speech today and I think that he has behaved with the greatest decorum. as he normally does.
  Mr. Peart: I still assert that it would have been better if he had made his statement in the House of Commons first rather than to a private meeting of the Tory Party. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) should not be so naïve. The Minister made precisely the same speech today as he made last night to a private meeting.
  We take the view that the Government must bear some responsibility for the indecision and uncertainty which have hung over agriculture for a long time The Minister said that his speech would end the uncertainty, but it is our case that hon. Members opposite must bear major responsibility for it. The Minister has been converted. He chided the spokesman of the Liberal Party about the Liberal Party's belief in the managed market, but over the last two years the Minister himself has lauded the virtues of the managed market over and over again and has constantly advised hon. Members and the farming community to accept the common agricultural policy
  454
  of the European Economic Community. The right hon. Gentleman has argued strongly and vigorously that the managed market was necessary, so it is not for him to chide the Liberal Party.
  We must realise that, because of pressure of events, the Government have had to jettison the policy which they have pursued and appreciate that there must be planning not only of home production, but of the phasing of our imports to home production. We must now recognise that hon. Members opposite have thrown overboard their old doctrine which was once annunciated by a Conservative Prime Minister when dealing with agricultural policy when he argued that we should reject the planning concept of the first post-war Labour Government and return to the doctrine of the law of supply and demand.
  At long last, after pressure of events and after a series of prodding debates which we have initiated from time to time, the Government are now admitting that there must be planning and coordination of imports. Hon. Members opposite who disagree with that must know that throughout our debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure this year and throughout our discussions of many Orders and in our debates on horticulture and the implications of the European Economic Community, Labour spokesmen have constantly pressed the need for essential planning and for the co-ordination of home production and the supply of imports.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison rose—
  Mr. Peart: I will give way in a moment. Hon. Members should have the courtesy to allow one to develop one's case before asking one to give way. I certainly will later.
  Over and over again we have argued this need. The Government have now endorsed the policy contained in the Agriculture Act, 1947, which was put through the House by my noble Friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, who was then the Labour Minister of Agriculture, the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets. That policy, and the policy of the Agriculture Act, 1957, which did not alter the main concept of the 1947 Act, are not now to be thrown overboard,

  455
  as was likely only a few months ago—the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will agree with me about that. There was a danger that the Minister would lead agriculture into having to accept the policy of a managed market and the implications of the main principles of the Common Market agricultural policy. The 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been thrown overboard. Some hon. Members opposite know very well that they have argued this case.
  It is a change for the Minister now to endorse these main principles. I agree that the 1947 and 1957 Acts are not sacrosanct and that we must adapt them, their principles, implications and administrative effects to the present situation. We endorse the main principle of policy which has now been accepted by the Minister and put forward by him today, but hon. Members opposite must still bear some responsibility for our present situation. We must now dramatically change our approach to meet the new situation.
  Sir H. Harrison: Would the hon. Member agree that there have been many Supply days on which the Opposition could have initiated a debate on agriculture, but that it was not until I gave notice of a Motion, which is to be debated next week, on the need for greater control of imports that the Opposition suddenly decided to have a debate?
  Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Member is being rather naive. We have chosen to have this debate because we believe that it is right and proper that at this stage, which may well be our last Parliamentary debate on agriculture this year, we should examine Government policy critically. The Opposition took the initiative, and also we shall participate in the debate next week.
  Let us quickly examine why the responsibility for present events rests with the Government and consider the history of policy over the last ten years. In debate after debate on agriculture we have pressed the Government about their uncertainty. In 1958, we had a major pig production crisis when the Government's stop-start policy caused uncertainty in the industry. It happened later with meat imports. Time
  456
  and again producers have asked the Government to do something.
  I have with me a report of a speech by the president of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Harold Woolley, which he made at Caernarvon in March this year. [Interruption.] Harold Woolley is a very responsible farm leader and I am rather surprised that a Conservative Member should jeer when his name is mentioned.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw rose—
  Mr. Peart: I will not give way.
  Mr. Kershawrose—
  Mr. Peart: No.
  Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): If an hon. Member does not give way, the hon. Member who rises must resume his seat.
  Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Is it not in the tradition of the House that if an hon. Member mentions another hon. Member in a pejorative sense he will have the ordinary courtesy to give way?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. It is for the hon. Member concerned to decide how he will proceed.
  Mr. Peart: I cannot—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Peart: I will not give way.
  Mr. Percy Browne: Monstrous.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Gross misrepresentation.
  Mr. Peart: I cannot understand why hon. Members are so touchy. If it is their intention to try to upset the debate, I remind them that we can do the same.
  I quote from what was said by the president of the National Farmers' Union, and I hope that hon. Members will accept it:
  "The Union has made repeated and urgent representations to the Government to bring some sense into this situation and to adopt a sensible policy of co-ordinating imports with home production. In the first three

  457
  months of this year imports from the Argentine are running at double the rate for the same period last year. Our market prices are 25 per cent. below what they were in 1961 and 20 per cent. less than in 1962. Could any industry plan its business operations properly (n a chaotic situation of this kind? Let me emphasise that when the subsidy bill for all this is presented, it must be made clear that the responsibility for the increase lies clearly and unmistakably with the Government."
  Repeatedly, the farming community has protested at the policies pursued by the Government.
  Meat imports are no isolated example. In our major debate on the subject when the Minister presented a Supplementary Estimate to the tune of £78 million, in February, 1962, we argued that the Government would have to change their policy and bring in new arrangements. The deficiency payments system within a free market cannot operate, and this is precisely what the Minister has reaffirmed now.
  Mr. P. Browne: It has worked.
  Mr. Peart: But we are not having a free market. We are really seeking to change the system which is in operation. We are seeking, virtually, to have a managed market and also co-ordination and planning of our production in relation to import policy and planning as a whole. In no sense is this a free market.
  We have often argued that the Exchequer support system which is now in operation, and has reached the level mentioned by the Minister —he quoted the very considerable figures in his own White Paper —would inevitably place a strain on the industry and on the Exchequer while, at the same time, bringing no real benefit to the producer and the consumer. We argued this when we censured the Minister for his miscalculation of February last year.
  All that we have said has come true. We are seeing now the end of an era. The Government have had to respond to events and to prodding from this side of the Committee. [Laughter.] Hon. Members know that that is true. Otherwise, why come to the House with a change of policy? Why reject the traditional policy pursued hitherto by the Minister?
  The Minister had adopted a new approach now, under the pressure of events. Throughout the last two years
  458
  he believed that the solution to our agricultural problems was to be found elsewhere. He believed in the managed market of the European Economic Community. He was an enthusiastic defender, in no sense a negotiator. I respected his views and understood them, but I found it rather strange because, when the Labour Government were operating the 1947 Act, the then Minister of Agriculture was chided by hon. Members opposite for planning, for"farming from Whitehall"; yet, ironically, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have"farmed from Brussels."The main policy decisions would have been taken elsewhere, and the principal measures which gave our farming community security under the 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been jettisoned.
  We have sought to impress on the Government that, with the collapse of the Common Market negotiations, there should be a new approach and an attempt to assert a new policy which would be in the interests not only of the producers, but of consumers. Today, the Minister has sketched the broad principles of his policy. I trust that, in the working out of the details, all sections of the industry will be consulted. So far, the right hon. Gentleman has consulted only the National Farmers' Union. Has he made arrangements to consult the workers' side? Have the meat retailers been consulted? They are an important section, and they have felt that the Minister treated them rather brusquely eighteen months ago. It is only right that this section of the retail trade should have a voice in the shaping of policy.
  The Minister must consult all sections as he proceeds, because, in the end, however much we may declare principles in the House of Commons, as the Minister has done today, everything will depend upon the Government's earnestness in working out proper and sensible arrangements for administration. We still do not know what is in the Government's mind. The Minister has said that he will consult the industry and that today we can discuss only general principles. I accept this, but, in the end, his policy will be judged by the details of any machinery which he creates to administer his policy. This is vital in marketing, as the Committee knows.
  We have a difficult problem. The question is: how do we balance all the

  459
  interests affected by events? Quite rightly, the Minister must, first, consider the farmers and farm workers. Whatever policy emerges, we must think in terms of fair remuneration for our agricultural producers and workers. As yet, the wages of agricultural workers still lag behind those in industry generally. We still have to get to a situation where the skilled worker in agriculture has a wage comparable with that of the skilled industrial worker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), who represents the National Farmers' Union—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—who represents the National Union of Agricultural Workers; in a sense. he represents both, having a farming constituency, although he specialises in organising the agricultural workers—will have an opportunity to deploy this argument later.
  Mr. P. Browne: I entirely agree about farm workers' wages, but will the hon. Gentleman elaborate a little and say how he suggests that these wages could rise if, at the same time, he is as keen as I am—I believe that he is—on the welfare of the smaller farmer who finds it very difficult to pay high wages?
  Mr. Pearl: The farm workers' wage is inevitably linked with the prosperity of the industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, wages are a matter for negotiation. There is a wages board. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) is being such a silly fool today. This is how matters proceed. I should like to see the industry getting a bigger and better return and having more security so that the farm worker may have his standard of life raised by wage increases.
  We have argued this before. I think that these questions should be properly negotiated through the wages board. It is a problem affecting farming not only in this country, but in most countries of Western Europe. I read only today how West Germany's farm leaders have pressed the Chancellor-designate. Professor Erhard, to do precisely this in Western Germany, where the problems of agriculture are somewhat similar to ours.
  While one of our objectives is to give security to the farmer and farm worker,
  460
  as we provided in the 1947 Act, we must bear in mind the needs of the consumer. Consumers' interests will have to be balanced with the producers' interests. I have always taken the view that there should be no conflict between the two and that a healthy, prosperous agriculture which gives fair remuneration to the farmer and farm worker is essential to our national economy. The consumer will not benefit if our home agriculture is depressed.
  High Exchequer support, which has been the order of the day, has given us our food at reasonable prices which compare favourably with those of any highly developed country in Western Europe or elsewhere. We must bear in mind, however, that the consumer has a point of view which the Minister must consider when working out the details of any marketing scheme. I will not labour the question of Exchequer support. Hon. Members on both sides know the figures.
  The Minister must also consider E.F.T.A., to which he referred this afternoon. Denmark wishes to have a larger share of our home market. Naturally, as a country, we have to balance the question of our industrial exports and the rapid elimination of industrial tariffs with the need of the Danes and our home market. This is not easy. It is something which will have to be negotiated and the Minister is now involved in working out the detailed negotiations.
  There is the problem of the British Commonwealth. I am glad that hon. Members opposite are converted to the Commonwealth. There was a danger during the Common Market negotiations, when the Government rejected and, indeed, discouraged any approach to bring about Commonwealth unity. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and others often prodded the Government on this matter. It would be wrong if we failed to meet the desires of Commonwealth producers. This matter can be dealt with only by careful and hard negotiations. We have to balance these interests and to decide who, in the end, shall produce Britain's food and at what cost. For these reasons, we must inevitably balance our home and imported supplies.
  The Minister referred in his speech to the general policy which was partly

  461
  foreshadowed in his Annual Price Review. Then the guaranteed price payments were related to specified quantities. For example, in the ease of pigs the guaranteed price is to be adjusted to number of pigs slaughtered. This confirms what the Minister said today, that we must think in terms of a guaranteed price related to specified quantities of food.
  There is one matter, however, which I should like to take up with the Government, and that is the role of production grants. These are running at a very high figure, over £100 million. These grants are essential in many respects to improve efficiency and to enable the Government to inject capital into a certain section of the industry. What is the Government's policy on production grants? This was foreshadowed during our debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, when I remember quoting from Gavin McCrone's "The Economics of Subsidising Agriculture".
  Mr. McCrone refers to the fact that it has been the Government's deliberate policy to divert their main support more and more to production grants. This may be the right policy. I should like to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland whether this policy will continue and whether more and more support is to be diverted from deficiency payments to direct grants. This has been the tendency over the last four or five years. It is important that we should know how these grants will fit into any new policy.
  We have a right to press the Minister on the question of production in the industry. It is all very well to say that we shall have a more efficient industry, but there is the problem of over-production. What is our target? We must have a policy which aims at increasing efficiency on the farm. Why are we having production grants and why are we seeking to develop our National Agricultural Advisory Service and doing what is outlined in the broad policy statement of the Government if we are not seeking to improve the efficiency of each farm unit to make it more viable? If we talk about efficiency and increased productivity on the farm, that must mean increased production.
  This is discussed at great length in the Report of the National Economic De-
  462
  velopment Council enlitled "Growth of the United Kingdom Economy to 1966". I congratulate the authors of this document on their fine annexe dealing with agriculture. Most hon. Members will have read it. It deals with the growth of agricultural output from 1956 right up to an estimate of what we should have in 1966. Is it the Government's intention to pursue a policy of increased production? Are we seeking to expand quickly our own home production? We had no indication on that from the Minister today.
  May I quote from page 62 of this semi-official document:
  "The industry contributes to growth in two ways. First, efficient production from the land helps the balance of payments by enabling us to displace imports of agricultural produce; secondly. greater efficiency of resource utilisation in agriculture contributes to growth."
  Do the Government accept this Report? Js it the Government's policy to increase production? Is it their argument that this is the way to challenge our balance of payments problem? The Government should give a clear indication of their policy.
  The whole of the section on agriculture in this Report deals with aspects of growth which are important for the industry. On page 67 the Council outlines a policy for dealing with the problem. It refers to the need for effective planning, for the effective organisation of marketing and for the maintenance of adequate credit facilities. This is a policy which we have pressed the Government to adopt. This Report confirms again and again some of our main criticisms. That is why I ask the Government to declare their policy on this essential balance of payments problem.
  There was a very challenging article in the Sunday Times only recently by William Rees-Mogg on this problem. Is it the Government's intention to have more home production, or is it their intention to phase our imports with home production under this new arrangement and to have a policy whereby home production remains stable? Will the Government continue to drive out the small farmer? The Minister said that he was very anxious to safeguard the position of the small farmer, but is that true? In many instances, the small farmer has

  463
  been driven out of business by Government policy. Pressure of events has forced many small farmers out of business.
  Let me give the figures of the number of milk producers. In 1954, there were 179,740 registered milk producers in the United Kingdom. In 1956, the figure had fallen to 170,440. In 1958, it had dropped to 162,600, in 1960 to 151,700 and in 1962 to 143,100. Is this the way in which the Government intend to deal with the small farmer? Is it their intention to make units larger and more viable, to use a fashionable term, and to drive the small man out by pressure of events?
  Do the Government intend to allow this trend to continue? All hon. Members wish to know. Or do they seek to provide the small farmer with more credit facilities, aid under extended small farmer schemes, help through producer corporations and other administrative means of giving the small farmer a role in our agricultural economy? The small farmer is the backbone of our industry; 60 per cent. of our farms are under 100 acres. He is the backbone of our agricultural economy. He can be affected by any major change of Government policy.
  While I pay tribute to those on larger acreages who have contributed to more efficient production and the new methods of agricultural research which are being applied to the industry, I remind the Parliamentary Secretary, who looks a little doubtful about this, that the head of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, not long ago, praised the small farmers. There are 140,000 of them. He said that the small man must have a place in our agricultural economy.
  Mr. P. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way in that spate of words. The Minister said that our population was increasing and that he expected our farmers to take a larger share of the home market. Does not the hon. Member accept that evolution is going on and that there are fewer farms in this country?
  Is it not the job of any Government to do what the Government are doing—to cushion the evolution by introducing such things as producer subsidies and small farmer schemes? The hon. Member gave figures for milk producers. These do not prove that the farmers went out of farm-
  464
  ing. They mean that they stopped selling milk. What would the hon. Gentleman do about it?
  Mr. Peart: Many small farmers have been pushed completely out of business. That is a fact. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, will develop this point, because it has been a real problem, particularly in Wales.
  Mr. Harold Davies: There are over 300, nearly 400, fewer small farmers in north Staffordshire alone than in 1952.
  Mr. Peart: If the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) is in any doubt, he should consult his own branch of the N.F.U.
  Mr. P. Browne: I have been a farmer on a small farm for fifteen years. I am a member of the N.F.U.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member may be a bad farmer.
  To suggest that the small farmer is not worried about his future is nonsense. I have spoken to the N.F.U. in Devon and elsewhere in the area and I know that there is concern in the South-West and in many other parts of the country among the small farmers, particularly about the man who relies on one commodity. He could well be affected by any Government policy announced today. I should have thought that the hon. Member would support me in my comments. He should not get angry. He is usually rather pleasant, even if he is giving up his seat at the next election.
  May we have an indication of Government policy? Is the Minister thinking in terms of a five-year production policy such as is foreshadowed in the N.E.D.C. Report, which is a semi-official document? Do we intend to have a five-year food plan by which we can assess what should be the target for home production? I agree with the Minister that we have to think of the pressure of food surpluses on our home market.
  I have stressed repeatedly that this is partly the key to our own agricultural approach. I am glad that producers have recognised this in their own "Farm and Food Plan". We have always said that we should press for world commodity

  465
  agreements. There is a need for international commodity agreements for our basic commodities, such as wheat, meat and dairy products. The Minister has reinforced that point of view. At the same time, I take the view that we should have not only international commodity agreements, but also limited regional commodity agreements. This is an urgent matter affecting, for example, mutton and lamb from New Zealand.
  We must also work with the European Community. I took a critical view of the Common Market policy in relation to agriculture and my view has been reinforced by events, but we must still have reasonable agreements with Europe. The body for this is the O.E.C.D. This is the way in which such international agreements should work. Every year we could have within these regional organisations, such as O.E.C.D., a confrontation of national agricultural policies affecting production, prices and farm incomes. This is essential. We cannot plan our home agriculture unless we bear in mind what it happening in Europe, the Common. wealth and elsewhere. There must be an approach to international understanding through international commodity agreements.
  I am glad that the Minister has emphasised that we should participate in a world food programme. It is ironical and sad that we are talking about farm surpluses in a world which is still facing the challenge of hunger, in which millions of our fellow men, women and children are under-nourished and starving. And yet we are discussing how the surpluses in the Western world and even in this country can affect our stability. Somehow, the Western world must take the initiative. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we will participate in a world food campaign.
  The Minister asks me for suggestions. I suggest that we take the initiative at F.A.O. in this matter. It was discussed in Copenhagen as far back as 1946, when a World Food Board was mooted. I should like to see a World Food Board which would seek to stabilise the prices of agricultural commodities in the world market, including the provision of the necessary funds for stabilising operations.
  I should like to see a world food reserve. too, adequate to meet any emergency which may arise. I could develop
  466
  this argument, but will merely say now that somehow we must come to this concept of world planning and a World Food Board, which would also supervise the international commodity agreements and, perhaps, the regional agreements which I have mentioned. We require international planning,
  Lastly, and my main theme today, we must then come back to our national policy at home. The Minister has talked about marketing, but what do the Government intend to do? We have often prodded the Government to produce their schemes for marketing. The Minister has said that it is not his responsibility. I remember one of the first speeches he made to the Farmers' Club, in 1961, when he said that
  "the job of marketing is one for the industry itself."
  The right hon. Gentleman repeated this a year later. He repeated this at the Oxford farm conference. It is time that the Minister took the initiative. It is time that the Government realised that marketing is partly their responsibility. It is not something which we can just leave to the industry.
  In the case of meat, how are we to co-ordinate and phase our imports unless we are to bring in some sort of new machinery? How are we to do this—just write letters to the Argentine Government, as the Minister has done over the past few months? We want Her Majesty's Government to be really specific. It was only after we raised the problem of meat production and its effect on the Exchequer payments that the Minister produced his estimate in February last year. He announced the setting up of a committee to investigate the meat industry, and no doubt the Minister is now waiting for the report of the Verdon Smith committee, but, in the end, it is for the Government to take the initiative.
  I should like to see—I will be quite frank here—some new machinery which would co-ordinate and regulate our imports and phase them with home production. I should like to see commodity commissions for meat and cereals. I am sure that this would be welcomed even in the trade. I got a letter this morning on this from a leading producer who takes the view that this is a"must". A new statutory body must be brought into

  467
  being which would be continually sitting, a body independent of the industry, a small body which would regulate and phase imports.
  Many hon. Members opposite, I know, take this view. I am sure that the trade would welcome such a proposal. I was guest of honour on Monday night at the Institute of Meat, where I met many of our traders with the Argentine and other countries, and what responsible people in the industry say is that they are tired of the uncertainty of the present situation and that there must be some new machinery to co-ordinate imports. Will the Government do something? It is all very well for the Minister to come to the House today and say, "I believe in marketing". He must speak out in relation to commodity commissions.
  I should like to see for horticulture a new statutory authority. The Minister did not mention horticulture today, yet the horticultural industry is a large section of our food-producing industry. We want urgently a new statutory authority which will plan our wholesale markets. We have pressed the Government to do something about marketing. As yet, we are not certain what the Minister will do. It is all very well for him now to change his mind on essential planning—we welcome this—but we still wish to know what are the details of this policy, details which have not been forthcoming today.
  We on this side accept that it is not easy to work out a completely satisfactory solution for our agricultural problems. The industry is so varied. Also, we are concerned not only with home production, but with food from many of our traditional suppliers abroad. The industry has a long history and has faced many very complex problems. Therefore, it is essential not only to declare one's principles but also, when one is in government, to give the details. I hope that when the Minister has come to some conclusions about the details he will present a White Paper which we shall be able to debate here when we have another Parliamentary opportunity.
  We assert that essential marketing and planning is vital for the industry, vital for the producer, vital for the consumer and vital for the nation. We maintain
  468
  that the Government bear a main responsibility for the indecision which has rested upon the industry, the uncertainty which still hangs over it. The negotiations over the Common Market, the failure of the Minister to respond with adequate marketing facilities—all this indicates that the Government cannot be trusted to deal with agricultural matters.
  4.57 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Hurd: I was disappointed with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). I think I could have done a jolly sight better myself in criticising the Government.
  Mr. Peart: Do so.
  Sir A. Hurd: Really, he did not tell us anything new. It was all the old stuff which we heard in 1955 and in 1959, and no doubt we shall hear it again when the next election comes along. Of course, he had only 16 colleagues of his on the Opposition benches to inspire him.
  Anyway, I do not think we need spend a great deal of time on criticising this year's Price Review, or, indeed, other policy decisions of recent years. I realise, as clearly as anyone does, that not all farmers on all farms in the country have been doing well. They never have done in my forty years' experience, and they never will do; it is not in the nature of the farming business. But if we take the broad picture of what has been happening in our land, looking back over our own lifetimes, we find that really the industry has been going places.
  It had the great challenge, the great spur, of the war years. That has continued until now under successive Governments on the basis of assured markets and prices. The industry has seized hold of the new things which science has brought along, the new techniques. So today we have an industry producing 86 per cent. more than it did before the war, and it is an industry which, by that performance, has undoubtedly greatly strengthened our balance of payments position. I am one who believes that we should continue in that course and that the good of the nation will require it.
  As I look around the country I find that the land is in good heart, and I believe that the people of the country are in good heart. They know that they are doing a good job, especially when we

  469
  remember that the agricultural labour force has been falling, failing very rapidly. There are 200,000 fewer people working on the land than there were ten years ago, a reduction of about 25 per cent. There has also been a sharp reduction of 12 per cent. in the number of separate farms. This shows that a good many of the least economic, little farms, and some of the part-time holdings which were formally listed as farms, have been grouped together to make farms which will provide a better living and make more economic units. While this has been going on—the employment of fewer people, fewer farmers and fewer farms —nearly twice as much is being produced as before the war. This is a great record of productivity which it is worth underlining in National Productivity Year. If all our industries were going ahead like this our country would indeed be in a very happy and prosperous state.
  We do not lack vigour or young life in our industry. I spent last Saturday at the Berkshire Young Farmers' Club rally. The people there were full of beans, and, of course, they took a knock at the Government, and quite rightly. They were taking their cue from their elders in the National Farmers' Union. They had great fun with their decorated floats. One was pillorying Dr. Beeching's new railway plans, and others portrayed some of the terrible things that are happening to agriculture because the Government have failed to come to grips with the import position and have allowed the price for home produce to fall below the levels which some members of the N.F.U. would like. We expect this sort of criticism from our young people. It would be disappointing if they were not full of criticism of their elders. It is right and proper that the young should be, but remember how British agriculture has forged ahead year by year; and after hearing my right hon. Friend today think that we are now on a course which will enable us to go ahead still further.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. He has done mighty well to carry his Cabinet colleagues with him in pronouncing today a balanced policy for food and agriculture. This should do several important things. First, it confirms the basis of price support for British agriculture, retaining the principle of the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts. It is on that basis that agriculture has gone for-
  470
  ward in these last few years, and there is no reason why home food production should not continue to increase. As my right hon. Friend said, the market will be expanding. We shall have to be stronger contenders in the market through better marketing organisations, and I think that we shall now have a basis of confidence to enable us to get ahead with developments.
  These new organisations may be marketing boards. If that is what the industry wants, I would not object to them. There may be a marketing board for cereals and one for meat. Certainly the Milk Marketing Board has done a good job for the dairy farmer, and it may be that if the industry wants it we can have a board to deal with cereals and a similar organisation to deal with meat. We have to grapple with marketing problems much more effectively than we have done in the past. I believe that these organisations can run most smoothly when they are inspired by producers and are not overlaid with too many appointed members or try to represent too many different interests.
  My right hon. Friend referred to standard quantities, and I am sure that there will be further references to this topic. My right hon. Friend spoke about standard quantities being attached to the amounts of home production that are to be covered by price guarantees. There is nothing new in this idea. As those who have followed the working out in practice of the Agriculture Acts know, this principle of standard quantities applies to liquid milk. We have it with eggs now, and we have it with pigs, with potatoes and with sugar beet. Indeed over a whole range of products we have the standard quantity principle in operation, and I do not find anything alarming about it. It is right and reasonable that British agriculture should make a contribution to a steady market which will benefit us all. If by our enterprise and skill in marketing we can earn a bigger share of the market, and it is an expanding one, the standard quantities can be increased, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will press for that to be done.
  Secondly, I think that this policy which sets out to stabilise prices in the British food market by controlling imports will enable imports to be integrated and

  471
  balanced not only in quantity but in timing with what we produce at home. This should effect considerable savings in the Exchequer support which British agriculture has had to call on in recent years. The Committee hardly needs reminding that in the first three months of this year, when so much additional Argentine beef came unexpectedly on to our market, the subsidy bill on home-killed beef rose to £9 million as against £5·4 million in the first three months of 1962.
  I hope that we shall carry this policy to the point not only of stabilising the market but of considerably strengthening it so that we can aim at effecting a saving of say, £100 million a year out of the £240 million of taxpayers money which we are today using for farm price support. I think that we must be fairly clear about the levels at which we want the market to be stabilised.
  Thirdly, with this policy we shall be using the importance of the British food market as a trading asset when we do our business in the world. I think that here we must see that our special concern is with Commonwealth trade. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will want to keep their full share of the British market, and they should be the more ready to afford corresponding advantages to us when we go to sell our manufactured goods and our services in their markets. Trade with Denmark and Argentine? Yes, of course, in so far as they justify their claims to access to the British food market. We have here a unique asset. Let us use it to full advantage in strengthening our trade policies throughout the world. I put the Commonwealth first because I think that it will respond the more readily, and then we come to our other established traditional trading friends in the world. I put them all well ahead of Jugoslavia, Poland, Roumania and those others whom I think we should deal with last.
  The Minister spoke mostly about cereals and meat. These are the two major items in the British farms support bill. They present urgent problems, and so does the dairy produce market, which is of particular concern to New Zealand. I hope that we shall soon move on to consider integrating imports and home production and thus get a more stabil-
  472
  ised price for butter, cheese and other dairy products than we have so far achieved. It is time that we have taken emergency measures over butter quotas, and this has had the desired effect, but it is not a permanent policy, and it cannot be altogether satisfactory to New Zealand, Australia, and our other Commonwealth friends, let alone to Denmark.
  We do not know which methods of import control are likely to be the most effective for the various commodities. It will take time to work these out. I do not think that we should pin too much confidence on getting an early result from the discussions now starting at the G.A.T.T. meeting about international commodity agreements. I wish them well; we all do. It would be a great simplification of our problem if we could get international commodity agreements, with arrangements to siphon off surpluses which weigh heavily on the world's markets and which depress prices, and move them into the quarters of the world where they could really do good in building up the nutrition of people who are not so well fed as they should be. I think it will be difficult to get completely comprehensive commodity agreements. I hope that we can, and we should certainly work for it. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister said, but I do not think that we should allow our agriculture or food policy to depend on getting an early result in that quarter. I am sure that we must take action on our own which will be complementary to and fit in with international commodity agreements when they come.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm tonight that we are meanwhile to carry on fully our price support system under the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts, costly though that system may be. and that we shall also continue to be ready at short notice to safeguard our markets from overloading by unforeseen supplies, such as the extra shipments of Argentine beef that we saw early this year, or with excess arrivals of butter from all quarters which weighed on our market so much last year and which worried our New Zealand friends. I hope that we shall always be ready if necessary to control by quota, preferably by agreement, in order to limit the

  473
  supplies and to level them out month by month.
  We must be ready to act promptly and not have to wait either for Members of this House or the National Farmers' Union to prod the Board of Trade on import figures before action is taken. I hope the Government will say, "We have got this running well now and intend to keep it that way as the basis for this broader policy which we are developing." The Cabinet have come to grips with events as they have developed since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations.
  I was very glad to see my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade sitting beside my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it is very important that all Ministers should not only speak with one voice but should think with one mind about these problems. Quite a bit of education has had to be done. I believe that it has been achieved, and I am pretty confident now that we are moving on the right course thanks to a good many jabs from several directions. I very much hope that this food import policy will soon be developed in more final and detailed form as an essential part of our national economic policy.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved with his colleagues. I wish him well. This is a policy which should serve our own country well and our Commonwealth friends well, because they will have a stable market and will know how they stand when they send their produce to us. It will benefit our trading partners; it will ease the load on the taxpayer, and it will not hurt the consumer. Really it does not benefit the public when we have these extra supplies unexpectedly thrown on our markets. How much of the £4 million odd that went in beef subsidy in the first three months of this year filtered through to the consumer of beef? It certainly did not come through in full measure.
  I am sure that it is in the interests of everyone concerned with the food markets and British agriculture that this policy now outlined by my right hon. Friend should succeed. I wish him and his colleagues well in pursuing it.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: I am glad that the Labour Party found time out of its limited number of Supply days for this important debate on agriculture. Despite the crack of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) that it was he who had worked the oracle, I would remind the Committee that I pleaded with the Leader of the House a fortnight ago to give Government time for this debate. The Government refused to allow the time, and I applaud the Opposition on finding the necessary day out of the few precious days allocated to us for this purpose. I am not surprised that the Tory Government refused to find official Government time to debate agriculture, because they know, despite what the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir H. Hurd) has said, of the grave dissatisfaction all over the country with the Government concerning the present position in agriculture.
  If the hon. Member for Newbury is not aware of this, may I remind him that it is only a very few weeks ago that we had a number of irate farmers from Norfolk, Devon and other parts of the country in the Lobby complaining of the treatment meted out to those in agriculture by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants further evidence, may I advise him to consult his hon. Friend, and my neighbour, the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who, I believe, has been put through the mill in no uncertain manner in recent weeks by irate farmers in south Norfolk? If still further evidence is needed, only yesterday I presented to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a petition signed by 720 dissatisfied farmers, many of them from the constituency of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South and from my own, protesting at the present adverse trend in agriculture. The farmers are very apprehensive as to the future of this important industry. Therefore, I want to present an entirely different picture from that portrayed by the hon. Member for Newbury.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I can quite understand his enjoying very much the discomfiture of the Government over a problem of this sort, but can he tell me of any one piece of policy which his party has put forward

  475
  which will give the answer to the agricultural problem of this country?
  Mr. Hilton: I should not have to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not the Government of the country. However, I prefer to carry on with my speech, and it is the criticism of the Tory Government's policy for agriculture to which I am referring.
  Of course, to some extent the Minister's statement this afternoon has forestalled some of the criticism that I had ready to level against him this afternoon, if further evidence were needed of the plight of agriculture at the present time. There is the question of agricultural apprentices. In Norfolk and other important agricultural counties the number of youngsters applying to become apprentices to this important industry is very disappointing, and in some counties, including my own, hardly exists at all. I think that this is an indication that at the present time many people can see no future in the industry. I do not share that view because I believe that, in the right hands, there is a great future for British agriculture. It is important for young people to be attracted to agriculture and to be taught the "know-how".
  I am pretty sure that quite soon we are going to have a change of Government, and I believe that youngsters will then be encouraged to come into the industry. This is the state of affairs after twelve years of Tory Government, and we must remember that this followed six years of general satisfaction in agriculture. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) does not seem to agree with my statement that from 1945 to 1951 there was general all-round satisfaction in British agriculture at a time when we had a Labour Government, with my noble Friend, then Tom Williams, at the helm.
  One thing which I have never been able to understand is why farmers who invest their money in food production are expected to do so for a far smaller financial return than are people who invest in industry. I do not have to remind the Committee of the importance of food production. Neither can I understand why farm workers doing this important job, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) remarked, are expected by so many
  476
  people to work longer hours for a far smaller wage than their counterparts in industry.
  Since the war, production from our farms has increased steadily by 50 per cent., but my farmer friends tell me that farm incomes in the same period have increased by only 11 per cent. On the other hand, industrial production has increased by about the same amount—50 per cent.—but the incomes of industrialists have kept pace with production and gone up by 50 per cent. It does not make sense to me, and I have never been able to understand why this should be so. After all, the farmers and farm workers of this country have a splendid record and they deserve far better treatment.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: If this sad story is really factual, will the hon. Gentleman explain why farmers of their cwn free will are prepared to pay the earth for grazing for their cattle during the summer? Does he really think that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) looks threadbare and miserable?
  Mr. Hilton: If the hon. Member considers that it is a fairy story I am trying to tell the Committee, I can assure him that that is not the view of the average farmer in Norfolk. I am not talking about people in the same category as the hon. Member and a number of his colleagues, nor of my lucky friend the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). I do not regard either as the average normal farmer. I am speaking on behalf of farmers who do their best to get a living from their farms alone. Those are the people with whom I am concerned. People who have eggs in a number of baskets are, of course, in a different category. I am not referring to them specifically.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Circencester and Tewkesbury): The hon. Gentleman also said that farmers do not get as good return on capital invested as industrialists. Has he any figures to substantiate that statement, which I would have thought was quite untrue?
  Mr. Hilton: I am quoting figures given me by Norfolk farmers. This is National Productivity Year, when everybody is asked to increase production. The Chancellor in his Budget speech laid

  477
  emphasis on increased production, and everybody accepts the need for it in industry.
  I cannot understand why farmers are not expected to share in this increased production. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington asked the Minister point blank if it was the Government's intention to encourage increased production from the farmers. He refused to answer that question. After all, it was a restrictionist Price Review, and as the Minister failed to answer the question I think that we can take it that the Government do not intend to encourage increased production from our farmers.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked for a reply either from the Minister or from the Secretary of State when winding up, so I do not think that it is quite fair to attack the Minister for not answering.
  Mr. Hilton: I hope that we shall get a favourable answer to that question anyway.
  The point that I wish to make is this. At a time in history when millions of people in other parts of the world are starving, it is up to us in this country to produce all the food we can. If there are surpluses they should be diverted to the starving millions in other parts of the world. We have just been hearing of the wonderful performance of another American astronaut, and in these days of wonderful inventions it should not be beyond mankind to be able to divert surpluses of food to areas which are badly in need of them.
  I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) is quite shortly to lead a delegation to America, to the F.A.O., to discuss this problem. I am sorry that the Minister is not at present in the Chamber, because I intended to put a question to him. It has been customary when similar delegations have gone to F.A.O. for one representative of the workers of this country to be included in it. This time no worker is included in the delegation, and I wanted to suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider this matter. I believe that the workers' representative has an important part to play in these discussions.
  478
  To come back to the question of production and surpluses, less than a year ago we had the situation in this country in which it was admitted that millions of pints of surplus milk had been poured down disused mines. Never again should that state of affairs occur in this country or in any other country, while there are so many people so desperately in need of it
  I am often asked a question by farmers in my constituency, and I think that it is a legitimate one: in recent years, why is it that we have to pay more for nearly everything we buy, farm machinery, fertilisers and other things, when we get less for nearly everything we produce? This is an important question, and I hope that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory answer to it. I believe that it will be very difficult for the Government to give an answer satisfactory to Norfolk farmers.
  There is another important matter which I hope the Government will take note of. When I presented a petition to the Minister yesterday I was asked by the Norfolk farmers to inquire if the Minister would receive a deputation from them in the near future to discuss their problems. It is not a request by the National Farmers' Union, although many of those Norfolk farmers, probably all of them, are members of the N.F.U. It is not, however, as members of the N.F.U. that they have asked that the Minister should meet them. I hope he will accede to their request.
  The subject of farm workers was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. He asked why they should receive worse treatment than industrial workers. At present they receive £4 10s. a week less, on average, than workers in industry. We also have the old complaint about the tied cottage. For years we have requested various Conservative Governments to introduce legislation to make it impossible for farm workers to be turned out of their tied cottages before alternative accommodation is provided. I am not saying that many farm workers are turned out in this shocking way, but it is quite wrong that any should be turned out and this system should not be countenanced in 1963. Even now I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on the matter and will introduce legislation to deal with this state of affairs.

  479
  Another complaint of farm workers is that they do not have sick pay schemes, although industrial workers do. I do not see why a sick pay scheme should not be introduced. Everybody seems to be sympathetic to the plight of farm workers until they ask for an increase in wages or benefits. I remind the Committee that no section of our workers has a better industrial record than the farm workers. It is forty years since we had a strike of agricultural workers in Norfolk. In view of their record they are entitled to far better treatment.
  We were all glad to hear the Minister's statement about import control. This is something that we have been pressing for, together with all sections of the community concerned with agriculture. In fact, only the Tory Government have taken the opposite view. I am glad that they have seen the light at last and intend to do something about it. I realise that it is too early to expect them to go into details, but the Minister's announcement on this matter and his suggestion about improved marketing arrangements are long overdue improvements. When we receive the details of what the Minister has in mind, I hope that we shall be told about new markets as well as marketing arrangements. The two things go together. We must have new markets if the new arrangements are to be carried out satisfactorily. I suspect that these suggestions by the Minister are really vote catchers for a fairly early General Election. Nevertheless, I welcome them.
  The Minister also reminded us of the support which the Government propose to give to agriculture during the current year. We knew of this, but I hope that the Government will see to it that the money will really go to the farmers this year—to the people for whom it is intended. Another complaint of the Norfolk farmers is that too much Government money goes into the wrong pockets—the pockets of the middlemen. I hope that on this occasion great care will be taken to ensure that the help Wes to the people for whom it is really intended.
  A year ago £78 million mysteriously disappeared and nobody would admit having had it. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members opposite are becoming agitated. I know that many other hon.
  480
  Members are anxious to speak, and I shall refer only to a few more important matters. First, there is the question of swine fever. I recently raised this matter in the House, and the Minister gave me some rather alarming figures concerning the number of outbreaks and the amount of compensation given, which was fairly large. On that occasion I asked that more money should be made available for research into the cause of this disease and into the question whether it was advisable to vaccinate against it. Some Norfolk farmers are advised to vaccinate and others are advised against it. There is some confusion in the matter. By this time the Minister ought to be in a position to advise farmers whether or not they should vaccinate against the disease. If no action is taken the disease will get out of control, as fowl pest did a year or two ago, in Norfolk.
  In the near future there should be a completely new charter for British agriculture, to ensure fair returns to all farmers and proper rewards for farm workers. This is the oldest and still the most important industry not merely in this country but in the world. As food producers, farmers are entitled to, and should receive, as good a return for the money they invest as do industrialists, and farm workers should receive treatment comparable to that given to industrial workers. They have never had it in twelve years of Conservative Government. We shall shortly have a return to a Labour Government, when we shall probably have a new charter. This will be welcomed by everybody in Norfolk who is interested in the welfare of agriculture.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I was surprised at the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). He seemed to feel that it was all our fault that difficulties have arisen in changing to a new agricultural policy. He ignores the fact that we made a very determined effort to change our entire agricultural economy when we applied to join the Common Market. When those negotiations first started, on 2nd August, 1961, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
  "I believe that there is a growing realisation that with changing world conditions we are

  481
  faced with the possibility of changes anyway."
  —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1487.]
  The Government were fully aware of the need for changes as long as two years ago. What happened was that the system would clearly have been affected by the decision to join the Common Market. It would, therefore, have been quite unrealistic to try to bring about alterations before the negotiations unfortunately failed in January of this year.
  Mr. Peart: That is precisely what I said. The danger was that we might have gone into the Common Market and the 1947 and 1957 Acts would have been jettisoned. That is why we pressed for safeguards. The danger was that the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal were going in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Ridley: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the Common Market agricultural policy, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in his appreciation of that policy and its effect on British agriculture. When we look at the present situation, we come to the conclusion that we are moving closely to that same system although we are not actually proposing to join the Market.
  I believe that farmers will be glad to hear of the plans announced today by my right hon. Friend, and that these plans will achieve some of the things which would have been done under the Common Market system. The whole of the agricultural community will watch with interest the development of the details, which are much more important than the broad outline. These are the things by which we shall judge the new policy. I congratulate the Government on moving so quickly for the first time in this sphere. I have every sympathy with the concern which has been felt by farmers during the two years of waiting, because that is how I regard the last two years, as a period when we were waiting for the Common Market to come, or now, for a new policy.
  With the subsidy running at £360 million a year it is understandable that one should feel vulnerable. It presented a "sitting duck" for politicians to aim at, particularly politicians representing urban constituencies who in the past few months, together with others, have done
  482
  much criticising. We have heard of all sorts of figures relating to the farm subsidy and the high proportion which it represents of the total farming income. But in terms of the total farming turnover it is very small indeed. There has always been the fear of a change of Government which in some way might endanger the present arrangements by which farmers receive their income. There has been the fear each February that the Price Review would impose some further burden.
  I have noticed the resentment which is felt against the middlemen in food production—the butchers, the grain merchants and others—who, it is alleged, have been taking a large proportion of the subsidy. I do not believe that there is any foundation for this accusation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to it. I think that we have been allowing members of worthy professions to be slighted, and I do not think they have had an unreasonable share of the profits resulting from the general production of food.
  It is easy to expound a wise and sensible agricultural policy when one is at the Ministry, or speaking in the House, or taking part in a conference. It is easy to make arrangements which sound sensible and which bear economic scrutiny. It is extremely difficult for a farmer to work out what this means to him individually and how he can influence the situation and how it will affect his day-to-day buying and production policies.
  I have noticed the gap between the broad, sensible direction of farming policy at the centre and its understanding and comprehension at the fringes. To particularise, I wish to refer to a paragraph which appears in this year's Price Review referring to pigs, to the effect that the Government will be widening the stabilising limits this year preparatory to abolishing the separate stabilisers at the next Review. To me that sounds more like the design instructions for a supersonic aircraft than anything to do with the future price of pigs. I am certain that there are few people who really understand the whole conception of the pig subsidy and how it works in detail, admirable though it may be as an economic principle of how to control this difficult industry.

  483
  This brings me to my first point relating to the new policy. I hope that when the proposals become less sketchy and more firm my right hon. Friend will continually bear in mind the need to make it possible for every farmer to be clear about what the arrangements mean and how he would be affected if certain things happened; if there were to be increased production, why it is that the price he receives may drop and how he can influence the situation by his own actions. In this matter intelligibility is extremely important, and I hope that the scheme will be explained with the greatest care.
  I wish to refer to expansion of production upon which the hon. Member for Workington spoke at some length. The main reason why in the past Governments have discouraged expansion of agricultural production in this country is that inevitably there is an automatic increase in the subsidy bill; and that is an understandable reason. But if my right hon. Friend succeeds in fixing the bottom end of the market—and I hope that will result in a great reduction of the total subsidy, because the farmer will get a larger proportion of his total income from the market rather from the taxpayer—in my opinion that motive will become less important. Furthermore, if by the control of imports my right hon. Friend succeeds in putting up the prices received by overseas suppliers, it will land us in a worse balance of payments situation than we are at present. We shall be paying, possibly, more for the same quantity of food. In this situation, it seems to me that there will be very strong motives for allowing an expansion of foodstuff production. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not be too rigid in defining any limitation on production and will allow reasonable margins for expansion in ways best suited to the industry.
  In the last few years, as was said by my right hon. Friend, we have changed from being a sellers' market to being a buyers' market. It is noticeable that the prices of practically everything imported into the country bear no relation to the cost of production. French wheat has been coming in at under £20 a ton, whereas the internal price is about £33 a ton. M. Pisani,
  484
  the French Minister of Agriculture, in a speech the other day referred to this as being an act of extreme generosity on the part of the French Government, designed to subsidise our industrial products, for which we should show him nothing but gratitude. That attitude is not adopted in this country. We should use the strength of our position to a certain extent. It is worth noticing that the bulk of our supplies of feedingstuffs and food come from prosperous countries. France is prosperous. So are Canada and Australia. These three countries have standards of living higher than our own, and New Zealand is close on their heels.
  I do not think that we should make the mistake of thinking that those countries which supply our food are underdeveloped countries to whom we should show every sort of respect and kindness in trying to boost their incomes. We are in a difficult trading position, and we must be tough and use our position as the major food market to make as good a bargain as we can when making arrangements for the future.
  My right hon. Friend does not say whether he would prefer import controls on the basis of quantities or quotas or whether he would prefer to have price control in some way to affect the prices of imports. This is a very important point. I do not think it easy to fix quantities by controls and the sort of planning which hon. Members opposite talk about—fixing so many tons and so many shipments for different times of the year. I do not think it within the wit of man, however hard he studies the problem, to get it right. It is bound to go wrong, and then it opens up all the possibilities, with shortages and black market dealing such as we have had in the past. It is very difficult to plan quotas like this. There are opportunities for going beyond strictly honest dealing in the fixing of such quotas.
  I prefer the idea of trying to control the price at which food comes into our markets. My right hon. Friend has spoken about minimum prices, but he did not specify whether he meant to use levies or tariffs on food coming in, the yield of which the British Exchequer would keep, or whether he would make contracts at high prices so that the difference between the present low prices and the market

  485
  prices will be kept by the exporting Government. We should try to raise from levies on imported food a large part of the subsidy. By heightening the bottom end of the market we could make agriculture very nearly balance in the Exchequer accounts without in any way damaging incomes 'of farmers.
  I think this new policy is, and certainly could be, a step towards making our agriculture more like that of Europe. I know there are many drawbacks in the European system, and I would not for a moment advocate that we should copy every part of it, but it is obvious that if at a future date we are to join Europe the more we can align our two systems the more likely we are to find it easy and less painful to make the decision to join. We rather asked for one of the jibes made by President de Gaulle at his Press conference on 14th January when he said:
  "The question is to know whether Great Britain…;can now cease any pretence that her agriculture is privileged."
  Some people here presented our agriculture as if it needed a special privilege, whereas in my opinion it is one of the most efficient, competitive, modem and first-class agricultures in the world. I hope that on any future occasion we shall not put ourselves in the position of being open to such a jibe.
  5.54 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd George: I do not altogether share the enthusiasm or optimism of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I disagree with him on many of the points he raised—he will not be surprised to hear that—but I found myself in complete agreement when he said that he hoped there would be no rigid limitation of production. I hope that we shall not go in for a policy of reduced production.
  There was a phrase in the Minister's speech which I found disquieting, and that was when he said that one of the items of the commodity agreements was that there should be no over-stimulation of production. I hope that before the end of this debate we shall have a clear explanation of what over-stimulation of production means. I agree with all hon. Members who have said that in a world where half the population is under-
  486
  nourished it would be quite indefensible to have commodity agreements between nations which in any sense restricted production.
  The Minister has told us today how he intends to reconcile loyalty to the principles of the 1946 and 1947 Acts with a modification or change in the open-ended subsidy. He said that he was not going to depart from the principles governing the 1946 and 1947 Acts. I think the phrase he used was that he was going to adapt and tailor them. I hope we shall have a further explanation of what "tailor" means, because it is open to all kinds of interpretations. I am sure he will not be surprised that representatives in the House of farming areas are a little suspicious, because the process of whittling down and eroding of the 1946 Act has gone on over the years particularly in the last ten years.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) spoke about the financial position of farmers. He said that not all individual farmers are doing well all the time. Of course not, but be said that we must take the broad view, and the broad view is that the farming community has not shared in the general improvement. The facts are that in the terms of purchasing power the net farming income was substantially lower in 1962 than in 1952. This was the general position which the hon. Member invited us to look at. I agree with him when he says that the farming community has certainly kept its side of the bargain.
  There is no doubt that they have increased efficiency. They have increased productivity by 80 per cent. over prewar days. If anything like that ratio had been achieved in other industries our industrial position today would be very different and our place in the "league tables" would have been very much higher. There is no doubt that year by year farmers have increased their efficiency through mechanisation and other means. They have applied science to farming practice. There has been nothing short of a revolution in agriculture in the past few years. That has been made possible—let us face it—by guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets. I am sure that the hon. Member agrees with me about that. It is true that this revolution has taken place in production, in productivity and efficiency,

  487
  but it certainly has not taken place in distribution.
  This is where we are still lagging way behind and that is particularly true in meat marketing. I was very disappointed in this respect by the Minister's speech today. He told us about the quantitative control on the subsidy level for fatstock. I am very glad that he made it quite clear that we are to start from the present level and not from a more restricted basis. I am sure we shall all note those words of the Minister and keep him to them. I am certain that the farmers and the farmers' unions will also keep him to them.
  I was glad to hear of the arrangements for the control of imports. There is no doubt that farmers have been exposed for too long to unfair foreign competition, but I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been more forthcoming about the reorganisation of marketing at home. No one can deny that it is an absolute vital necessity to reorganise this market.
  When there was a precipitate fall in meat prices to the producer some time ago there was no corresponding fall in the price of meat in the shops. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, said that he thought that certain people in the industry were being unjustly blamed. But it was not only the importers of meat who did well out of this fall in price. Not for the first time, the subsidy went where it was not intended to go, and many people had a cut off the joint at that time which they ought not to have had—on the fringe of the industry, the middle men and even the butchers had an unfair cut off the joint.
  I wish that the Minister had been more forthcoming about this. He said that he would wait for the Verdon Smith Report in the autumn—perhaps I should say in the fall. Why wait for that report? There has been an exhaustive investigation into the matter. The Lucas Committee went into it and made some admirable recommendations, including a commodity commission for meat—a commission made up of impartial people who would plan and co-ordinate home supplies and imports. That is exactly the policy which the Minister announced to the Committee today. Why should he wait until the autumn to establish a com-
  488
  modity commission to carry out the policy which he advocated today?
  We are all concerned about the price of food, whether we represent urban or rural constituencies. Since the cost of distribution plays such an enormous part, a disproportionate part, in the cost of food, particularly of meat, I ask the Minister to tackle this matter now, without further delay. As has been pointed out, it can be only the Minister's decision. I hope that he will not pass the buck but will have on his desk a copy of that famous notice, "The buck stops here."
  The building up and the structure of this great industry is not a matter of concern only for farmers or agricultural representatives in the House. We are always being told that farmers must face the economic facts of life. I think that the country must face the economic consequences of modifying or diminishing agricultural support. The subsidy is not there only to protect the farmer but also to protect consumers against high prices.
  We must remember the value of agriculture to the national economy. In the last 10 years Britain's balance of payments has varied between a surplus of £328 million in 1958 to a deficit of £300 million in 1960. Between 1953 and 1961 home production of food rose by £349 million and food imports rose by £121 million. There was an interesting comment made on that in the article, which has already been quoted, by Mr. Rees-Mogg last Sunday. He drew some interesting conclusions from those figures. He said that had those proportions been reversed, as they probably would have been if the Government's policy had not been one of supporting agriculture, the cost to the balance of payments would not be running at over £200 million a year. He pointed out that on that basis we could seldom have hoped for a balance of payments surplus and possibly would have been unable to avoid devaluation. On that basis, the farm subsidies may in this period have been producing £1 of imports savings for every £1 of expenditure.
  These are important conclusions. They are of concern not only to the farming community but they affect the country's economy. I am sure that we shall keep a vigilant eye on the progress of the negotiations which the Minister is to have with the National Farmers' Union, the

  489
  workers, the various trade organisations and foreign countries, because the value of agriculture and the contribution of the farmer, and the small farmer—do not let us underestimate his contribution—must be safeguarded. But in the last analysis the value of agriculture cannot be measured purely in financial terms. It has great social as well as economic implications for the nation.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Denys Bullard: I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), but I did not think that the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and other speeches by hon. Members opposite measured up to what I believe is the historic nature of this debate and the announcement made by the Minister. The policy of this country for over a hundred years has been one of virtually free importation of food. It is true that home farming has been protected to a large extent by the deficiency payments system, but the arrangements which it is proposed to make with exporting countries about food are a great departure from our historic principles, and I think that they are justified by the circumstances in which we live.
  I shall be interested to hear the way in which the policies are worked out in detail. I hope that when it comes to working out the details the Minister will stick to the method which he outlined today—that the aim will be to cut off sudden increases in imports, dumped imports and excessive imports rather than to interfere with the basic volume of trade which I believe it to be necessary to continue in the interests of the rest of the country and which must be continued from the farming point of view, too, in respect of feedingstuffs for farm animals.
  I was also glad that the Minister stressed that the purpose of the new policy is to enable the present system of deficiency payments to continue. In other words, it is not to replace the present system but to enable it to work with less burden for the taxpayer.
  I hope that we shall hear from the Opposition in greater detail what their proposals are. I know that the Opposition always argue—and I think that I would argue in the same way if I were in Opposition—that they are not the Gov-
  490
  ernment and will not take risks by sticking out their necks and saying exactly what they would do. They have certainly not stuck out their necks to any extent today.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The Minister spoke about restricting the imports of foodstuffs. The hon. Member for King's Lynn is talking about the Opposition's policy. The Minister said that somebody took advantage of existing arrangements. Would the hon. Member tell us—because his right hon. Friend did not—against whom he is safeguarding the customer, the consumer, in this country?
  Mr. Bullard: I am not sure that I follow the purpose of that intervention, which was almost as long as I intended to make my speech. I think that I had better carry on.
  The Liberal Party has put down a Motion which I read with great interest advocating a managed market. I do not know what it means by that. Does it mean managed in the Common Market sense? I remind the hon. and learned Member on the Liberal benches, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), that he should define exactly what he means by this. It is essential to remember that the managed market conception demanded a stiff tariff to make it operate, and I think that neither the consumers nor the producers of this country are at all anxious to see the managed market conception introduced at present.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: If he does not wish to have a managed market, will the hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to reduce the subsidy bill and at the same time keep up the prices to the farmers?
  Mr. BullardI do not think that I should go into those details. After all, it is not my Motion which was put on the Order Paper. I stand by this, for I do not believe that either the producers or consumers really want what the Liberals are proposing.
  We have heard a good deal today from the hon. Member for Workington and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen about commodity commissions. I am firmly convinced that this would be

  491
  the wrong method of attempting to control imports. Such bodies would be far too powerful and I believe that Parliament would not be prepared to give them the necessary powers to carry out their duties, including the licensing of exports, which would involve political decisions of the highest order. I do not believe That a body of supermen would be capable of running what would be a vast world trading organisation. For these reasons this idea is wholly fallacious and I am not particularly surprised that hon. Members opposite have not made a greater song and dance in favour of it, for it would be not only unworkable but a most unpopular proposition.
  The right policy for Britain to pursue for the control of imports—a policy which has been shown to be necessary by past events—is that outlined by my right hon. Friend. He said that he wants in some cases to enter into price agreements with exporting countries and, in other cases, to employ a policy of minimum import prices; by which, I presume, he means that when a price falls below a certain fixed level either a duty or an embargo will come into operation. That is the method we should adopt.
  I have certain misgivings about the concept of standard quantities for cereals and beef. I have no objection to the broad concept of standard quantities. It is advantageous to the Government to know roughly the quantities on which they will have to pay the deficiency payments. I do not believe that these standard quantities need be regarded by the producers as oppressive or that they would prevent them from expanding, because if they decided collectively to produce more than that provided for by the standard quantity they might, perhaps, take a lower world price for the remainder, but they would still be free to go on producing it. The system might have the effect of lowering the producers' prices generally. The producers cannot complain about that because they still have opportunity for ample expansion; with a guarantee behind them; that is, provided that the standard quantities are fixed in a reasonable way. Everything will depend on the way in which the standard quantities are operated.
  In his speech today my right hon. Friend gave me what I regard as a very
  492
  adequate assurance about the intentions of the Government. I gathered from his remarks that it is certainly not intended to use the standard quantities to cut down the proportion of home production. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of expanding home markets and he indicated quite clearly that it was the intention of the Government to allow the standard quantities to move in accordance with the size of the home market. It is essential that that should be done. The proposition for beef and cereals is somewhat different from that which applies to milk and eggs. The standard quantity for milk can be fixed rationally on the basis of the total home liquid consumption. There is some sense in that standard quantity.
  When dealing with eggs, we are clearly in the position that the standard quantity becomes the total home production because we are producing virtually all the eggs we consume. Cereals and beef, on the other hand, are commodities which are produced essentially from the land itself. This is not a particularly good way to illustrate what I mean, but I hope that hon. Members are following what I am driving at. These commodities are produced as a result of the elementary principles of farming. They are produced in many parts of the country and are not to any extent produced as the result of imported primary products. It would be a serious matter if we were told that it is intended to limit the quantities of either of these commodities, the importation of which is now running at a fairly high level.
  I suppose that it would be possible to adopt a system of import control which would have the effect of increasing the costs of feeding-stuffs at home. This would have the effect of raising the prices of various home produced commodities, but it would not increase the producers' prices because of the operation of the deficiency payments system. Such a system would not be regarded in a favourable light by the producers if they thought that an elaborate scheme for import control would be instituted where. by they would receive no benefit in terms of prices and would, at the same time, have to pay higher prices for their feeding-stuffs, so that only the Exchequer would benefit. I appreciate that the Exchequer has borne the brunt of the troubles that we have had in recent weeks

  493
  and months over beef prices, but my right hon. Friend must realise that the producer would like to think that, out of any import controls, he would receive some of the benefits. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Government when standard commodities are fixed.
  I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will refer to sugar. A great deal of sugar is produced in my constituency and in my part of the country generally and the present world price is extremely high. The world price is very high, and the producers have an idea that they would rather like to participate in some of this production. I hope that some reference will be made to this particular and very topical matter.
  Horticulture, which has not so far been mentioned in this debate, is a very important part of our agricultural industry. It has been protected up to now by the tariff, and talk of the Kennedy round and the other means of tariff reduction—and, of course, the suggestion in past months that we might go into the Common Market—has caused horticulturists a great deal of uneasiness about the form of guarantee that we on this side of the Committee have always maintained should be the method of protection for horticulture. I believe that these fears have been justified, and I hope that now that my right hon. Friend is introducing a measure of import control he will not hold over the head of this industry some kind of threat that the horticultural tariffs may be modified, or even removed. I should like to hear some long-term assurance given to horticulture similar to that now being given to the agricultural industry.
  Agriculture, of course, has the benefit of the deficiency payments which the horticulture industry does not enjoy, and such an assurance is due to it—
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would not my hon. Friend agree that horticulture would probably welcome a system of minimum import prices perhaps even more than ordinary agriculture would, and is not one of the difficulties at present that, owing to the increasing spending power of the consumer, tariffs give less and less protection as the years go by?
  Mr. Bullard: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says, and I hope
  494
  that some reference may be made to this matter at the conclusion of this debate.
  I hope that I have made it clear that I give my wholehearted support to the measures my right hon. Friend has taken, and I look forward to his implementing in a liberal and generous way his decisions about standard quantities.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I remember being told by a missionary that it was better to semi-convert a man than to fail to convert him at all. In so far as that thesis is true, which is arguable, I suppose that the Liberal Party should be congratulating itself on semi-converting the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has today referred to the fact that the Liberals were in favour of a managed market. He was right—we do advocate a managed market for agriculture—but what the Minister has proposed today is a semi-managed market. That is to say, he agrees that the agricultural industry needs management, but it must not be full management but half-hearted management at the present time.
  I have been amazed to find that this most important statement made by the Minister today, has been treated so gently by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, because it seems to me that in the Minister's speech there are the most tremendous implications for agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman stated, and I understand that this was the purpose of his introducing the policy, that it is the aim of the Government substantially to reduce the subsidy bill. At the same time, while chiding the Liberal Party for its advocacy of the managed market, he expressed concern for the consumers and said that he did not want the price to consumers to go up. There is only one other price left in this triangle, and that is the price received by the farmers.
  If the subsidy bill is to be reduced, and if the price is not to go up for consumers, is not the only price that can be reduced the price received by the farmer for his products? The Minister has introduced this very cleverly, and I congratulate him. He certainly foxed the Opposition Front Bench, because this is an oblique attack on the prices obtainable

  495
  by the farmer at present. It is right that we should look at the Government's record in this matter. Over the past few years the subsidy bill has steadily gone up.
  It is now at a very large figure, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have quite rightly expressed concern. But the price of food to consumers in the shops has also gone up. At the same time, farmers' incomes, in real terms, have been reduced. In real terms, there has been only an overall increase of 11 per cent. in their incomes since the end of the war. Therefore, the Government have succeeded in doing three things. They have succeeded in increasing the subsidy bill, prices have increased in the shops and, in real terms, farmers' incomes have not kept pace with those of the rest of the community.
  Today, we have the introduction of a principle that has further grave implications for agriculture—the idea of standard quantities for some commodities. If the Minister really came clean about it, he would admit that this really means restricting home production. There should be no illusions at all about that.
  I understand from the Minister that there have not yet been any negotiations with anybody, but there will have to be negotiations with the Commonwealth producers, with our E.F.T.A. partners, and with our allies—the United States of America, for example, which has an enormous maize surplus. Thereafter, there will have to be negotiations with the National Farmers' Union. All these bodies will be scrambling for a share in our agricultural market.
  Under this concept of standard quantities. what share is to be left to the British producer? Of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that the British producer's share will not be announced until after the next General Election—
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Liberal Party does not approve the principle of standard quantities why, when we had an important debate on 2nd May from ten o'clock until towards midnight, was there not a single member of the Liberal Party in the Chamber?
  Mr. Hooson: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) was in the Chamber on that day.
  496
  The result of this policy is that we shall reduce or curb our food production—as the Minister must admit if he comes clean.
  What is the background to all this? This step is proposed when there is a world shortage of food. The Minister referred—inadvertently, perhaps—to a world food surplus. There is no such thing as a world food surplus. That is a myth, and it will remain a myth while hundreds of millions of people are short of food. We can only refer to surplus food production in the West, and the real problem is one of maldistribution of world food supplies. Our people have become more and more aware of this through the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, but what contribution are the Government making, what leadership are they showing? At a time when, through that campaign, we are being made aware of a world food shortage, the Minister is proposing that we should produce less food.
  That really is an example of benevolent genius. A policy for food production, for agriculture, that virtually ignores the fact that half the world's population is short of food is entirely illiberal and utterly inadequate. We have the paradox of burgeoning surpluses in the food stores of the West and, at the same time, grinding poverty and lack of food over a great deal of the world's surface. Unless we solve this problem, we shall never really solve the British home agriculture problem. One of my chief criticisms of the Government is that they have done so little to begin to attempt to solve this problem.
  Mr. Henry Clark: Could the hon. and learned Member suggest one agricultural product produced in this country which we could send to an under-developed country with a serious food problem with any hope that any economic trade would grow out of it? If we start to send food from this country at the cost of production here should we not be perpetuating world charity and inhibiting the production of food on the spot in the under-developed countries?
  Mr. Hooson: I will come to that point in a minute. I suggest that the hon. Member should read Sir John Crawford's paper "Using Surpluses for

  497
  Economic Development", presented to the International Conference of Agricultural Economists in Mexico in 1961.
  I will take the example of dried milk. Children in this country over the past 25 years have improved enormously in health, and if there is one single product responsible for this it is cheap milk. We should take the lead in this matter of Food for Peace. There is need for a sustained international campaign against hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. I suggest that our country, particularly as it is the greatest food importer, should take the lead. We have not backed the Food for Peace campaign which the United States Government put forward. At least we have done so only in an half-hearted way. There is a kind of benevolent indifference to this problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
  I come to the point which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) made. It is suggested that it is impossible to provide food for backward countries, but the F.A.O. has prepared a successful plan to provide food as capital for the development of underdeveloped countries.
  The Chairman: May I ask the hon. and learned Member under which Vote he is raising these matters?
  Mr. Hanson: I was replying to an intervention, having given way to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I stand corrected and I will not pursue the point. I will answer the hon. Member privately.
  The choice for advanced Western countries taken as a whole is either surplus food or a surplus capacity to produce food. It seems to me very much preferable to have surplus food in the West, which can be used sensibly in the rest of the world for the development of under-developed countries rather than that we should have surplus food-producing capacity. This is an international problem, but it is sad to see that our Government have not been in the vanguard in trying to solve it. Indeed, I cannot see that we can do more than postpone from year to year our own agricultural difficulties unless the West as a whole tackles the problem of surplus food production in the advanced countries.
  498
  International commodity agreements are needed. At least the National Farmers' Union has shown itself aware that this is a world food problem, but it is not enough for the Government to give lip service to the idea of international commodity agreements. A real attempt must be made to achieve them. I should like to know of a single attempt the Government have yet made. New Zealand, for example, has put forward a scheme for an international commodity agreement on butter. Are our Government supporting that, or not? It seems to me that Britain has a vital role to play in this matter because she is the largest food importing country.
  We have come to the conclusion on these benches—[An HON. MEMBER:" These benches?"]—on this bench, shortly to become "benches", that nothing short of a managed market can solve our agricultural problem, because we are faced with a problem of Western food surpluses. Reference was made to the Government between 1945 and 1951, but, to be fair, there was then in the West an acute shortage of food and therefore the plans put forward in that era must be regarded in perspective in the light of that knowledge. But 33 per cent. of our subsidy bill now goes on cereals whereas they are responsible for only 21 per cent. of our total food production, and cereals and meat together are responsible for over half the projected subsidy bill.
  We can tackle the problem of these commodities in this country at present only by having integrated planning of home food production and food imports. This is what we mean by having a managed market so that target prices are fixed and meat and grain supplies are controlled by a Commission, on the lines of the Common Market Commodity Commissions which the Minister was so warmly commending not long ago. These Commissions should also have powers as purchasers of last resort.
  Mr. Soames: Could the hon. and learned Member say whether it is his policy that a managed market should operate in the way it operates in Europe, where the farmer gets his full return from the market, and that therefore there should be no deficiency payments, or is it his policy that our present system of

  499
  guaranteed prices and deficiency payments should remain in being?
  Mr. Hooson: Eventually it is intended that the farmer should have his whole return from the market. This could not be done overnight. It would have to be done by phased stages. Perhaps the Minister has that in mind.
  Mr. William Ross: The Minister has nothing in his mind.
  Mr. Hooson: As for the farmer's position, it is obvious that because of the long-term nature of his investment he ought to be able to expect a reasonable return from the market. He should not be asked to compete with subsidised surpluses coming in from other countries and he should be protected from fluctuations in prices which can result sometimes from very small surpluses. These surpluses could be ironed out if we had a meat office and a grain office which could respectively store food and phase out the supply to the market.
  Hon. Members who have referred to the need to improve marketing are quite right. Far too great a proportion of the price of food is added on to the price between the farm gate and the shop counter. I have to declare an interest. I have some experience of this matter. I am the chairman of a farmers' cooperative which has been engaged in selling meat. It has become quite apparent to me that there is great need for the co-ordination of imported supplies and home supplies of meat. The companies that do best in the wholesale meat supply of this country are those which also import a great deal of meat and therefore are able to phase out and coordinate their imported and home supplies of meat in the market.
  One of my experiences over the last two years has been to realise that meat marketing is a specialised job which cannot be done easily by amateurs. I should not like to see the kind of corn-mission recommended in the Lucas Report; that is a bureaucratic body owning the product from the farm gate to its final destination. I believe that we should control the meat and cereal supply of the country under a commission of the kind that we on this bench propose.
  500
  May I come to one other matter, which greatly affects young farmers and small farmers in their efforts to improve their position? I refer to lack of capital. There is an old tradition in farming that capital is obtained largely from three sources—parsimony, patrimony and matrimony. It is said that the Scots favour parsimony, the English patrimony and the Welsh matrimony. Suffice it to say that these three sources of capital are not in themselves sufficient today, and the farming ladder is becoming increasingly difficult for the young man to ascend.
  I should like to see more credit facilities available especially for young and small farmers who cannot improve their farming because they have not the capital available. For farm improvement schemes I should prefer to see loans at a reasonable fixed interest rate over 10 to 30 years rather than grants, because very often the grants go to those people who can afford to find the necessary money for their own improvements. For example, in the case of a one-third grant, the wealthy farmer can find the necessary two-thirds to enable him to obtain that grant. But the young farmer and the small farmer very often cannot find the necessary two-thirds in order to attract the one-third grant. It would be much better economically if they were granted a long-term loan at a fixed rate of interest.
  In my view, the Minister has today announced a very important change in British agricultural policy the full implications of which have not yet become fully apparent. But one thing is certain: there will be a restriction on food production in this country, and that I abhor and oppose. Secondly, it is clear that if, as the Minister suggests, the subsidy bill is to be decreased to a significant extent and the price to the consumer is not to be increased, then the price to the farmer is bound to be reduced.
  6.42 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: The farmers in my constituency are most depressed and dissatisfied at the state of our agricultural industry. They assure me that they cannot make a fair living and they do not see how they ever can in the foreseeable future under present conditions.

  501
  I know it is easy to quote facts and figures to prove that net farm income has been rising, that relative to the rest of the community their position has improved since before the war and that they do better than farmers in most other developed countries. This sort of political claptrap is like a red rag to a bull for them. The fact remains that times for them are extremely hard. They are making less and less money every year compared with so many who seem to be making more and more.
  I have never known the farmers in my constituency to be so depressed at the conditions under which they have to try to earn their living. They cannot strike for more pay and less work, as we have seen in every other industry since the war. They, and they alone, have to work harder for less and less reward. They, and they alone, are not allowed a really fair standard of living compared with all the hard work that they have to put in under all circumstances.
  In the dairy county of Cheshire the farmers would like to see full powers returned to the Milk Marketing Board so that a furl economic price may be charged to the consumers for their milk. Could not the Board deal with any surplus as it thought best for the industry? The dairy farmers cannot understand how there can be over-production of milk when milk products are imported on such a large scale.
  With regard to dumping, although the President of the Board of Trade has complete powers to deal with the dumping of foreign food, action never seems to be taken sufficiently quickly or firmly. The damage is done long before the civil servants have filled in the necessary forms to prevent it. Prices tumble and the taxpayer has to provide extra support for the industry.
  Further, is it not a fact that certain foreign products are aided by a hidden subsidy in the producer country? For instance, in the case of Danish bacon, after contracts have been agreed between the United Kingdom and Denmark, is not the price of pig feed in Denmark then adjusted by the Danish Government so as to give Danish producers a fair profit? If that is so, how on earth can British farmers compete under those conditiors?
  502
  The turnover of money in agriculture annually is greater than the combined agricultural output of Australia and New Zealand. It is greater than the combined turnover of British Railways and the National Coal Board. The British public are forced, by strike action and other means, to pay fair prices for all end products in those industries, such as railway fares, bus fares, coal that will not burn, electricity, gas and so on. Why should the British farmer not have the same treatment? Why cannot the British public pay a fair price for their food so that the farmers and farm workers can earn a fair standard of living? With reasonable protection and fair treatment, the British farmer would prefer to do without subsidies. It would save many millions of pounds each year to the Exchequer and, therefore, a saving in taxation. After all, other industries are protected.
  Listen to the pathetic noises made by Lord Robens about the proposal for cheap imported coal or the reduction of the duty on fuel oil—"Give the coal industry a fair deal", "Give the miners a fair chance", and all that sort of thing. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear:I Hon. Members say "Hear, hear", but what about the British farmer? Why should he not be given a chance? What about the motor industry? American cars are not allowed into this country free of duty. Why?—to protect our own motor industry. What about the farmers? Why cannot we also protect them? The one party in which the farmers have always believed and trusted is the Tory Party. We must not let them dawn.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: As my name was taken to task earlier in the proceedings by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), I feel that I should first and foremost declare my interest. I am a farmer, farming slightly above the average. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West suggested that many of us here who are farmers have our eggs in other baskets and that, therefore, we do not require a fair income from farming. The only other basket that I have is the one that

  503
  I am in now, and in the last four years it has not proved very profitable.
  Being a farmer, I agree entirely with nearly everything that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) has said. I hope that he will be able—he has not much time left—to get his party to give the fanners what they would like. The farmers in Cheshire are concerned mostly with milk production. I have gone out of milk on my farm in Scotland because I find arable farming more profitable. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will cast his mind back to the days of the war, he will remember that the late Lord Hudson took a hand in farming in Cheshire. He made the Cheshire farmers plough up considerably more than they were prepared to do, but they found it quite profitable to do so and still managed to keep their cows. They might well be able to go back to that system. Nowadays, one has the equipment to operate in wetter districts, and the Cheshire farmers, who might have had some excuse for their attitude in the days before combine harvesters, the extensive use of tractors, and so on, might do well to think again. If his own party will not help him, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take back to his constituents some advice from this side of the Committee.
  The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said that the Opposition had not announced what they would do. It is not the Opposition's job to give the Government a policy. Under our Constitution, it is the job of the Opposition to oppose and criticise what the Government do. This is what we are doing today, and, I may say, the criticism is well deserved.
  The Minister was quite right to emphasise that Britain's position is very different from that of most developed countries of the West. Nearly all those other countries feed themselves. Although they may import some luxury foods, nearly all the developed countries of the world produce their own basic foods. This applies to all the E.E.C. countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and so on. The Commonwealth, the United States and the Argentine, of course, are all exporters of food. It is most important, and I am glad that the Minister emphasised
  504
  this, that we should consider our agriculture carefully against this background of Britain having to buy half the food she needs.
  There has been a lot of talk about this country exporting food. This is absolute nonsense. We cannot export food. We may export some livestock. Incidentally, I hope that the Minister has taken careful note of the memorandum which I sent to him the other day. If he had acted six or seven years ago, in accordance with the suggestions there, we should have had a market in Russia today for a considerable number of the Charolais cattle which they are buying from France this week.
  People sometimes have very confused ideas about farming. Genuine farming is growing things and then using them either to produce milk, beef and so forth or for direct sale as farm produce. There is a tremendous difference between gross production and net production. Net production is the result of what one can grow and convert. Gross production is something quite different. A man could lay down an acre of cement, buy feeding-stuffs from abroad and produce stock in that way, but that is only gross production, and the net production from the country's point of view is nil. We should remember this when we talk about exporting farm produce. We could, of course, buy enormous quantities of feedingstuffs from abroad and then export the produce, but that is not net production. That is gross production, and it gets us nowhere.
  What should be our objectives against the background I have set? We are an industrial nation with an enormous population. When the Minister mentioned a total of 70 million in a few years, I thought I heard someone gasp and say, "God forbid, on this small island". Nevertheless, we have an enormous industrial population to feed, and our first objective must be to keep prices at a reasonable level while still maintaining a prosperous agriculture, ensuring to farmers and workers at least reasonable parity with commercial and industrial incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West spoke about the incomes of farmers, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suggested that I did not look like one of the threadbare people my hon. Friend was talking about. It is essential to realise that a farmer farming 500 acres must have a bigger

  505
  income than a man farming 50 acres. It is ridiculous to suggest that all farmers should be on the same level. If we are to maintain the man with 50 acres or less, there is a very strong argument for doing something for him.
  I should like to see farm workers have parity with industrial workers, but there is too much loose talk about the nominal value of perquisites, farm workers' houses, and so on. My biggest job during the past five or six years has been to provide garages for farm workers' cars and then pay the rates on them as soon as the local authorities found out that we had put them up. Again, as regards houses, if one advertises a job without a house there are very few applicants. Advertise it with a house, and the applications come.
  As regards evictions, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend when he speaks of people being evicted without somewhere else to go. But this applies everywhere. Why pick on the houses of farm workers? Council house tenants are evicted. All sorts of people are evicted. Sometimes houses are pulled down for some purpose or other and people have to go. The principle should be that people in general should not be evicted without somewhere to go. Why pick on farm workers?
  My second objective is to help the balance of payments by the efficient production of commodities which will do this. The more we succeed, the more shall we help the world pool of food to help feed the hungry. Our object in this country should be to produce as much as possible so that we do not have to import more than is necessary for ourselves, thus helping the world food situation.
  My third objective is to maintain, in the interests of world trade, a market of our traditional suppliers of food with whom we wish to expand trade for our urban industries. We must maintain this connection because we require it in order to be able to buy at least half the food we need.
  My fourth objective—I think that everyone agrees with this—is to make somehow a considerable effort to reduce Government expenditure on agricultural support. This is not easy. There is bound to be a considerable amount of rationalisation in the industry and in
  506
  our marketing arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) made a very good point about how much can be done by efficient marketing arrangements.
  I put this point to the Committee about the idea that subsidies actually keep down prices. I have never subscribed to this theory. I have argued about it before with the right hon. Gentleman. They did during the war and up to 1952, but since world prices came below our guaranteed prices the situation has been quite different. I am convinced that with a slow reduction in the subsidy to farmers food prices would not rise above prevailing world prices. Even if we had a drop of £300 million or £400 million in our agricultural production, this would not, I think, embarrass the world producers of food, we buy from to-day. Two days ago, one read in The Times of American efforts to reduce the enormous stocks of wheat which they hold. Canada has 300,000 tons of butter. Speaking in terms of the pure economics of food production, I am certain that this would not be so. The case for helping and supporting the British farmer is the simple one of saving on our balance of payments. The article in The Times a week ago hit the nail on the head, as did the extract from the Report of the N.E.D.C., which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr Peart) read in his opening speech.
  There is a tremendous case to be made for a saving of world exchange. Since the war, we have made no headway in improving our balance of payments. This is the way to do it, and it is the strongest argument we have for supporting British agriculture while, at the same time, helping world food supplies.
  I admit that some of the four objectives I have mentioned conflict with one another. I have mentioned keeping prices down, maintaining a prosperous industry and giving less, support. They all conflict with one another. But this is our difficulty, and it is the job of the Government to reconcile these conflicting factors. The Government are doing their best, although it may be a poor best. We must strike a balance which is fair to the farming community and yet gives greater benefit to the country as a whole. I hope that whatever else we do we do not

  507
  make this a farming vote catcher at the next election.
  May I say a few words on the structure of the industry? I think some people are a little mixed up in their figures. I have the official figures here. In the last ten years, the number of holdings has reduced by 57,500. I do not think that that is the true figure in the accepted sense because many of those holdings were probably farmed by one fanner which, having been amalgamated, appear as one in the returns. The number of people who have gone out of the industry in the last ten years is just over 200,000. Some hon. Members opposite admit that that is the way they like it. One hon. Member opposite said that this was just evolution I suppose the fact that we have I million unemployed and had 3 million unemployed before the war was evolution, too. We do not believe that that need happen with some control.
  We do not know what heartbreak there have been among the people concerned with the 57,000 holdings which have gone out of action. Many of these people have gone out of the business through economic pressure, and we do not believe in that. I am worried not so much about people going out of the business as the way in which they go out. We must have some sensible and humane system of the voluntary amalgamation of farms, and only the Government can give a lead in this. We on this side will ensure that that lead is given when we come to power.
  I come to what has been the main theme in the debate, namely, the Minister's announcement that at long last the Conservative Party realises that it must bring some control into this great industry. I should have liked the Minister to say a little more about the exact plans that he has in mind. Perhaps he did not have time to do so. Therefore, we should be fair and hope that he will tell us what his exact plans are in the near future. There is no doubt, however, that if he feels that he has no alternative but to raise the price and not the quantity, then he is in for a nasty time, because any suggestion that we should control imports by raising the price would not be tolerated.
  508
  I suggest that we have to do much more than control imports. An hon. Member opposite told us how he would deal with surpluses and how he would have buffer stocks. We must have buffer stocks, because during the bad weather like we had last year and the beginning of this year we cannot get feeding stuffs abroad at a moment's notice. Who will control these buffer stocks? Who will provide the capital for them? There is a host of things like this to be decided and they cannot be decided on the basis of controlling imports only. The Minister will have to take a look at commodity commissions and at the Lucas Report. These commodity commissions must have considerable powers before the control of imports can be a success.
  I should like to say a few words on the question of guarantees for potatoes. I have tackled the Minister about this before. Potatoes are the one commodity of which we can produce all we need. We can produce all the shell eggs we need. But we do not produce anything like the amount of liquid and dried egg that we need, and this we have to import. We produce liquid and manufactured milk, but the amount of cheese and butter which we import is tremendous. Apart from a few early potatoes which we import and which we do not need—they are purely a luxury—we can produce all the potatoes we need throughout the year.
  In the last four or five years, there has been a scarcity of potatoes. I do not know what will happen this year, but probably the price will go up again because the earlies will be very late, and the price to the consumer will probably be excessive. Farmers will not plant the acres of potatoes which the Potato Board wants without a better guarantee. The present guarantee is worked out on the basis of paying to the Board the difference between the price of the potatoes and the price which the farmer gets over the amount which goes for human consumption. If there is a surplus, that price must be used to put a floor in the market. We all know that the surplus price of potatoes is so much lower than the guaranteed price that all that money is immediately taken up. If the Potato Board had the same power as the Milk Board and if all potatoes went through the Board and

  509
  then went to the merchants at a fixed price, the housewife would get a decent supply of potatoes at a reasonable price, whether there was a scarcity or not. The housewife does not begrudge 3½. to 4d. a lb., which gives a retail price of over £30 a ton and the farmers a price of £14 or £15, with which they would be satisfied if it were guaranteed to them. But often they have had to take £10 or less. The Potato Board will not operate properly unless it is given power to do that.
  We have heard a great deal about world trade agreements, adapting to new conditions and a policy for large as well as small farmers. All of this must be done. This is not an easy problem, but it must be solved. It will not be solved if the Government continue to fall over backwards to give what they call "the maximum freedom" to the trade in carrying out their policies. The Minister said that he was against unbridled competition. He cannot have it both ways. That is why the present policy has failed. It was produced in order to give maximum freedom, and that is why it has failed. We should work out the policy, decide on the best way to implement it and then try to give the maximum freedom. The Government do it the other way round. They give the maximum freedom first. Therefore, their policy will continue to fail. They will make the same mistake again if the Minister carries out the policy of giving maximum freedom along with control over imports. Fortunately, he will not have very long to carry out that policy.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: I agree with the reasons which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) gave for the maintaining of a prosperous agriculture in this country. It used to be claimed that, perhaps, the most important factor was the strategic one. I do not believe that that is so any longer. I do not write off its importance altogether, but I believe that a prosperous agriculture is important to this country because of the contribution which it makes to the balance of payments and because of the tremendous market which it provides for the products of the factories of British industry. If agriculture were allowed to decline, industry would find that a very
  510
  good and valuable customer had gone. Those are the important factors which I think dictate the proposition that agricultural prosperity and industrial prosperity are complementary one to the other. If one goes into decline, the other will suffer as well.
  The subjects of import control and standard quantities have been commented upon fairly thoroughly and I should like to turn to the prospects of growth in home agricultural production in the years ahead. Two things are necessary, both of them being within the grasp of the industry, if we are to increase our share of the home market.
  The first need is for better management within the industry. A tremendous amount has been achieved and I pay tribute to the benefit which the farming industry has derived, particularly since the war, from a great deal of new blood which has come into farming from outside, bringing with it a considerable number of good new ideas and minds which have been free from dogmatic, traditional ideas and ready to experiment and to give a lead in pioneering. They have been of immense advantage to farming.
  The results of good management within the industry as a whole may be shown by two items which I extracted from my cash book at the end of last week. It is interesting to reflect that the price of barley which I received last autumn was precisely the same as it was in 1955. Whereas in 1955 the price of wheat was £33 per ton, the price of the last crop—I am, of course, including support payments—was £26 5s. Few industries, if any, have held their prices at the 1955 level and far fewer industries are receiving lower prices than seven years ago.
  That a tremendous amount of work has still to he done is borne out by the immense variations in the profits of farms in different sectors of the industry. According to figures issued not many years ago by the Edinburgh School of Agriculture, arable farms showed a profit of £8 an acre as a result of what was described as average management and £12 an acre where the management was good.
  Mr. Ross: What size of farm?
  Mr. Stodart: The sizes were strictly comparable between the two groups. I

  511
  was told not long ago by a man in Scotland who is the leading authority on the management of pigs that he could show me two sets of farm buildings. In one of these the pig unit was making a net profit of £40 per sow whereas the other, less than half a mile away, was making a loss. Although in dairy or arable farming it can be said that one field or farm has poor and unhelpful land, nothing but good management can dictate the financial results of a pig unit.
  I noticed in the Scotsman on Saturday an article by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State giving two examples concerning hill sheep and describing the results on one hirsel as showing a loss of 10s. per ewe and the other, not far away, showing a profit of 30s. Whether one of those was my right hon. Friend's—and, if so, which one—I will not be so indiscreet as to inquire.
  I should like to pay great tribute to those in the National Agricultural Advisory Service in England and Wales and to all the advisers attached to the agricultural colleges in Scotland for the work they have been doing in making farmers accounts conscious. There was a time when farmers used to be furtive about their profits.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: They still are.
  Mr. Stodart: I would not go so far as to say that they had entirely cured their modesty, but it is now common practice, largely as a result of the work of the advisory service, for farmers to publish complete financial results. This is of great benefit educationally to their neighbours in enabling them to find out where their own weakness lies. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is a sector of the advisory service which might with great usefulness and advantage be expanded. Furthermore, I see no reason why farmers should not pay a share of the cost of getting that kind of advice. I make no bones about saying that I would willingly pay a substantial fee if I were to have a loss on my farm turned into a handsome profit.
  The second direction in which much work has still to be done is better marketing. This is a subject in which the industry has been slow in dealing with what is virtually its Achilles heel.
  512
  Wonderful work has been done in production, but we have been slow in putting our house in order in the way of marketing.
  Within recent years, there have been amalgamations and take-overs among those buy our produce. I am certain that farmers must amalgamate and cooperate and must reduce costs to the greatest conceivable extent from the farm to the counter. This is particularly relevant in the marketing of meat. Meat marketing is a subject which generates a great deal of warmth because the vast majority of our meat finds its way to the auction marts, where it is then sold on the hoof.
  There is no question that the livestock auctioneers have been good friends to farmers for a long time, but it is not the job of an auctioneer primarily to give the farming industry credit or to lend it money. The fact that auctioneers have done this, and continue to do so, should not deflect us from a dispassionate appraisal of the whole livestock auctioneering system. I have sold fat cattle and sheep for a long time in the marts and I confess that I have liked doing it. I have enjoyed now and again seeing a buyer come back for my beasts a second week running, because I assumed he had been satisfied. Added to which, of course, farmers love going to marts in order to see their friends and hear what is going on—
  Mr. Willis: And to see all their Jaguars and all that.
  Mr. Stodart: —but I have never, I think, deluded myself into thinking that this system formed a very efficient link in the chain of distribution. If we think of the transport to the mart, of the animals standing about, at the best for quite a few hours, in all weathers, and then going through the ring—a ring in which there is complete uncertainty of the numbers which are going to be supplied and the utter chanciness of the place in the sale which one will draw by ballot—and then of the transport of the animals away from the auction mart to the slaughterhouse, then no one really can possibly claim that this is an efficient system of distribution.
  I have asked myself two questions. Why have broilers made such inroads into the meat market within the last few

  513
  years? We must remember that the broilers, which have enjoyed no subsidy whatever, have been so competitive that the consumption of poultry meat in this country has gone up to double what it was in 1956, and one reason for that is surely a first-class marketing system. They are net double handled they do not draw lots in the sale; they go through a specialised processing centre.
  Mr. Mackie: But will not the hon. Gentleman agree that they get the advantage of cheap feedingstuffs through subsidy—they get the advantage of the fertiliser subsidy, and things like that—so that it is not altogether true that they do not get anything from support?
  Mr. Stodart: Surely cattle and sheep get precisely the same advantages? Therefore, I think that the broilers' competitiveness lies in the efficiency of marketing which has in fact put them ahead.
  Secondly, how is it that lamb from New Zealand can come on to our market as competitively as it does? Of course, the New Zealanders produce it in wonderful climatic conditions, but at what a distance away from the London market. Yet the costs from a farm in New Zealand to Smithfield Market in London are no more than the costs from a farm in Scotland to Smithfield. Of course, there is sea transport versus rail, and that makes quite a difference in costs, but a very important factor is that in New Zealand there is no double handling of fatstock, for the very good reason that they have come to the conclusion that they cannot afford to do it. They grade nearly everything on the hoof, compared with only about one-quarter of our fat-stock which is handled in that way.
  We have got here, in our meat, an asset of very high quality indeed. It enjoys a high reputation backed by a considerable tradition of excellence, and I think that the future for meat production in this country is very bright, provided that farmers will not allow themselves to be duped by such nonsensical utterances as we have had in recent weeks about flavour not mattering in the least.
  I personally was one who regretted the failure of the Common Market negotiations. I have always believed that really keen production costs plus first-class salesmanship would take a lot of our meat into Europe. We are so often
  514
  told in rather general terms that the French never have been eaters of mutton. If New Zealand can build up a considerable trade in selling ewe mutton to the Japanese—of all unlikely commodities to sell to all unlikely people—I should have thought that there would be little difficulty in our selling our quality stock to the people of Europe.
  I am certain that the revolution in agriculture over the next decade will not take place so much in the fields as it will in the orbit of marketing, and if that revolution is as spectacular as it has been in the fields since the war, then I believe that our costs of distribution will have been lowered to such an extent that a very great expansion in production in this country will easily be within our grasp.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I should like, first, to deal with the question which has been so often prompted from the other side of the Committee, namely, what is the policy of the Labour Party. Let me explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the very basis of any decent economy in British agriculture, the foundation of it, was laid by the Labour Government in 1947. We proved beyond any shadow of doubt what could be done when agriculture was put on a decent basis. Indeed, I was surprised at some hon. Members opposite wanting to know what was our policy and then confessing that they did not know what the Minister had said this afternoon. They would do better to direct their attention to finding out what the Minister had to say, or what he meant by what he said.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West said something with which I agree, that industry and agriculture are complementary to each other; it is so obvious that the success of the economy of each is dependent upon that of the other, either as supplier or customer; and this is true. I do not altogether agree with him in the comparison which he used, that the price of barley remained steady for so many years. It may be that it did. I do not know how the subsidies moved. All I can say is that, according to the latest Estimates—and I do not want to make too great a point of it—and if these are correct, the

  515
  barley subsidy was £34·8 million in 1962–63 and is raised to £38·4 million for next year, 1963–64. So while the price may not have risen, perhaps, for the consumer or supplier, at least it will cost the Government—the taxpayer—some £4 million more.
  There are two immediate questions I want to raise. I am surprised that only one was touched on, and that very briefly indeed, by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to know the Government's view about the current price of sugar. The price of this commodity has shot up to an all-time record during the last few weeks, and it is therefore extraordinary that nothing has been said about it in this debate. After all, earlier this year during our discussions on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now an Act, the Government said that they had entered into negotiations with the Irish Sugar Company as a result of which thousands of £s were involved. It is interesting to recall that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said then that
  "the world price of sugar has risen to a startling extent…".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee E, 31st January, 1963; c. 386.]
  The price was then £40 a ton. Today it is nearly £100 a ton, with appalling consequences not only for the housewife but for many industries, because sugar is the basis of the chocolate industry, the confectionery industry and to a lesser degree the aerated mineral industry on whose products the Government imposed a 15 per cent. tax some years ago. What are the Government doing about this state of affairs? They cannot just wash their hands of the whole affair and continue to allow these extortionate prices to be charged.
  Mr. John Farr: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the good things the Government could do in this connection would be to remove the acreage quota for sugar beet growers at once?
  Mr. Hoy: That may well be an argument for increasing our sugar production by growing more sugar beet. I am saying that we have reached the point at which we are having to pay nearly £100 per Ion. Even if we had an increased acreage
  516
  for the growing of sugar beet it would not have much effect on the extortionate prices that we are having to pay. We need quick action to provide some benefit for both the home and the industrial consumer.
  Mr. George Jeger: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was a time when Mr. Cube, in alliance with the party opposite, paid for the arvertisements saying that they would mend the hole in the purse?
  Mr. Hoy: I did not want to take up too much of the Committee's time, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the campaign run by Messrs. Tate and Lyle in the name of Mr. Cube, but that campaign has been effectively disposed of by tonight's Evening Standard, which points out that the cubes of sugar are disappearing through the ceiling at the price that housewives are having to pay. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman, who appears in a Christian programme, would either hold his tongue or get up and say what he wants to say.
  Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) raised the subject of Messrs. Tate and Lyle and said that the company's activities were related to the increased prices. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is the policy of his party to nationalise this industry?
  Mr. Hoy: Of all the most inconsequential interruptions, that is the worst that I have heard. If, after having been in the Chamber for about two minutes, that is the best contribution the hon. Gentleman can make, it would be better if he were to take himself out of the Chamber again.
  I turn now to the question which I raised earlier this year, the level that potato prices are likely to reach. The Secretary of State for Scotland will remember that in introducing the prices under the Agricultural Price Review the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that through the Potato Marketing Board he expected 700,000 acres to meet our needs. There is a feeling in the industry that this acreage will not be sufficient, and that the price of potatoes will rise considerably. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite recollect

  517
  the tremendous increase in prices last year when housewives were held to ransom. We therefore want some assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight that action will be taken now to ensure that a similar shortage does not occur again, with the consequential increase in prices that is sure to follow.
  This has been an unusual debate in many ways. In the earlier part of it my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) spoke of the difficulties that farmers were enduring. This was immediately objected to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who said that the farmers were doing all right.
  I prefer the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), to which I shall refer later. One of the problems with which we are confronted is a considerable fall in the numbers in agricultural employment. Since 1929 the number of agricultural workers in Scotland has decreased by about 27,000. I am prepared to admit that the tremendous mechanisation which has taken place in the industry has accounted for a considerable part of this decrease, but if we compare the figure for last year with that for 1961, we see that it fell from 65,600 to 62,100, a fall of about 5·3 per cent. No one can argue that this fall was caused by further modernisation of the farms, and if we examine the figures of part-time and casual workers, we see that the fall was even more marked.
  From the employment point of view this is extremely bad for Scotland. It means that thousands of people are leaving the land, and there must be a reason for it. This is where I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. I think that a great deal of the trouble is due to the extremely low wages paid to agricultural workers compared with those paid to the rest of the community. My hon. Friend seemed to think that his main job was providing garages for the cars of his agricultural workers. I assure him that this is not the position in Scotland, because the highest wage, that paid to grieves, is 237s. while the general worker receives 194s. These are gross wages and no
  518
  one can suggest that they are an over-payment for the work being done.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) had referred to the bicycles of agricultural workers in Scotland, he would have been much nearer the mark.
  Mr. Hoy: I could not agree more. The figures that I have given are those of the total earnings, including overtime and perquisites. These are the figures returned by the Department, so I think we can assume that they are accurate. How can we hope to retain the best men and their families on the land if this is the best that the industry can offer? The decrease in the number of agricultural workers is to a large extent due to the low wages which they are able to earn.
  Mr. Stodart: I accept that possibly the rush of mechanisation is past, but from the figures which are available showing the amount of money spent on farm improvement grants, and from my own experience, I believe that a substantial proportion of the reduction to which the hon. Gentleman referred is still due to the mechanisation which is taking place.
  Mr. Hoy: I have stated that mechanisation has a great deal to do with especially when we compare the numbers with the pre-war figures. Even the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that at least the very substantial reduction which took place last year was through the increase in mechanisation.
  I am arguing that part of it may very well be due, and is due, to lower total earnings as compared with the rest of the community. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that one thing which has gone up substantially, and which was the greatest cost to farmers last year, was increased rent, which went up by a further 8 per cent. That is one of the things that the landowners and farmers might get together about, and then perhaps they can sort out these continual increases in rent which make it so costly for the farmer.
  The right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his speech, said that he had come to the conclusion—hon. Members who were present will remember that he did it with great fervour, as if, in fact,

  519
  he had made some discovery—that we have to have import controls. He said that this is the answer to it. We have had to carry such a tremendous burden because of the deficiency payment system that we have to introduce import controls. He said it as if it were something new. May 1 remind the Committee—I do not claim it all for myself—that even when he was making his statement on the Agriculture Price Review I asked him whether he intended to introduce a system of import levies or import controls. Indeed, I also suggested to him at that time that in addition to these he might also be prepared to consider commodity marketing arrangements.
  These were the things which the right hon. Gentleman was calling for this afternoon, but I am certain that it must be in the recollection of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that this was asked for a long time ago. What hon. Members opposite ought to have been doing was to complain to the right hon. Gentleman that he had taken so long to make up his mind about it. Having made this intimation there is not one Member of the Committee who knows when he will pat this intention into practice, or with whom he will discuss it. He merely made this bald statement, left it at that, and the Committee is no better off. I thought that he took a back-handed swipe at the farmers, too.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talking about the trials and tribulations of taking cattle to market. The Minister said that the farmers paid too much attention to the attraction of subsidies and not to market prices. He was thinking the other way round. In other words, the subsidies were being used for the farmer, who says, "What does the market price matter so long as I get the subsidy to bring the figure up to the price that I am guaranteed to get? "This indeed calls for some important changes.
  I should like an explanation about this. The Minister said that we must perhaps aim at standard quantities of meat. What does he mean by standard quantities? This can be very important especially in Scotland. Tonight the House will be discussing certain Orders for increasing production. This is the
  520
  very complaint that the agricultural community is always making. First, we shall use these orders to increase production, to encourage output, but the Minister talked about standard quantities of meat which might well mean restriction. This is the sort of indecision that the agricultural industry is always protesting against, and it will be the job of the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain quite clearly what is meant by standard quantities of meat, because, as an hon. Member opposite said, this is of supreme importance to Scotland, and especially to the farmers in the uplands who are finding it in many ways difficult enough. We shall have to have the reason for it. We shall have to understand what the Minister means because unless the industry knows what it means, it will be left in this indecisive position.
  It makes a change for the Minister to talk about international commodity agreements and guaranteed prices. My mind went back to the early days of the Labour Government when we were making these agreements with the Commonwealth and how they were attacked by hon. Members who are now sitting on the other side of the Committee. What nonsense, they said, it was to enter into these agreements. In fact this is perhaps the important part of the answer to the problems which confront the industry. I hope that the Minister will have something more to say about it tonight.
  I want, finally, to say something about marketing which is so important. This apparently has appealed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. There has been a series of articles in the Scotsman on the agricultural industry. While perhaps not agreeing with them or asking everyone to agree with them, at least they have been very provoking and have stimulated a great deal of thought. It said in an article on 1st April:
  "After all, 80 per cent. of the price subsidies are at present paid out on fatstock and cereals, the two commodity groups in which no boards exist and in which free-for-all marketing has proved unacceptable."
  I think it states quite clearly and bluntly, without argument at all, that if we are to get out of this state we have to have marketing arrangements. If it wants support it has had it from the Secretary of State for Scotland,

  521
  whose article appeared in the Scotsman on Monday. He said:
  "For instance why do we bring so much of our food to London, to Smithfield, Covent Garden and Billingsgate, where it is handled. broken up and then whistled away back to York or wherever it came from. Surely this cannot he said to be an efficient method. I was in Holland recently and they lust laughed at our methods of marketing vegetables. I believe this whole process of marketing, particularly of perishables, is desperately important to both farmer and housewife and that is why everybody is awaiting with such interest for the Verdon Smith Committee's report on meat marketing."
  If these continentals are laughing at us, there is some responsibility on the Government for not having taken measures to bring in effective marketing schemes. They cannot absolve themselves from the blame, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland admits, as he does in this article in the Scotsman, that it is so bad that we are entitled to be laughed at, he and his party ought to be ashamed of the fact that they have taken no action to correct it. If at last the Secretary of State realises that it is along this road that we shall have to travel, not only for the benefit of the farmers, who are awfully important men, but also for the farm workers, and not least for the consumers, who are entitled to expect a reasonable price, we shall have gone a fair way along the road. But I do not think that he will have the opportunity of putting it right. It will fall to my hon. Friends to carry out that change.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: I do not think that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee could follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) in a great deal of what he said, but I want to add a few words about what he said about marketing, because that was one of the most important parts of his speech. There is already a quite adequate system of marketing on the hook if the farmers want to make use of it. Is it the policy of hon. Members opposite to go all out to hit the auctioneers and the auction markets hard and put them out of business? However inefficient the system of selling in the market may be for fatstock, it is essential to the movement of stores and the store trade generally. Where would the north of Scotland be if it were not for the store trade and store markets
  522
  clearing out the whole of the lamb crop from the Highlands?
  I agree with what the hon. Member said about sugar. I hope that the Minister will study carefully the possibility of increasing sugar acreages for next season. But the hon. Member wants to take the weather out of farming altogether, judging by what he said about potatoes. Of course, this will be a difficult year for potatoes; the weather could not have been more adverse for the production of this commodity. He asked for a practical example to show that farmers could derive any confidence and feel any sense of security as a result of what the Minister said. I can give him one straight away. As soon as the Minister announced the quotas on the import of Argentine and Jugoslav meat the price of fat cattle started to rise, because it meant that the market was no longer threatened by unlimited meat imports from those countries. That is one practical example showing that the Minister's speech today gives us confidence and hope that we will achieve the extra stability that is required in the agriculture industry.
  Since the end of the war both parties have been trying to find a way to give our farmers the stability they need. The 1957 Agriculture Act was a great step in this direction, but it had two weaknesses. The first was the tremendous demand on the Exchequer for unlimited liability because of cheap imports, and the other was the weak home markets, with the price dropping on the home market in many cases because of oversupply. The complaint of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was that the period up to the end of the Brussels negotiations had left the agriculture industry in some doubt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, this has been an unhappy period in the countryside. But I am not certain that it has been entirely a bad and unconstructive period. It has given us all a chance to look at our present agriculture policy. Many ideas have been put forward. People have said that we must take the Lucas Committee off the shelf. From what has been said today it is clear that hon. Members opposite are firmly wedded to the idea of commodity commissions.
  Mr. Pearl: The hon. Member must not misrepresent what I said. The commodity commissions that I referred to were quite different from those mentioned in the Lucas Report. If the hon. Member has read the Lucas Report he will know that that is so.
  Mr. Kimball: There must be a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Workington and his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie)—my distinguished constituent. In this period of reappraisal there has been a strong canvass in many places for a return to the 1932 Wheat Act. Throughout all this period of uncertainty and unsettlement there has been a lurking fear that our position as the world's largest food importing country may be exploited as a bargaining counter to stimulate exports.
  The matter was crystallised just before the Price Review by an article in The Times which highlighted the exact position and showed where the runaway elements were in our present deficiency payments system. As the Minister said, the bulk of the money at the moment is going in cereals and meat. We must not consider the latter in isolation, but must look at them against the background of a vast supply of cheap poultry, turkeys and ducks coming into this country. An equally important factor is the need to replace the timing of the New Zealand lamb crop as it now comes into this country.
  All my hon. Friends would agree that these are the three weaknesses in the 1957 Agriculture Act. Having pointed them out and accepted them, and agreed that what my right hon. Friend has said today is the right way to deal with them, let us consider the 1957 Act—which nobody seems to have done—and see what a splendid piece of agricultural support it gives us. It is the envy of all the other European countries. That is common knowledge. Everybody in Brussels who was able to understand our system said that if only he could get away with it politically their life would be a great deal easier. I am not impressed by all these semi-trick statistics about farm income that are put up. I do not believe that they affect the prosperity and the feeling of security that now exists in the countryside. Every farmer I meet talks about expanding. The normal philo-
  524
  sophy of farmers nowadays is bound up with the question of where they can get more land so as to increase their enterprise. Mention has already been made of the terrific price of grasskeeping this year, and the high prices of farms let by tender and for sale. During the debate hon. Members opposite have made much of the fall in the number of people farming today. The hon. Member for Enfield, East, whom we all know to be a successful and practical farmer, ought to have been honest in his remarks and admitted that in these days retiring farmers usually say that they have been offered such a good price for their land, and that they had reached the age at which they did not want to work too hard, that they thought it would be a good moment to retire. The good price being paid for what they have invested has encouraged many people to retire.
  I thought that we might have had some constructive ideas from hon. Members opposite, but we have had nothing so far. I thought that we might hear something of their ideas about the way in which amalgamations and increases in holdings could be made easier, and how the hardship that often exists could be taken away, but nothing constructive has come from them. Nothing has been said about the important part played in this process by the normal landlord-tenant relationship, and by the proper reorganisation of estates into economic units.
  I want to dwell in some detail on two main points that my right hon. Friend made in connection with the question of the practical control on imports. There is no doubt about the success of the two negotiations that the Minister has just concluded with the Argentine and Jugoslav Governments. We have seen the practical reflection of that in the increased price of meat in the markets in the last three weeks. If we are to have any control over cattle and meat imports it must be by numbers and not by price. Alternatively, in the matter of cereal marketing, I do not think that anybody would deny the great success of the ex-port of entry price agreement that we have had for barley. It was a difficult thing to explain to the Russians that they could not sell us barley at £14 a ton. but had to sell it to us at £20 a ton, in order to protect our barley market.

  525
  The hon. Member for Leith asked why the subsidy had been increased. It has been increased because the acreage has been increased, together with production, while the price has remained incredibly steady. The striking example that we have had of the success of the control of cereal imports, as applied to the import of Russian barley will, I hope, persuade my right hon. Friend to proceed in the same way with control of the other grain imports, by price rather than quantity.
  I feel absolutely confident that we have had from the Minister of Agriculture a statement of policy that will give us the security and stability needed in the industry. It will give us that final rounding off of the position established by the 1957 Act. We may see when we open our papers a picture of the hon. Member for Workington trying to thumb a lift on our agricultural policy. That is about all we shall see from hon. Gentlement opposite, because we have certainly heard no alternative policy from them. I am confident that the speech of my right hon. Friend will result in a vastly increased majority for those of us on this side of the Committee who represent agricultural constituencies.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: One could comment at some length on the speech of the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball). But the speech of the Minister, important as it was, requires examination before one can comment upon it. Most hon. Members who have discussed it have done so on the basis of hypothetical detail which they themselves provided because the Minister himself said that he could not yet give details. They have to be worked out. Hon. Members provided the details and nothing which they discussed was disclosed by the Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to prevent the import of uneconomic foodstuffs which would depress the market prices. I think much of the fault may be found in sections of the industry. The Minister was right in saying that one of the causes of discontent is the lack of supplies to the market. We know that if the supply of meat to the meat market had been properly phased, and the meat had arrived at the proper time, the
  526
  large subsidy payments for meat would not have been required. But until we get the details of the right hon. Gentleman's plan it is useless to try to discuss it.
  I agree with the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) who discussed the cost of the distribution of foodstuffs which is astronomical. The difference between the price received by the farmer and the price which the housewife has to pay needs a great deal of examination. The system of distribution as well as marketing may be complicated. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) told the Committee what happened to his cattle when he sold them, and be described the manner in which they were transported from the market. All my cattle go to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. The Corporation sends a lorry to the farm to pick up the stock which is taken to the slaughterhouse, where it is weighed on the hoof and payment made for weight and quality. There is no waste and no loss. The wasteful system of marketing referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is extravagant and unnecessary.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Gainsborough said about the store market. That is an entirely different market from the fatstock market. It gathers the store stock from different farms and the stock is ready for distribution. The stock has to be distributed to be finished and fattened. But fatstock can be taken from the farm to the slaughterhouse, and that is what ought to take place.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My hon. Friend has referred to a crucial point about the distribution of fatstock. Would he agree that part of the necessary reforms is a rearrangement of the slaughtering arrangements on a district and regional basis?
  Mr. Kenyon: Certainly. The slaughtering arrangements built up by the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation should be expanded in order to cut out the mileage covered by transport.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. East, (Mr. Mackie) who said that we are self-sufficient only in respect of potatoes. That is nonsense. We are self-sufficient in milk. We could increase the production of milk in this

  527
  country to a tremendous extent were we allowed to do so. We import milk products, such as butter and cheese, which were referred to by my hon. Friend, because we can buy them more cheaply than we can produce them. But we could increase the production of milk far beyond the present figure and there is no question about it. Everyone in the dairy industry knows that.
  The Government have been urging hill farmers to go in for beef in order to assist the milk market and many have done so. But were it necessary—many farmers would prefer to do it—they could concentrate on producing more milk. That is one of the difficulties confronting the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that to encourage the production of milk would aggravate the position. But who is more responsible than the Government for aggravating the position regarding milk? The Small Farmer's Scheme which they introduced some years ago was designed to enable small farmers to produce three things of which we already had sufficient—milk, eggs and pigmeat. The money poured into that scheme aggravated the market, and the Government were to blame. They poured money into producing something entirely unnecessary and enabled a number of small farmers to keep going who should have amalgamated their holdings to form larger economic units. We know that such economic units are necessary. We do not want small farmers to go out of business because they are small farmers. But they will be crushed out by economic circumstances and it is far better that small farms should be amalgamated into economic units.
  Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it is the policy of the party opposite that the small farmer should be crushed out of existence altogether?
  Mr. Kenyon: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am pointing out what is happening. Economic circumstances today are forcing the small farmer out. The figures which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East show that that is taking place—57,000 small farms have gone out in the last 10 years. That is taking place under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Is the hon. Member distinguishing between full-time and part-time holdings, or is he including both?
  Mr. Kenyon: I am including both. I am speaking of the small farm as it exists.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Member allow me—
  Mr. Kenyon: I have given way twice and I am answering the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). He asked about the part-time farmer.
  Mr. Cooke: What is a small farm?
  Mr. Kenyon: I can deal with only one Conservative at a time. I shall answer the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) when I have finished this answer.
  The part-time farmer plays a very small part in the economy of the country. Unfortunately, he spends most of his time where he gets his money, in the industry in which he works. Than he spends his spare time on the farm. That is not farming. That is not agriculture. It is far better to have an economic unit where the family is growing up and working on the farm, producing the income of the family and producing the future generation of farmers.
  I have been asked, what is a small farm? It depends from which part of the country one comes. In one part of the country if one is in horticulture 10 acres is a small farm, but in another 50 acres is a small farm. In another part of the country 300 acres is an economic unit. We see all round us farmers struggling with 50 acres and even 25 acres. I do not know if the hon. Member for Bristol, West watches television on Sunday afternoons. If he does, he may have seen a fortnight ago small uneconomic farms in east Lancashire. The question what is a small farm depends on which part of the country one is in. The point is that we must have economic units where the farmer farms to the best advantage, produces what is necessary for the economy of the country in a proper way and also produces the farmers of the future.
  We are almost, and could be in a very short time, self-sufficient in three things, milk, potatoes and eggs. The imported liquid eggs which my hon. Friend

  529
  the Member for Enfield, East spoke about could be produced here if we set about the task. We have made tremendous strides in the production of beef, lamb and mutton, and in poultry. I am confident that we could become self-sufficient in a short time in meat. I do not like the intensive way in which birds are fed. I always think there is no taste in this stuff. They are not like the hens one sees running about the fields. They have a different taste, if they have any taste at all. However, people seem to like them. There is a tremendous market for meat and we could become self-sufficient, but we have to get over the problem of marketing.
  Let us look at the way in which we are marketing today. We are going into the pre-packed market. Have hon. Members ever examined pre-packed meat and pre-packed bacon in the shops? It is the most expensive stuff one can buy. I was looking at some bacon only this morning. I do the shopping. The pre-packed bacon does not contain ½lb. in a package, but between 7 ozs. and 7½ozs. It is sold for 2s. 10d.—almost 6s. a lb. There is no sense in that. Bacon can be bought much cheaper in the piece or sliced. I am afraid the housewife is carried away by the package instead of by what is in it. It is nice, it is clean and it is hygienic, but housewives should not blame the farmer for the price. To package and transport it from place to place and then to sell it in the shop makes The cost more than the cost of production. Here is waste which should be eliminated. Marketing is one of the most important matters with which we have to deal in agriculture.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned the good work of the Advisory Service. I commend that work, but I also criticise it. We are living in an age of change, change in agriculture as well as in other things. I wonder if hon. Members in agriculture have noticed how the advice of the Advisory Service reverses itself over a number of years. We were always brought up—you, Sir James, as a farmer as well, no doubt—to believe that to harrow the land was a good thing. We were told that it aerates the land and enables the roots of plants to extend. Altogether it was a wonderful thing to harrow, but now I learn from the Farmers' Guardian that
  530
  the Advisory Service says harrowing is no good. It says that if we lime, slag and fertilise the land that is all that is necessary.
  If I merely limed, slagged and fertilised the land I should feel like someone who had a bath but did not take his clothes off. The land needs a thundering good harrowing to get the stuff in and that does it a world of good. This is a change in advice from the Advisory Service. It used to be" Give it a good harrowing, rip it up, knock it about", and now it is, "Leave it alone. Put the slag, lime and fertiliser on, and that will eat through the rough grass and get down to the roots".
  A short while ago we were told that leys were the great asset of farming—breaking up the old land and getting into ley farming. We were told that the ley was richer than the permanent grass, that it produced more and that if we wished to be modern farmers we should get on with the leys. We did it, and a wonderful job it was, too. What are we told today? We are told that if we treat permanent pasture right we shall find no difference between the production of leys and the production of permanent pasture. We have been ploughing, harrowing and fertilising for all those years for no good at all. I have wasted a terrible lot of money. In the experiments which are carried out on the Ministry's own experimental farms, they are proving that permanent pasture treated with lime, slag and fertiliser and properly grazed will produce as much meat as the ley on which we have taken all that trouble.
  We were taught when we were young how to produce silage. I went into this business three or four years before the war. We were told that the best thing was to mow the grass, take it immediately to the silo and consolidate it, wasting no time and filling the silo day by day until it was finished. That was said to be the way to make silage. The agricultural implement manufacturers made implements for the job. There was the forage harvester which came along with the cutters and cut the grass, blowing it into the trailer so that it could be taken to the silo. That is the easiest way I know of dealing with grass. But the Agricultural Advisory Service now says,

  531
  "Cut your grass, and then wilt it. Do not take it into the silo straight away. You can use the mower and then you wuffle it, which means lifting it up and shaking it about. You wilt it for a period of 12 hours and then put it into the silo. That is the way to make good silage."
  What a waste of time in the past by many of us—and we are still doing it. They may be right. They are proving what they say. But when hon. Members talk about farmers not being up to date they must remember what we have to put up with to be up to date. We have to go back to what we were doing 10 or 20 years ago, and then, apparently, we shall become up to date.
  Food production and distribution is a world problem and should be dealt with in the context of world production. I recommend to the Committee the plan of the National Farmers' Union—a great plan which is a world plan and which deals with the production of food from all the different countries and suggests ways of its distribution to underdeveloped countries and under-nourished people. It is a crime that we permit surpluses to go to waste, and a crime that we do not produce as much as we could. Some countries are even paying farmers to leave 50 per cent. of their acreage idle—and yet people in the world are under-nourished. Only a world plan can deal with this. It may need brilliant minds to get it working. The Food and Agriculture Organisation ought to deal with this problem. When we utilise the food which is grown year by year and grow all that we can, then, and only then, shall we be able to give to those who are in need that which the earth can produce.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Clark: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) in any great detail, for it would almost complete the time for the debate if I did. It was sometimes not entirely clear whether he was speaking in support of the Housewives' Union or the Landowners' Protection Association. He ranged over a number of subjects, and much that he said was wise in its way.
  I want to comment on what he said at the end of his speech and what the hon. and learned Member for Mont-
  532
  gomery (Mr. Hooson) said earlier in connection with world food production and surpluses in this country. It is a simple and attractive thesis that we could produce surplus food in one or two products, that there are other people in the world who are hungry and that therefore we should send them our surpluses. But we must be certain about what we intend to do. If we are to help the under-developed world we must teach it to produce its own food. If, occasionally, in cases of emergency, a small quantity of food delivered to an under-developed country will help that process, then that may be a justification for sending it, but it is nonsense to pretend that we can export food at a very high cost from this country, transport it to the shores of under-developed countries and then, at even more fantastic cost, distribute it throughout those countries, and hope that this will boost that country's economy. In some underdeveloped countries a small rise in price for the popular foodstuffs will create quite enough production within the country itself. Our job is not to send food from here and to get rid of our surpluses, but to establish a price structure in the world so that there is incentive in the under-developed countries for food to be produced.
  Mr. Hooson: Has the hon. Member noticed the analysis made of the help given to India by food from the United States over the four year plan? This has enabled people to be taken off the land in India, but agricultural production in India has improved considerably.
  Mr. Clark: I have not seen that analysis. There are a few individual cases which are exceptions but, in the general run of events, exporting expensive food from this country and giving it to people who are not adequately nourished can probably do more damage to their economy than anything else. If I have an opportunity to see the hon. Member privately I will give him a number of examples where this has happened.
  Mr. Kenyon: The hon. Member has got a completely wrong impression of what I said. I certainly did not intend to suggest that the giving of food should be a permanent thing. The hon. Member must realise that people must be fed properly before they can produce it for

  533
  themselves. That is what I meant to say.
  Mr. Clark: I would like to agree with the hon. Member if I could. The trouble is that when food is given it tends to go on being given. I know of one famine which could have come to an end after two years, when the climatic conditions improved. However, food has been distributed free for four years and it will probably be distributed again next year. The trouble is that the incentive of the people who should be producing is taken away and they become unable to stand up to local conditions. I will not expand my arguments on this subject because I am probably already well out of order.
  I wish to deal with the practical problems of British agriculture. I would like to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the excellent way in which he has set at rest the fears which have been expressed throughout the farming industry in recent months. Had his speech been made in my constituency it would have been delivered amid cheers, even at a meeting of the Farmers' Union, because my right hon. Friend said the sort of things the farmers in my constituency have been wanting him to say. We are delighted, in particular, with the fact that my right hon. Friend has agreed that the spirit of the 1947 and 1957 Acts is to continue and be brought up to date. We are delighted that he has agreed that some system of import control will have to be established.
  We all accept that the concept of standard quantities can be applied over a wider variety of farm produce. As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said, there is some difficulty about this concept. If established, standard quantities must be reasonably flexible because there is an important difference between establishing standard quantities of production for those commodities in which we are nearly self-sufficient and establishing them for commodities of which at least a half of our needs is imported. Are the standard quantities to stay for all time as between the amount of a commodity which is imported and the amount which we produce at home?
  For example, we are importing a considerable quantity of bacon from Denmark. Meanwhile, Northern Ireland is
  534
  doing all it can to boost its bacon production. We have solved the problem of breeds and are producing a uniform and high grade quality of bacon. We are just launching into a huge campaign to promote the sale of Northern. Irish bacon on the British market. If our campaign succeeds, and if the British public demands mare bacon from Northern Ireland, are we to be limited by a standard quantity, bearing in mind the standard quantity set for Denmark? For this reason the standard quantities must he flexible.
  It must also he remembered that on occasions a country like Denmark is in a stronger bargaining position than one of our own farming areas. Denmark is able to say—and produce figures to show —to us, "If you do not buy our agricultural produce we will not buy your manufactured goods". Unfortunately the farming areas in this country are not quite in the same position to be able to say that to the manufacturing areas of Britain. if Denmark can say it, Northern Ireland and the agricultural areas of Scotland and the West Country should he able to ask, If you will not buy our agricultural produce how can you expect us to buy your manufactured goods?".
  Control of the import of feedingstuffs is of vital importance in the whole concept of the general control of imports. In Northern Ireland there are a large number of small farms. I should like to see them all become bigger, and I would not want to crush any of them out of existence. Because they are small it is essential, if the farmers are to earn a decent living, that they should concentrate on the farmyard production of livestock—poultry, eggs and pigs, although that production depends largely on imported feedingstuffs. We can turn those imports of feedingstuff into bacon, eggs and poultry just as efficiently, if not more so, than anywhere in the world.
  If we have a proper structure for our imported feedingstuff prices the business will be done here in the United Kingdom and not in some foreign country. If my right hon. Friend decides to consider controls on imports, I urge him to remember that a reasonable, perhaps low, price for imported feeding-stuffs is absolutely essential.
  A good deal of misrepresentation has occurred throughout the country—and

  535
  the Ministry must take some responsibility for it—about the position of the farming industry. It is only too common for the figure of £350 million spent in subsidies to be bandied around. An even more invidious figure bandied around is that 80 per cent. of the farmers' income comes from subsidies. The figures may be true, but it must be remembered that the farmers' income is the last charge, the top slice, of the cost of production of farm products. Inevitably the subsidy contributes most of the income. If the subsidy was taken away the men who would suffer would not be the tractor or seed merchants but the farmers. Inevitably, therefore, a large part of the farmers' personal income is represented by subsidy.
  Subsidies must be looked upon as a proportion of farm costs. I have some figures with me which show that of a farmer's income, 83 per cent. can be put down to subsidy, but of the total farm receipts the subsidy represents only 20 per cent. I wish that that figure of 20 per cent. was used more widely than the one of 80 per cent. We talk a great deal about the £350 million, but we forget the size of the national food bill. My figures show that our annual food bill is £5,219 million. This reveals that farm subsidies cost the country only 6·5 per cent. of our total food bill.
  I agree that the total bill takes into account the processing of foods which does not take place in our farms, but subsidies are a very small part of the money we spend on food. In this connection, it is important to remember that we produce half our own food, or about two-thirds of our temperate foodstuffs. That cost in subsidy is 61 per cent. of our national food bill. Because we produce that very high percentage—high for a small industrial country—we need buy only a relatively small amount of food in the markets of the world. We buy this food in a buyers' market and we are in an extremely strong bargaining position.
  I suggest that if we produced only 30 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the food we need, and had to buy twice as much on the world market, we should be in a very much worse bargaining position. We should have to pay prices that were
  536
  10 per cent. or 15 per cent. higher. The £350 million that it costs under the present system to keep our farms going would be chickenfeed compared with the additional cost of feeding the nation. That fact must be kept clearly in mind.
  The idea put forward, particularly when we are discussing national finance, that the bill for subsidies is big enough and must not be allowed to grow at all, is nonsense. As long as the farmers are running their farms efficiently, there is no reason why the subsidy, which puts us in such a strong position in world markets, should not go up to £500 million or even more. I do not base that statement on any social arguments, though the social arguments for keeping the farming community thriving are still there. One can justify subsidies by plain, straight, economic argument.
  These are the facts. The wrong figures seem to be put about, the wrong impression is created. It is up to all of us in this Committee and, in particular, it is up to the Ministry, to put over the case, and to justify to the country and the world the real economic value of Great Britain's farming industry. A great responsibility rests on the Ministry to put over that case concisely to those who matter, so that we can face our farming problems with a sensible and down-to-earth outlook, and not with the talk of feather-bedding which, unfortunately, is still too common throughout the country.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I can only tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) that if I told the country the effect of his views on the people in the backward areas of the world who are living in conditions of starvation I could win any General Election. In this one instance the hon. Member's mentality is sufficient to breed Communism anywhere.
  The Minister has introduced, very conveniently at this moment, the idea of import restrictions. I do not know what else he could have said had he not had something to say about those, but the result is that tonight he will be the toast of the farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country—
  Mr. Harold Davies: I am not so sure of that.
  Mr. Winterbottom: Let me finish.
  The Minister has taken a very weak and gentle step. We have had no details of what he is proposing, but merely an announcement made in the House at a convenient moment. It is possible that, in the working out of the details, the idea itself may be lost.
  i want to speak on behalf of people who have never been properly mentioned in this debate—the slaughter men, the gut men, the tripe dressers and the butchers—but if we are to relate the meat trades to the agricultural industry I believe that the butchers, and those who work in the slaughtering industry, are as much entitled to be heard as the farmers.
  There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of our butchers because of the high price of meat—one of my hon. Friends has criticised them for that reason—but I say categorically that the high price of meat over the last three years has not been caused wholly or mainly by the butchers. If the Minister wants to challenge that statement let him take the wholesale price of meat over the last three years, when he will still find that the margin between the wholesale and the retail price has changed but little over the past twenty years.
  Where, then, has the system fallen down? Why the failure of a deficiency payments system in the meat industry which was originally introduced to protect agriculture and to keep prices low for the consumer? Why have we had tremendously increased deficiency payments and tremendously increased meat prices? Every butcher knows that the system of production and distribution of meat is hopelessly chaotic. It is in that condition because there has never been an effective check by the Government of the free-for-all in the market. The Government have never attempted to introduce a systematic flow of stock from the farm to the butcher's block. In saying that I take into consideration all the difficulties, including even the seasonal fluctuations.
  I condemn hook, line and sinker the free-for-all scramble where fatstock guarantees are concerned. I am not grumbling about deficiency payments. I approve of them, but evidence was submitted by the trade union movement to the inquiry into fatstock and carcase meat distribution which justifies my sub-
  538
  mission up to the hilt. if the Minister will examine the situation fully he cannot help but come to the conclusion that he must approach this position not as a farmer himself but as the Minister of Agriculture.
  A great deal has been said about marketing. As the Minister of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman should survey the whole complicated machinery of the marketing of the beast from the farm to the carcase on the block. If he does, he will find what many hon. Members have mentioned today but have not enumerated in detail—a great many people who are completely unnecessary in the process of meat distribution. I should like to mention a few of the people involved.
  First, there is the farmer. I have no grumble about him. He does a good job of work and deserves all he gets, but there is the local livestock dealer who, for all he does, could be easily dispensed with. The local livestock dealer takes the cattle to the wholesaler and then they go to auction, In addition, there are wholesale stock dealers who sell to the commission agents. There are about seven other different types of intermediaries, all of whom want their cut and whose profits automatically affect the final retail price of the commodity. If there is anything that is open to speculation and price rigging, it is this system of meat distribution. Animals are moved from one auction to another and all sorts of things happen, as the Minister must know. If he will really face the problem, he will find that even the auctions are unnecessary and that it is possible, even in these days, to have a direct link between the producer and the butcher with one intermediary, namely the wholesaler.
  The Minister talks of import restrictions. Let us examine the other side of the question. What about exports? Is it true that continental buyers at British auctions, buying at prices that are regulated by subsidies and exporting cattle to the continent, are getting the benefit of the Exchequer subsidy? This is one of those questions that must be asked. The Minister must know about this because this is part of the evidence that has been submitted to the committee that he mentioned earlier today, the committee which was set up last year and to which all

  539
  interested organisations have made their contributions, including those trade unions which are connected with meat distribution.
  All this chaos and confusion in British agriculture, and particularly in the marketing of fatstock, need not have occurred. If in 1954 the law as it then was, with its regulations, had been slightly amended, with a few additions and a few omissions, it would have been possible for the existing law to have functioned, even in the most intense conditions of private trade in meat distribution, without the necessity to introduce many of the measures that have been brought about by the Conservative Government under successive Acts of Parliament. It would have been possible to keep out the intermediaries, the cost of which has contributed largely to undermining the original principle, namely the subsidisation of cattle production in order to keep prices low to the consumer.
  I ask the Minister to consider the problem of grading. I know that there are some people who are very skilful at judging cattle, who, when a beast is on the hoof, can tell almost at a glance what its deadweight will be, almost to a pound, but there is no guarantee that such people will be right when the beast has been killed. I suggest that the time has come for the introduction of the deadweight at the point of kill, in order to prevent the unnecessary double payment of subsidies such as is taking place at present. The Minister knows what I am talking about. These reforms are essential if we are to get agriculture out of the mess into which it has fallen.
  Before the war, there were 12,000 slaughterhouses in this country. By the end of the war, by wise concentration, we had reduced the number to 600. It was again allowed to rise, under wise supervision, until, after 1954, two Acts of Parliament affected the number of slaughterhouses in this country. After the first Act, introduced by a Conservative Government. the number in England alone rose to nearly 5,000. Scotland was not affected because the practice of restricting slaughterhouses by wise concentration has obtained in Scotland for many years. The second Act of the Conservative Government restricted the
  540
  number of slaughterhouses again until there are today about 2,500.
  But there is no adequate meat inspection. Meat inspectors receive information that cattle are being slaughtered at one or other slaughterhouse at times when it is impossible to go to the slaughterhouse for the purpose of making an efficient inspection. All kinds of malpractices are taking place. These are some of the things about which the butchers are complaining. They suggest that the right relationship between the production of cattle for distribution in this country and the interests of the butchers at the selling end would best be safeguarded not by the intermediaries or even just by wise concentration of slaughterhouses but by a radical reform of the whole business of meat marketing from the farm to the butcher's block.
  In 1951, the Trades Union Congress passed a resolution which went to the extent of saying that the business of meat distribution should be nationalised. I do not go so far, but I am convinced that there must be a thorough rationalisation. There should be about 12 to 20 slaughterhouses in this country doing all the killing. There should be a good factory abattoir at each slaughterhouse to deal with the by-products. The canning processes are of the utmost importance nowadays. The possibilities of canning may be latent at the moment, but people in the butchery trade and the canning industry know of the great opportunities there can be to develop the whole industry and make it a worthwhile partner of British agriculture. The Minister fails in his job if he does not see the potentialities of the relationship between slaughtering on this kind of basis and British agriculture.
  The Minister has failed throughout. Even though he may tonight be the toast of the farmers in many parts of the country, and even though what he has done may be good as a short step towards progress, it will eventually be proved that he has not gone half far enough to meet the needs of agriculture and the butchers.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: Before I begin my indictment of the Government, may I first congratulate British agriculture on having survived 12 years of Toryism from the Minister and his predecessors.

  541
  The best hope for the industry is that it will not have to suffer very much longer.
  One hon. Member opposite indicated that this was an historic debate. Those of us who have not had the advantage of reading The Times report this morning of what the Minister told a Committee last night have been able to gather two things from his speech today: first, that he had some proposals for import control, and, secondly, that the standard quantities for which guaranteed prices are paid would be extended to new production. When it came to the details, the Ministry frankly said that he had an open mind on the machinery and an open mind on how the whole of this would work. He finished his speech by saying that it would bring satisfaction and relief to the industry that the Government had decided on this policy.
  However, the reception which the right hon. Gentleman had from hon Members varied considerably. We did not know the details. We did not know how this would work out. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that he would have been happier if the proposals were less sketchy, and that there was a need to make clear to each farmer how the Minister's proposals would affect him. How right the hon. Gentleman was. He seems to have forgotten that when the Government's Common Market proposals were being canvassed at Brussels and in the House of Commons, even though the hon. Gentleman was an ardent supporter of the Government at that time, never at any time was it made clear to the farmer how he would be affected by the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said that he was satisfied with what he called the adequate assurances of the Minister. May I say that the hon. Gentleman was satisfied with very little indeed?
  Over the years, the belts have had to tightened in the agricultural community. Farmers' incomes in real terms have failed to keep pace with those in the rest of the community. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) that, despite a 50 per cent. increase in output, the real net income of agriculture has gone up by only 11 per cent. compared with 50 per cent. among the remainder
  542
  of the community. That is the main issue before us today. Not a word was said by the Minister about what return he expected the industry would get from his proposals—whether it would be more or less.
  We had an interesting theory from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about prices. He said that it would be the farmer who would suffer, and that the Minister said that the consumer should not suffer and that the right hon. Gentleman would cut subsidies. I did not gather from the Minister that he proposed to cut subsidies. If the Minister did not say that, the theory of the hon. and learned Member falls to the ground. I hope that this will be made clear by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  The 1963 Price Review is the last chapter in a very sad story. Try as he might, the average farmer has never quite grasped that elusive prize or a fair return for his toil. Small farmers—I am speaking not of part-time farmers but of full-time small farmers—and their wives whose immense labour we should not forget, have to slave and struggle day and night for seven days a week. They have not had a square deal in real terms as a result of the Government's policies.
  The 1947 Act obligations are known to all of us. Proper remuneration for the industry and proper living conditions for farmers and farmworkers are mentioned specifically in the Act. But has there been proper remuneration for the industry? Can the Minister look farmers in the face and say that they have been properly remunerated when the stark figures reveal that incomes in the industry have not kept pace with those of the rest of the community? My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) commented on the fact that the Minister accepted the 1947 Act and said that he would adapt and tailor it. What does this mean? Does it mean that there will be a smaller return to the industry, a subject on which the Minister was exceedingly silent?
  In December. 1961, we had the special White Paper, which was endorsed by the Government who said that they stood by all their obligations under the 1947 Act. We remember the special reason for those talks in the autumn—or, as one of my hon. Friends would call it, in the

  543
  fall—of 1961. Perhaps we shall see the fall of the Government in 1963. There were special reasons for those talks. They were held between the Prime Minister and the president of the National Farmers' Union because of the unanimous wave of derision which swept the country as a result of the 1960 Price Review. That flatulent White Paper could be summed up as a promise from the Government never to do it again.
  Today, however, we are back in the same position. For the fifth time in eight years we have had an imposed Price Review settlement. It should not be forgotten that five times out of eight the farmers have failed to agree with the Government. Only a few weeks ago the teachers were clamouring, and rightly so, at having suffered from an imposed settlement. It is no comfort to them to know that in agriculture an imposed settlement is the rule rather than the exception.
  Protests have been heard this year from Norfolk and Devon. Farmers have marched to Westminster to make their protest. From Wales also have come protests. Indeed, a vote of no confidence in the Minister has been passed in all parts of the country. I need not mention all the places from which protests have come, but passing I mention the Council of the Scottish N.F.U. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to deal with that declaration of no confidence. A vote of no confidence was passed by the Council of the N.F.U. in Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire, a fact which must be cold comfort to the Minister.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whom we like so much, went down to Devon the other day where he faced a rather stormy meeting of the Devon N.F.U. He advised farmers with unprofitable lines to move into a more profitable line. Where and when are they to do it? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be abe to tell the small farmers of Devon, and small dairy farmers everywhere, what the Parliamentary Secretary failed to advise them: what profitable lines they should adopt. They will be exceedingly interested in the advice that the Secretary of State can give.
  544
  There is not time to go through every aspect that was dealt with by the Minister. In the beef industry in particular, however, there has been an immense drive for expansion over the years. I have traced the statements made in each of the Price Review White Papers. In 1954, we were told that there was still need for more beef. We were told the same in 1956 and 1957. In 1959, we were told that there was still room for increased beef production. In 1960, it was the same story, and in 1961 it was said that a further stimulus to beef production was needed.
  Having regard to the Minister's proposals today, what is the position of the beef section of the industry? Suggestions and fears have been expressed from these benches that the Minister's policy may well be restrictionist. Twice in recent years—and this is why the Minister has tonight been forced to come to a decision concerning imports—the industry and the Exchequer have suffered from the severe gluts on the market because of the inadequate policies of the Government. Although they have been in power for 12 years, all that happened in the past when there was a glut was kid-glove treatment from the Government and exhortation which did little to avert repeated and violent fluctuations. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the Minister and his colleague the President of the Board of Trade. I do not wish to blame the Minister unduly in this matter. It may be that it is the feet of the President of the Board of Trade which are dragging.
  I was interested in the innuendo by the hon. Member fo Newbury (Sir A. Hurd), who has just come in, when he said with reference to imports that there was a great deal of need of education and for Ministers to speak with one voice and how glad he was that they were sitting together when this debate was inaugurated. There seems to have been a dichotomy of interest of the two Ministers in this respect in the past. The Minister of Agriculture seems to have lacked, in particular, anticipation of a glut. No steps have been taken in anticipation of one. Now he has been forced tonight to come to a change and to take decisive steps in this direction. We on this side of the Committee can argue why, despite the protests we have made over the years, this was not done before.

  545
  What was the real cause of this recent glut of Argentine beef? The real cause of it, of course, was that there was a lack of exports of Argentine beef because of a series of abattoir strikes. Did the Minister anticipate that at the end of the strike the beef would flow once again, and that there would be a glut on the market, and a severe one, because of the accumulated amount which would be forced on to the market? An inherent difficulty in this respect has been the failure of the Minister to co-ordinate with the Board of Trade and to take decisive action in time. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, there has been exhortation time and time again in the House, but there has not been sufficient anticipation to meet the problems arising. The Minister tonight can thank his lucky stars that he will have no need to introduce a Supplementary Estimate this year.
  I failed to understand the Parliamentary Secretary when at the end of March he told the House quite plausibly that the level of imports this year had not been appreciably above that of previous years. No one quite knew what that statement meant—the farming papers certainly did not—since imports from the Argentine at that time were running double those for 1962 and those of Yugoslavia were five times those of 1961, So I do not know what source of information it was that the Parliamentary Secretary had that day.
  I turn now to the question of milk. Milk is of fundamental importance to our discussion this evening because this was—I do not want to mix my metaphors too much—the last straw which broke the camel's back so far as agreement on the Price Review was concerned. The latest farm accounts report from the N.F.U. revealed the real state of the dairy producers. I do not know what the Government's policy is on this tonight. I do not know what are their views on this matter, or how they fit in with the announcement which the Minister made today.
  In 1961 the White Paper told us of the need to bring home to individual producers the fact that output beyond a certain level was not in their interests and the principles implicit in the national standard quantity must be applied to the payments to individual producers. The
  546
  Government saw the need at that time, but they failed to take any decision themselves. They left it to the industry. The industry was given till 31st July to discover what was the right solution. The industry rejected the Minister's proposals, and, obviously, as promised, retribution came the following year, in the following Price Review.
  Now I do not know what the position is. It may be that the Government have turned full circle on this, and the Milk Committee of the N.F.U. may be taking up a different attitude from what it did. But having regard to the importance of milk, 22 per cent. of all United Kingdom agricultural output, and having regard to the fact that we are getting closer and closer to Europe in trade, sooner or later the Government will have to find a solution to this problem, and it cannot be shunted on to the industry, as the Minister has done with this product and so many other products.
  To summarise, I think that there are three major heads to the agricultural problems of today. First, that of management; secondly, that of marketing; and, thirdly, that of imports. I deal first with management. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) talked about increased productivity. Certainly from the technical point of view great strides have been made since the end of the war and output has increased considerably. It was the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West who told us that, but we are now faced with two greater and more difficult problems, those of productivity and profitability.
  I was delighted to read of the emphasis which the National Agricultural Advisory Service is putting on management treatment on farms. It is able to deal with 20,000 farms now, and with the standardisation of procedures one expects that this will shortly snowball and will have an enormous effect on management. I am convinced that the universities, farm colleges, farm institutions and young farmers clubs must play a full part in ensuring that the practical mechanics of production receive more and more emphasis. All these institutions can do a great deal to help.
  Dealing with the farm college, we in Wales are deeply disappointed with the dilatory attitude of the Government,

  547
  because this was one of the institutions situated in a suitable place in Wales which could act as a magnet to draw in young men and women from all parts of Wales and give them a weapon with which to fight the enormous battles we have to fight in Welsh agriculture to make it solvent.
  The Government should also remember that it is seldom easy to increase income or productivity without stepping up output. Our farms are not big enough to do anything else. This is particularly true of the milk industry, and it is implicit in N.E.D.C.'s Report that home agriculture should have a fair share of the rising demand.
  What is the target for the home producer? What is he supposed to do? Perhaps we could have a White Paper on this. There seemed to be an intimation from the Minister, for which I was grateful, that the home farmer would have a proper share of the growth in demand, but even though the demand rises in the home market, and even though the home producer will have an increased share, one hopes that the standard quantity will go up in line with the growth in home demand. The principle of standard quantities will be a restrictionist one if 'this is the only criterion. When there is more and more technical progress, when agriculture becomes more and more efficient, and every year an allowance of £25 million is made in the Price Review because of increased agricultural efficiency, if the growth of the market is the sort of criterion for expanding and raising the standard quantity, this policy will be restrictionist. At the same time the Minister will have to remember that increased efficiency results in increased production.
  The comment was made, and I endorse it, that we live largely in a hungry world. We have a great responsibility in this respect, and I hope that every aspect of this policy of standard quantities and its implications has been studied to ensure that we do not adopt a restrictionist policy. I hope that the National Farmers' Union's food and farm plan has been given serious consideration. It may be years before it can be implemented in full, but I believe that fundamentally we would do great harm if we were unduly to restrict our agricultural
  548
  production when there are boys and girls without adequate food.
  The long-term solution is the proper distribution of all the food that the world can produce. I hope that, even though we are involved in trading agreements with other nations, and even though there are many and diverse interests concerned, the full implications of the policy of standard quantities has been considered and that its application will not be restrictionist. We do not know, because the Minister has an open mind on this matter, what machinery has been worked out for implementing this policy. This is why we cannot endorse what he is asking for.
  I come next to the question on marketing. This is of fundamental importance, but no proposals have as yet been put forward. We are still waiting for the Verdon Smith Report, and have been waiting for it for some time. I gather that the Report is not expected until the autumn. Marketing in agriculture is of fundamental importance, and, despite the prodding of my hon. Friend and others on this side of the Committee, it has taken twelve years of Tory administration even to set up a committee to consider it. It would be wasting the time of the Committee to have a long and involved debate on marketing because, having regard to practical politics, the Verdon Smith Report will not be available until the autumn and, therefore, there is no possibility that this Government can put anything that it proposes into effect. I will leave the question of marketing to my hon. Friend who, I hope in the process of time, will be able to put into effect the obvious reforms which are needed in this matter.
  There is a vital need for industry to weld its buying and selling powers together. I was interested, having regard to the importance of co-operation and the need for the small farmer to become viable, in the observations of the president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union when at Oban he threw out the suggestion of what might be done in the matter of co-operation. He said that he was thinking of local levels where groups of farmers could get together to market a steady crop of fatstock or to sort out their store cattle in regular drafts at local sales.
  I believe that a major drive, inspired by the Government of the day, will have

  549
  to be undertaken in the matter of marketing both at national and local level. We have seen in recent years the immense growth of machinery syndicates. and they are badly needed. We need selling syndicates, group producer syndicates and enterprise syndicates. I am convinced that this is one of the ways in which the small farmer will be able to help himself.
  I turn lastly to imports. The question that farmers are asking, and will be asking at the end of this debate, because they do not know the answer concerns home production and imports. Both problems are tied together and we cannot separate them.
  The question that they will ask is: what part has British agriculture to play? What has the Minister in mind? Is it not vital before he comes to the House that he should have some target in mind. Merely to say that it is the present production figure after 10 years' exhortation to produce more will not be a source of great satisfaction to those who produce beef. They are being told that from now on there will be a standstill.
  Secondly, how much import control are we to have? How is it to be operated? Is it to be on tonnage or is it to be on price? There has been no indication from the Minister on this tonight. In the past —and this is why the Minister has been forced to put a proposed solution to the House tonight—it has been left to the accident of nature or to industrial strife in foreign parts as to the amount of imports which would at any particular time come into this country.
  It is not merely the quantity of imports throughout the whole year, it is the saturation of the market at particular times which has caused this run on the Exchequer. What is wanted here is orderly co-ordination. There must be somebody, as my hon. Friend proposed, a commodity commission, call it what we will, to co-ordinate home production and imports so that there is someone overall to decide and to ensure that there is an orderly regulation in the part that both the home producer and also the importer can play.
  Obviously, no marketing arrangements can work in isolation. There must be an import regulator with real teeth. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested standard quantities of
  550
  imports means that he is a convert to planning, because this is planning pure and simple. Even though he is a recent convert, I welcome him. But before I can do so with open arms I want to know exactly what he intends to do.
  This industry is vital to all of us. The cloud of an unfavourable balance of payments is still with us. We heard tonight some excellent speeches on the importance of agriculture to our balance of payments position. Parts of the excellent article by Mr. Rees-Mogg in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago have been quoted. It should be made apparent to the whole country that British agriculture has played a very important part in our battle to remain solvent. l hope that agriculture will continue to do so in the future. Unless production had been increased at the rate at which it has been increased, the balance of payments situation today would have been very much worse than it is. May British agriculture continue to play this vital part—a part which it has played so honourably and well in the past. May it play that part in the future, despite the inadequacies of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): We hold these agricultural debates from time to time in the House or in Committee, and at regular intervals one side or the other complains that it has been too long since we held the last one. Nevertheless, today's debate has been interesting, because a number of lion. Members have spoken on a wide range of subjects. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been looking forward to the debate with great relish, because this is the occasion for the quinquennial courtship of agriculture by the party opposite. They have assured us regularly during the course of the debate of their certainty of a General Election in October. My only sorrow is that on this great occasion there should be so few hon. Members opposite to enjoy the ceremony.
  The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) misquoted my right hon. Friend when he said that he had talked about adapting the policy laid down in the 1947 and 1957 Acts. That was not what my right hon. Friend said. He said that we adhered to the principle laid down in

  551
  those Acts, but that we had to think about adjustments to the things that flow from them. That is very different from tailoring the Acts themselves.
  I was rather shaken to hear the hon. Member say that his condemnation of the Government's agricultural policy derived from the fact that five out of eight recent Price Review settlements had had to be imposed on the farming community. Is he suggesting, on behalf of the party opposite, that in respect of a problem which many hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) among others, recognise to contain many difficulties in striking a balance between the claims of the agriculture industry, the consumer, the Commonwealth and all the other industries and interests, it is the duty of the Government to accept the assessment of the agriculture industry? If he is not saying that, his statement makes no sense.
  He also spoke about the expansion in beef, and said that for many years the Government had been asking the beef industry to expand and had been encouraging it to do so, and that this was rather odd in view of the fact that the Government were now talking about standard quantities. It may have occurred to him that one of the main reasons for encouraging an expansion of beef was exactly the point that he raised about the difficulties that exist in the milk industry. If that industry was to move into another section of agriculture and be profitable, beef was the natural and best choice. I cannot speak with knowledge of his part of Wales, but I can speak with knowledge of my part of Scotland, that this has been happening to the benefit both of the farmers and of the nation.
  I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the three important factors. These were mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Management and marketing are two of very great importance. I will say more about them later. He also mentioned imports and it may interest him to know that the reason the Scottish National Farmers' Union members were so upset by the position in the early part of this spring was that there was no control of imports.
  552
  The debate has expressed clearly and rightly that the farmers all over the country have been anxious for one or two specific reasons. First, there was the problem of the income of farmers, mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberavon. It is interesting to note—I throw out these figures because sometimes they get forgotten—that at the last F.A.O. census in 1959 this country was third in the league of countries when farming income was related to industrial income. The two top countries were Australia and New Zealand. If we take industrial income at 100, our farming income was 80. It is true that farmers are anxious. It is also certainly true that compared with almost every other developed country in the world we have done better than any except those two countries which, let us face it, are largely agricultural in the whole of their production.
  I can quite understand that many people have felt that some changes were needed in our system of agricultural support. We felt it right to maintain the basic principles of the 1947 and 1957 Acts to which our farmers have rightly attached a great deal of importance over the last 15 years. In one way or another hon. Members opposite have said during the debate that they agreed with a great deal of what was said by my right hon. Friend. There were a great many "Hear, hears", from hon. Members opposite, as well as from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, while he was speaking.
  Hon. Members opposite have said in the past that they agreed that we should enter into negotiations with the Common Market. I know that there might have been quite considerable differences of opinion about how the negotiations should proceed, and about what a satisfactory outcome would be. But at least hon. Members opposite agreed that the negotiations should take place. Having done that, one would imagine they would have agreed to the carrying through of the negotiations to the end. The breakdown in February was the moment when one could move to some new consideration of policy, and I think, therefore, that they can hardly blame the Government for being slow about new ideas when there has been only the period since February in which to develop them.

  553
  I do not think any hon. Member opposite would have carried on negotiations with the Common Market and at the same time carried on negotiations for an absolutely different policy. That at least seems to be a curious way of dealing with it. In that period we have moved fairly fast and I think it not unfair to point out that what the hon. Member said was that this was the sort of policy we ought to have followed a year ago, at a time when his own party would have been negotiating with the Common Market.
  It is always a relief to get a clear picture of what the Liberal Party means to do. This at least we have had in very clear measure today. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hopson) has told us quite clearly that in the Liberal Party's view the farmers—not immediately, but in the presumably near future—should get their return from the market.
  It will be a comfort to the farming community to know that it will be a very long time before the Liberal Party can put its ideas into practice. The hon. Member said, or implied, and this was perfectly fair, that a managed market would put up food prices, and that this was what my right hon. Friend had been trying to achieve in the negotiations in Brussels. This indeed could have been done in the context of a satisfactory negotiation with the Common Market. This could in these circumstances have been accepted, but I am amazed that the Liberal Party wants to accept it without any of the advantages which would flow from that policy.
  If I may move to other points made in the debate, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked me specifically about sugar. The same subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). Until April the price of sugar in Britain remained pretty steady in spite of the increase in world prices from about £25 a ton last autumn to £65 a ton. The increase was offset by the removal in stages of the Sugar Board surcharge. We were protected against changes in the world price by our fixed price contracts with the Commonwealth and South Africa.
  Since the beginning of May, however, the world price of sugar has suddenly
  554
  spiralled up from £70 to £97 a ton today, a quite unprecedented and fantastic rise. This has naturally been reflected, although not yet fully reflected, in the price which our shops have to charge for sugar. At first these prices looked suspiciously like a speculative bubble which might burst, but now it looks as if the prices could well be maintained for a considerable period.
  My right hon. Friend has naturally been considering urgently with the Sugar Board for the past fortnight the possible introduction of distribution payments, a kind of surcharge in reverse, so that our housewives can enjoy again the benefits of the price which is well below the present world price—under which we are buying most of our sugar under the Commonwealth and South African agreements. There are certain technical difficulties in the way which must be removed. This must take a little time, but we are satisfied that we can find a way round them. Unless the world price falls substantially, it is clear that we must soon introduce these distribution payments. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement to the House as soon as he can.
  Mr. Hoy: The price has been going up over a considerable period. Although the right hon. Gentleman bases it from the beginning of May, the Parliamentary Secretary in January, in discussion of a miscellaneous provisions Bill, described it as "astronomical" when the price had reached £40 a ton.
  Mr. Noble: The retail price has been moving only recently because of the large stocks of sugar which were held.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who opened the debate for the Opposition, raised one or two points with which I shall deaf as quickly as I can. He felt it wrong for the Government to announce changes of policy "just like that". Perhaps he does not realise that the whole principle of agricultural stability rests on trying to maintain a consistent policy over as long a time as one can. This we have tried to do. It is true that my right hon. Friend, as he told the House in 1961, foresaw that this position could arise, but if, as soon as one foresees that a position may arise, one switches policy violently one way or another, then one

  555
  does exactly what the farming community has begged every Government of every sort to avoid.
  I was amused when the hon. Member referred to our conversion to faith in the Commonwealth. I can think of other people who seem to have had a rather sudden conversion. He asked me specifically whether our policy was to switch money from deficiency payments into production grants. The position is reasonably clear—that the whole policy of production grants must be worked out in relation to specific items which we need to stimulate. For instance, later this evening we shall be talking about winter keep grants and grassland renovation grants. There is no fixed policy to increase or decrease production grants. They will be judged on their merits at the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) made a very careful and thoughtful speech on lines which most of us in the Government expected him to follow, because the policy which the Government have announced today is one which my hon. Friend has been advocating for the last month or two. It is, therefore, not surprising that we expected him to be pleased about it. He asked me specifically whether I would confirm that the Government were retaining the principle of the 1947 and 1957 Acts, and I can give him that assurance. He asked whether the butter and cheese arrangements were satisfactory from the point of view of New Zealand and Denmark. At the G.A.T.T. meetings this week New Zealand asked for a group to be set up to consider dairy products. My right hon. Friend supported New Zealand in this request and this has been agreed.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I tried to discover by question from the Minister the other day whether anything had been done about the importation of pig meat from Denmark, because under agreement Denmark can export to this country any quantity.
  Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend, of whom the question was asked, tells me that we agreed with the Danes at the E.F.T.A. meeting that we should consult about this problem.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) talked about a great
  556
  many points. The main point which I wish to pick up was one mentioned also by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), the hon. Member for Aberavon and others about millions of people in the world who are starving. This is a problem which faces the world squarely. Half the world's population is undernourished. In its support of this scheme the N.F.U. is right, but for us, as the biggest food importing nation, it is a little odd to be talking about producing large surpluses to export to underdeveloped countries. It is a pity that during the course of the debate, when the point was made, insufficient was said about the tremendous amount of aid which we have given in the past to these countries not only in food but in technical advice and all forms of aid, which we are most able and ready to give in supporting a better standard of living in those countries, either by encouraging them to produce more food for themselves and giving them the know-how or by encouraging them, by building up their industries, to make the money to pay for food. This country has led the world in these ways for the last fifteen or twent years.
  I need not mention the points he made about farm workers, because he was admirably answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East. However, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West made a point with which I entirely agree: that the farm workers have a very high reputation, not least because they have never taken part in strikes. One of the reasons for this has been the closer and better liaison that has existed between farm workers and employers, a much closer relationship than has existed in any other industry.
  It was suggested that we should look for new markets as well as new marketing systems. We are always ready to do this and, although I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend who is the Chairman of the Livestock Export Group, which has made considerable strides in the last year. I would also like to congratulate a very distinguished Scottish market gardener who will be known to some of my Scottish hon. Friends and who has been doing a great deal of exporting to the Common Market countries over the tariff, showing what

  557
  a really go-ahead horticulturist can do in competition with countries to which we are so often said to be inferior in this field.
  Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman outline the plans the Government have in regard to new marketing systems? In view of the dissolution of the Horticultural Marketing Council, will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what the Government intend to do about horticulture and other things?
  Mr. Noble: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to make my own speech in my own way. As I said earlier, I intend to say something about marketing.
  Mr. Peart rose—
  Mr. Noble: I said that I would refer to marketing, and I intend to do so.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. If the Minister does not give way other hon. Members must not persist.
  Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) raised several points which have already been dealt with, but I agree with him that the farming community as a whole feels slighted by the fact that large subsidies are apparently paid to them, although the price of food continues to go up and they do not get any better off. I agree with him that the farming community does not want large subsidies on those terms.
  I also agree with him that very few people understand the subsidy arrangements for pigs. It is unfortunate that as the farming community moves into more sophisticated forms of farming the language necessary both to make the facts clear and to be effective often gets more complicated. I am assured by my right hon. Friend that his Department is doing its best to make these instructions clearer and simpler; and I will certainly try to do the same from the Scottish Office.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen asked why we were waiting for the Verdon Smith Report and could we not just accept the Report of the Lucas Committee. I am sure that she realised that the Lucas Committee's Report, written in 1946 or 1947, was written
  558
  in very different world conditions from those we have today. Further, when we have set up a Committee to inquire into marketing, it would be the height of discourtesy to the Chairman and the Committee to announce a decision without waiting for that Report. It would also be stupid. Finally, if we were to try to tackle the problems now, as the hon. Lady asks, instead of waiting till the autumn, it would mean imposing something on both of the N.F.U.s, the trades, and all the others concerned. I do not think that she really meant us to do that.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, apart from giving us a picture of the Liberal Party's policy, attacked my right hon. Friend on the grounds that my right hon. Friend wanted this subsidy bill to be reduced—something that he neither said nor implied—and said that this was an oblique attack on farmers' prices. The hon. Member for Aberavon made it quite clear that my right hon. Friend had not talked about cutting prices, and that is so.
  If members of the Liberal Party want to make an effective contribution to our debates, they might at least listen to the debates, and not come with their speeches prepared beforehand—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the farmers should be protected from subsidised food from abroad. Indeed, the Liberal Party's policy has changed a little in the last few years. When he referred to parsimony, patrimony and matrimony as the three methods of obtaining credit in the farming world, I must say that the mention of matrimony made me think of the Liberal Party—
  Mr. Hooson: Did not the Minister say that he wanted to reduce the subsidy bill and, at the same time, keep the price to consumers down? If so, is not the only third price in the triangle that paid to the farmer?
  Mr. Noble: That involves several entirely different conceptions, and it is not even an accurate version of what my right hon. Friend said.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) suffered a little from the same complaint, if I may be so bold as to say so, and did not notice that the

  559
  wicket had changed a bit overnight. I hope that, as a bowler of some distinction, he appreciated the point.
  I have already thanked the hon. Member for Enfield, East for dealing very successfully with the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, but he also mentioned the problem, and it is a problem, of the number of holdings that have disappeared and the number of people who have gone out of agriculture. He said, rightly, that this had caused some hardship. It is inevitable, I am afraid—it has been inevitable in many other realms besides agriculture—that if we are to be efficient, and if we are to be more productive, as we have been for the last 15 years, there must be some amalgamation of holdings, and if profit is to be made there must be more mechanisation and less labour.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about extra powers for the Potato Marketing Board. I am informed that the Board itself has never asked for the powers he referred to but, if it does, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, referred to an interview which I gave to the Scotsman. I am glad that he and I were roughly in agreement. He fat that management and marketing, as did the hon. Member for Aberavon, were two of the key points. My hon. Friend told us also how farmers in the past had been too conscious of their accounts to let anybody else see them. This is an attitude which we must dissipate as quickly as possible and until farmers are prepared to show their accounts to the appropriate advisory authority and get advice we have little chance of securing increased efficiency.
  The Government feel, and I think that the party opposite feel to a considerable extent, that marketing systems should be encouraged by government but should be originated by the farmers themselves. The whole of the farming co-operative movement started from the industry, and the best of our marketing boards started
  from within the industry. We feel that this is the right method. We are delighted to help, encourage or advise on any of the problems involved as they come up. I hope that the National Farmers' Union will be able to think out ideas for marketing which will be successful and which will achieve the sort of results that I think we all want to arrive at.
  The hon. Member for Leith asked about the potato problem. This year, as he probably knows, the price of potatoes is already falling, and I think that I can reasonably safely give him an assurance that the price will not rise again. As for next year, the Price Review has specifically added an extra 10s. to encourage rather more acreage and that should help the position. The hon. Member spoke about the standard quantities, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark). These are things which the Government must consider carefully in the next months with the N.F.U.s. It is a machinery point but it must be carefully considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, also referred to the price of feedingstuffs. This is important to the farmers in his area and I appreciate his point.
  I feel that the important thing in the debate is that it has been made abundantly clear that there is growth available for the home farmers if they are prepared to take the opportunity to get it. Ours is not a restrictive policy. I believe that what my right hon. Friend has said will have removed the anxieties which the industry has had over the problems of imports. I believe that the farming industry in Great Britain is as efficient as any in the world and that from today farmers will have the confidence to go forward and plan their arrangements sensibly.
  Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 232.

  Division

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Abse Leo

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Ballenger, Rt. Hon F, J

  Airtsley, William

  Bacon, Miss Allce

  Bence, Cyril

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Beaney, Alan

  Blackburn, F

  Blyton, William

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pentland, Norman

  Boardman, H.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Holman, Percy

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bowles, Frank

  Hooson, H. E.

  Probert, Arthur

  Boyden, James

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Randall, Harry

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hoy, James H.

  Rankin, John

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Reid, William

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Callaghan, James

  Hunter, A. E.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Chapman, Donald

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Collick, Percy

  Jeger, George

  Ross, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Short, Edward

  Cronin, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Kelley, Richard

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  King, Dr. Horace

  Small, William

  Darling, George

  Lawson, George

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Deer, George

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Steele, Thomas

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Stonehouse, John

  Dempsey, dames

  Lubbock, Eric

  Stones, William

  Diamond, John

  McBride, N.

  Taverne, D.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacColl, James

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McInnes, James

  Thornton, Ernest

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Finch, Harold

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Timmons, John

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Tomney, Frank

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wade, Donald

  Forman, J. C.

  Mason, Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, Tudor

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Milne, Edward

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Mitchison, G. R,

  Wigg, George

  Ginsburg, David

  Moody, A. S.

  Wilkins, W. A,

  Gooch, E. G.

  Morris, John

  Willey Frederick

  Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moyle, Arthur

  , Williams, D J. (Neath)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, LI (Abertillery)

  Grey, Charles

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams W. R. (Openshaw)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Oram, A. E.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Woof, Robert

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Parker, John

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hannan, William

  Parkin, B. T.

  Harper, Joseph

  Pavitt, Laurence

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  . Charles A. Howell and

  Healey Denis;

  Peart, Frederick

  Mr. McCann.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Dance, James

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Buck, Anthony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Allason, James

  Bullard, Denys

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Burden, F. A.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Doughty, Charles

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Drayson, G, B.

  Balnlel, Lord

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Barter, John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Cole, Norman

  Farr, John

  Biffen, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Foster, John

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&Stone)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Costain, A. P.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Bossom, Hon. Clive

  Coulson, Michael

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Gammans, Lady

  Box, Donald

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gardner, Edward

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Braine, Bernard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Brewis, John

  Cunningham, Knox

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Bromley-Davertport,Lt.-Col,SirWalter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goodhew, Victor

  562

  563

  Gough, Frederick

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Gower, Raymond

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Grant-Ferris, Rt.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Roots, William

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Grosvenor, Rt.-Col. R. G.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gurden, Harold

  MacArthur, Ian

  Seymour, Leslie

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McLaren, Martin

  Sharpies, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Shaw, M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Smithers, Peter

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maddan, Martin

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maitland, Sir John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Hay, John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mawby, Ray

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hiley, Joseph

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Mills, Stratton

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side

  Hobson, Sir John

  Miscamphell, Norman

  Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, t

  Hocking, Philip N.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, John

  Temple, John M.

  Hollingworth, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Heave, Airey

  Thompson,SirRichard(Croydon,S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Howard, Hon. G. It. (St. Ives)

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Turner, Colin

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir Jo

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  James, David

  Partridge, E.

  Walder, David

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Walker, Peter

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Percival, Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Wall, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wells John (Maidstone)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Whitelaw, William

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pitkington, Sir Richard

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  pott, Percival)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kirk, Peter

  Pitman, Sir James

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Powell, Rt. Hon, J. Enoch

  Wise, A. R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Woollam, John

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Worsley, Marcus

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES,

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Rees, Hugh

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Longbottom, Charles

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Mr. J. E. B Hill

  Original Question again proposed.
  Sir Stephen McAddenrose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIR-
  564
  MAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING AND GRASSLAND SCHEMES)
  10.8 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
  That the Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Scheme the following five Schemes, that is to say, the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1963, die Grassland Renovation (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1963, the Grassland Renovation (Scotland) Scheme, 1963, the Winter Keep (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1963, and the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme, 1963, if that is agreeable to the House.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: We shall not object, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we shall be rather critical of this procedure because we have had a long day on agriculture, and, although I know that these things are done by mutual arrangement, to discuss now so many Schemes affecting not only England and Wales but Scotland is not really satisfactory. I know that some of my hon. Friends from Scotland would have preferred these matters to be discussed at another time. In the last Division there were nearly 40 Government abstentions. [Laughter] The Patronage Secretary knows that that is true there were 40 abstentions on a main agriculture debate.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I merely inquired whether it was agreeable to the House to take the six Schemes together. If it is not, we shall take them separately.
  Mr. Peart: We naturally accept that we should have a general debate, but we rather resent the manner in which the Government are going about this, particularly since 40 Members of the Government have abstained from voting in a main debate.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: It would seem to me that the Scheme which is separate from the others is that
  566
  dealing with fertilisers. Could that be kept separate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The suggestion is that that one shall be kept separate.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I assume that if we take all these Schemes together, we shall have a Scottish Minister to reply to the points which will be raised on Scotland. because Scottish Members have been the main participants in this debate in past years?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Hon. Members will appreciate that the three Schemes—the Ploughing Grants Scheme, the Grassland Renovation Scheme and the Winter Keep Scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the other three for Scotland are interwoven among each other and, therefore, it is convenient to discuss them together. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be replying to any points which Scottish Members may wish to raise in the debate.
  With permission, I will touch only on the few significant differences in the Scottish arrangements, leaving my hon. Friend to deal with any Scottish points which are raised. I do not feel justified in detaining the House with a lengthy exposition of each of the Schemes, because for many years ploughing grants have provided us with familiar and sometimes controversial debates. But in grassland renovation and winter keep we are breaking new ground with two new grants. However, they are reasonably fresh in the minds of many hon. Members because we had very extensive discussions about them in Committee upstairs. Hon. Members who were not there will, I am sure, have had the opportunity to read the debates and to find out all the information that they wish to have on this subject. I hope that I shall have the approval of hon. Members if I confine myself to a fairly brief outline of the Schemes and take a little more time to develop the relationship between the three Schemes, and then take a look at this wider approach to grassland and tillage in general.
  The Ploughing Grants Scheme is on lines which hon. Members are well accustomed to discussing. There are two significant changes this year. For the Part I grant, payable on land which has been under grass for at least three years, we

  567
  are reducing the rate from £7 to £5 an acre as was foreshadowed in the Annual Review by my right hon. Friend. For the Part II grant, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has fairly described as a kind of reclamation grant, we are advancing the age at which grassland can come into the Scheme. For some years past the qualifying date has been 1st June, 1946, but we shall now be admitting land which has been continuously under grass since 1st June, 1951. The rate for Part II grants remains at £12 an acre and is payable on land which calls for a considerable outlay if it is to be brought into a reasonable state of cultivation.
  It has been the practice, I understand, in the past to give the House some details of the payments which have been made on the acreages and the amount which has been ploughed up during the preceding year. For this purpose, I shall take the financial year 1962–63, since it is the latest year for which I have figures. During that year in the United Kingdom as a whole, £11·3 million was paid to 180,350 applicants who ploughed up a total of 1·6 million acres. The bulk of that expenditure was on the £7 grant. There were only 7,250 applications for the £12 grant, covering 52,000 acres at a cost of approximately £630,000.
  Taking the scheme as a whole and breaking it down into the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, 68 per cent., or £7·7 million, went to England and Wales, 10 per cent., or £1·2 million, to Northern Ireland and 22 per cent., or £2·4 million, to Scotland. All these figures are virtually unchanged compared with those of the previous financial year.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: Can the hon. Gentleman break down the figure for England and Wales?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For Wales it was 10 per cent. and for England 58 per cent.
  During the debates over the years, there has been sustained but by no means unanimous criticism concerning the general principle of the ploughing grant. The burden of the argument has been that we were paying the farmer for what he should do in any event.
  568
  Some hon. Members have questioned whether the grants have real value to the small farmer or to the dairy farmer. I do not go all the way with those criticisms, certainly not with the suggestion that there is no place on the small farm for the plough. It is not true. It is particularly significant that of the £7 million paid out for England and Wales for field husbandry grants under the Small Farmers Scheme, over £5 million was paid for ploughing operations on small farms specifically. Those who have urged us to drop the ploughing grant would do well to remember that when last they were discontinued, between 1949 and 1951, the United Kingdom tillage area declined by about 1 million acres.
  A further point on which there has been wide agreement in the House and in agricultural circles is that the Government would not be justified in tampering with the ploughing grants, much less in doing away with them, without putting forward an alternative in their place.
  That brings me to the first of the new Schemes, which is the Grassland Renovation Scheme, and later I will be touching on the Winter Keep Scheme. Under the former, we are offering grants of £4 per acre for renovating permanent grassland which is at least seven years old and is both suitable and adequately prepared for this technique of improvement. By adequately prepared "I mean particularly any essential preliminary drainage work, which we spoke about in Standing Committee, and which could be eligible for the payment of drainage grant under the appropriate Act. This point was raised in Standing Committee both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard).
  The full scope of renovating operations under the Scheme is contained in the Schedule. To qualify, a programme must consist of a combination of these operations costing at least £6 per acre net—that is, excluding anything such as fertilisers, which are already subsidised. On the other hand, the cost of spreading these fertilisers would be included in the £6 as this is an operation which is not subsidised, as lime-spreading operations are.

  569
  In estimating the cost, we shall adopt a general rate which takes account of farmers' labour costs, overheads, machinery depreciation and the like, and will allow tolerances for local or special conditions. In other words, flexibility is one of the keynotes of the scheme. It has been drawn up in such a way that the farmer can—and should and must—get together with the advisory officer, or with his equivalent in Scotland, and settle upon a series of operations which are best suited for the type and condition of the sward and the renovation which the farmer desires to undertake bearing in mind any earlier treatment that the sward may have received. The grant will be paid on satisfactory completion of these operations.
  There is one point of detail which I should mention. We do not propose to pay this new grant on top of the field husbandry grant for renovation which is already available under the Small Farmer Scheme. The Field Husbandry grant was purposely fixed relatively high at £9 per acre because no renovation grant was generally available at the time.
  I turn to the Winter Keep Scheme which all along has been designed specifically for the livestock rearer in the hill areas. We want to encourage him towards greater self-sufficiency in his winter feeding arrangements and we are offering £2 an acre for approved crops grown for that purpose. In Scotland there are three rates at 30s., 50s., and 80s. which differentiate in favour of poorer land of the higher type and which are expected to result in payments averaging out overall at about £2 an acre. In Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill there were differing views about who should get these grants; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton moved to recommit the Bill and the matter was then brought before the House.
  I do not propose to re-enter these arguments for and against the inclusion of the upland dairy farmers in particular or the marginal producers generally. The Scheme inevitably follows the Act in restricting payments to those engaged in predominantly livestock rearing enterprises on predominantly livestock rearing land. Tile list of eligible crops is contained in the Schedule to the Order and has been deliberately drawn in wide terms
  570
  so as to cover the different systems and practices in the hill areas of the four parts of the United Kingdom. Oats, for instance, have been included because of their traditional importance as winter feed, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but all other price-guaranteed crops are excluded.
  There are two matters of detail which I may usefully bring to the notice of the House in this connection. First is the eligibility point. This is expressed not in terms of fields or tracts of land but of agricultural units, which may sometimes be two or more farms, and provided they are genuinely worked together —indeed, it may be three or four—as a single livestock rearing unit or single livestock rearing enterprise they would qualify. There may be instances where winter keep for hill animals is grown on kinder lower lying land in the bottom of a valley, perhaps, and even some distance away. I think we should accept these arrangements provided we are satisfied that the combined unit is a single livestock rearing enterprise.
  The second point is that the grant should be restricted to the acreage needed to provide winter keep for livestock expected to be wintered on the unit. We are not hoping to help the small minority of hill farmers who may be in a position to grow surpluses for sale, nor will the grant be paid on crops grown for summer grazing.
  Mr. Harold Davies: When the hon. Gentleman says single livestock rearing unit in the upland or marginal areas, does he imply that livestock must be the main occupation?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, indeed. The main purpose of this is that it should be mainly for livestock rearing units—that is, for units with at least 60 per cent. of that type of land and with that type of return. I think this was mentioned recently at Question Time.
  I turn to the differences between the Schemes and their relationship, and this will show the point of taking the three Schemes together. I have given no more than a bare outline. I think I can conveniently show first the relationship between the ploughing grant and the renovation grant.
  I am sure it is generally accepted that the £12 grant in Part II has made a

  571
  steady and useful contribution towards reclaiming the very oldest forms of permanent grassland. At the other extreme, the £7 grants, which are now becoming £5, have given a real stimulus to ley farming. Between the two extremes lies the older permanent grassland for which ploughing is neither the only nor necessarily the best approach to improvement for one's own farm purposes.
  Hitherto ploughing grant has been the only possible form of assistance which has been available to a farmer with this type of land, and a recent enquiry in England and Wales showed that nearly half of the £7 grants were being paid for ploughing grassland that was at least seven years old.
  Here is the "gap" which the Grassland Renovation Scheme, with its emphasis on the techniques of surface treatment, will fill adequately. Given proper renovation, we believe that suitable permanent grassland will endure for some time after these operations have been carried out, and we do not propose to entertain applications for a further renovation grant for seven years after the initial one. Renovated grassland will also be disqualified from ploughing grant during that period because we do not want to encourage the farmer to undo the good work that he has done by renovation.
  Next I come to the inter-relationship between the Ploughing Grants and the Winter Keep Schemes. In the same way that we want to offer an alternative to the ploughing grant as an instrument for improving grassland, similarly, as far as winter keep is concerned we want to help livestock rearers whose enterprise does not necessarily attract benefit from the price support, does not revolve around a monthly milk cheque, and does not necessarily fit in with the traditional pattern of taking the plough round the farm. One of their main problems in present day conditions is to overwinter their stock in sufficient numbers to bring in a fair return without undue reliance on having to buy a lot of feed. As we know, this acreage is an expensive item.
  We want to encourage them to get the maximum they can out of their limited acreage. The ploughing grant, with its emphasis on ley farming and rotational cropping, does not necessarily operate in
  572
  that direction, and it is against this background that we are offering farmers the winter keep grant as an alternative to the ploughing grant. They will be able to make their choice field by field.
  If they choose ploughing grant, the crop which they sow, and the three succeeding crops, will not be eligible for winter keep grant. The effect is to disqualify the land from earning winter keep until much the same time as it could earn a further ploughing grant if it had been immediately reseeded to grass after the initial ploughing.
  For convenience I shall illustrate the position in terms of the flat rate of £2 per acre which we are proposing to bring into operation in England and Wales. In Scotland much will depend upon the grading of the land, and for all practical purposes this option between winter keep and ploughing grant will only bite on the land for which the rate of 30s. per acre is proposed.
  The first point is that not all hill farmers will need to make the choice between ploughing grant and winter keep grant. For example, those who from time to time can take a crop of hay from their permanent grass will not be thinking of ploughing it, and for them the winter keep grant will simply be a new and additional benefit of £2 per acre. Similarly, those who can take four winter keep crops in successive years will stand to gain by claiming £8—£2 per year for four years—in winter keep grants instead of an immediate payment of £5 for the ploughing grant. By the same token the ploughing grant will be the natural choice for the man who is mainly growing cash crops and only fits an occasional winter keep crop into his rotation.
  The kind of farmer who will need to take a careful look at this option and weigh up what it is worth his while to do is the man who in the space of four years plans to take three winter keep crops and one cash crop. He will need to decide whether it is better to take the outright £5 ploughing grant on the initial ploughing operation, or to receive £6 in winter keep grant over the next four years. The pattern in Scotland will differ from this, because the rates of winter keep grant will vary; they will

  573
  go from 30s. up the scale for the three different types of land.
  We are concerned that there should be no confusion in farmers' minds about the effect of the option, and if the Schemes are approved—and I hope that they will be—we shall spell it all out in detail in a leaflet which will be sent out so that farmers can decide what to do with their fields and will know what rate of grant they will be able to get.
  Turning quickly to the grassland renovation and the winter keep grants, there is no question of an option between them, nor of an automatic disqualification on winter keep grant from grass crops taken from a renovated sward. On the other hand, we do not want to see renovated grassland mowed prematurely simply to earn winter keep. Depending on the grassland itself, and the renovation programme which is adopted, there may be fields from which the proper follow-up treatment for, say, the first year would be to graze the sward rather than to cut it. This explains the provision to pay winter keep grant when—but not until—it would be sound farming practice to take a crop. This is a matter on which we should naturally look for technical opinion from the N.A.A.S. officers who will help to shape the renovation programmes.
  Finally, and this will illustrate to hon. Members how closely these Schemes are inter-related, there is a technical problem which touches upon all three of them. In my analysis of the methods of improving older permanent grassland, I pointed to renovation as an alternative to ploughing and direct reseeding. We are anxious that the choice between these methods should be based on technical considerations and should not be influenced by questions of eligibility for winter keep. That is why grassland which is at least seven years old and which is ploughed up and directly reseeded to grass will not be disqualified from winter keep for the normal period but will be treated in exactly the same way as renovated sward. It will earn the winter keep grant as soon as it would be sound farming practice to mow the new grass rather than to graze it.
  It may be of convenience to the House if I give a quick break-down of the cost of the Scheme. I emphasise that this
  574
  is only an estimate because one does not know what farmers will opt for, but the rough figures for these two grants in England and Scotland are as follows. For winter keep in England and Wales, £1,100,000, approximately, Scotland, £1,300,000. Ploughing-up grant, England and Wales, £5,200,000, Scotland, £1,200,000. Grass renovation, England and Wales approximately £1 million, Scotland about £60,000. I emphasise that these are only estimates for the first full year because it is very difficult to know exactly how farmers will react to these schemes and how they will opt for each particular one as the choice is so wide.
  To sum up on the six Schemes before the House, we believe that ploughing grants have played and can continue to play a useful part in improving our grassland and in maintaining its balance with tillage, but there is room for encouraging intensive surface treatment of older permanent grassland and for giving upland livestock rearers a special incentive to produce all possible grass and arable crops needed to overwinter their stock.
  Our answer to the first problem is the Grassland Renovation Scheme, and in a full year we hope that at least a quarter of a million acres in the United Kingdom will benefit from this treatment and qualify for upwards of £1 million in grants. Our answer to the second is the Winter Keep Scheme, and to the extent that hill farmers prefer it to the ploughing grant we foresee payments in a full year of over £2½. million in the United Kingdom.
  We expect the additional Exchequer payments under the new Schemes will be broadly offset by the reduction in the take up and the rate for Part 1 ploughing grants. I am glad to say that both new schemes have the full backing of the industry and the N.F.U. In this survey I have sought to pick out all the salient points in each of the schemes and to explain how they are interlocked with each other. I hope, therefore, that these six Schemes—the three for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the three along similar lines for Scotland—will find the approval of hon. Members because, as I have said, they will be of considerable benefit to the farming community.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Do the estimated costs which the right hon. Gentleman gave include administrative expenses and, if so, what proportion of the total will go on administration?
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Administrative costs are included in the figures I gave, but I am afraid that I do not have a breakdown of them.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The estimated figure of £60,000 for grassland renovation in Scotland seems an extremely small sum for a vast area like Scotland. With our mountainous regions and peak lands, and considering the amount of soil reclamation needing to be done, £60,000 is an extraordinarily small amount. It does not seem worth bothering about.
  Breaking the sward, the removal of matted grass and all the other things described by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) earlier in the day represents a lot of hard work. I regret that my hon. Friend is not here. but earlier he read some extracts from the written advice being issued by the advisory officers of the Ministry of Agriculture. He told us about the advice on the latest methods for breaking down and smashing the sward. He described how a lot of this hard work is no longer necessary. Despite all this, we are now proposing to give grants to farmers who carry out a process which, according to my hon. Friend, the latest advice says is not necessary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Charley told us about the way he used to break up the land years ago. He spoke at some length about the process of harrowing. Incidentally, it is a harrowing business to bring Schemes of this sort before hon. Members at this late hour. Why should a farmer have to carry out processes to attract this grant when the advisory officers are saying that such processes are no longer necessary? It is nonsense for one Government Department to offer a grant to a farmer to do something which another Department says is unnecessary for the improvement of his grass. I strongly object to the Government using the taxpayers' money to carry out some process which the experts say is unnecessary.
  576
  We are then told about how a farmer must spend not less than £6 per acre on cultivating, harrowing, breaking the sward and so on. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley were here. He would soon put us right on this matter. He showed us how all these processes were out of date. He explained that one merely had to lime the soil, fertilise it and put something else on, although I cannot remember what it was.
  Mr. Denys Bollard: I, too, heard the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), and I can assure the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that he is not doing justice to his hon. Friend's remarks. His hon. Friend said that whereas previously the advisory service of the Ministry had been advocating ploughing grassland, it now advised cultivation other than ploughing, with fertiliser and liming treatment—which, as far as I understand, is provided for in the Scheme.
  Mr. Bence: That is quite right, I am not complaining about the application of lime, farmyard manure or other fertilisers, because that is the advice given, but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the other processes are not necessary. I shall read in HANSARD tomorrow morning what was said. I thought the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley and Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) were about the best in the earlier debate. I always listen to these agricultural debates, because so much of the taxpayers' money is involved. We laymen have, in the past, left too many decisions on spending money to the farming lobby in the House. It is time those of us who know nothing about farming elicited some information.
  What my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has told us has been very illuminating—
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: I, too, heard the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), but would not the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) agree that there is a vast difference between a plough and a pitchpole?
  Mr. Bence: I have not the foggiest idea what a pitchpole is, but I would be grateful to the hon. Member if he would explain—
  Mr. Stodart: Not now.
  Mr. Bence: Well, I cannot contradict the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know what a pitchpole is.
  I hope we shall get more information on winter keep and why the system of grants should he different in Scotland from that in England and Wales. In England and Wales, the farmers get £2 an acre, but in Scotland there are three classes; Class A attracts a grant of 30s. an acre, Class B, £2 10s., and Class C £4—
  Mr. Hooson: Class distinction.
  Mr. Bence: There are no such classes in England—the grant is a uniform £2 an acre. I assume that even the best land gers that amount, whereas in Scotland the man with the best land gets only 30s. Why is there this discrimination? A man in England may have 500 acres of very good land. but he gets his £2 an acre, but a similar man in Scotland gets only 30s., but in Scotland, as the winner is longer, the cattle must be kept longer. It is quite unreasonable.
  If a farmer has good land in Surrey, Devon or Dorset, he gets a grant of £2 an acre, but the man in Scotland gets only 30s.—
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: How can anyone in Surrey get this grant?
  Mr. Bence: I suppose that, according to this document, if a farmer in Surrey is preparing his land for winter keep he will get £2 an acre if his purpose is purely to rear stock. Are there not farmers in Surrey who do that?
  Mr. Kitson: Not in Surrey.
  Mr. Bence: Then let us take Devonshire. Will that county qualify? There are uplands in Devonshire. I do not know whether the North Downs or the South Downs count as uplands, but I should have thought so. The grant would surely be applicable to Devonshire and Cornwall.
  These farmers, therefore, will have £2 an acre whereas farmers with the same sort of land in Scotland will have only 30s. This is discrimination against a Scottish farmer. We have this discrimination against anything Scottish all along the line, and that is why it is un-
  578
  reasonable that these Scottish Schemes should have to be debated in parallel with the English. We should have a half-day set aside for these matters which are so important to Scottish farmers. I hope that a Scottish Minister will give us a full explanation of the reasons for this discrimination.
  10.45 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I do not suppose my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be imagining that I am about to sound the Jubilate over these Schemes. [An HON. MEMBER: Out of order."] I strongly expressed my views on 10th May, 1961, when we were debating the Ploughing Grants Scheme, and last year I would have intervened had it not been that I was obeying the convention of the House in that having been in the Chair earlier in the day on another matter it would not have been proper for me to have intervened in the debate.
  We had the assurance of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, as reported in column 1087 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 14th May, 1962, when he indicated that the Government would be introducing schemes, now embodied in these Schemes, which would bring in the whole question of winter keep and renovation of permanent grassland. To that extent I welcome the trend which is emerging. In 1961 I did my best to indicate that I thought that this ley farming was scientifically unsound and was producing a type of food for cattle which was altering the whole physical structure of the animal and possibly having deleterious effects on the health of the nation.
  I have no doubt that if we eliminate all deep tap-rooted weeds out of the grass we deny the animal certain essential constituents in the grass which would ensure an adequate and scientifically sound diet for the human consumer. I have little doubt that we are still only tinkering with this whole subject and that we may find as the years go by that some of the most dread diseases are being partly encouraged by the type of farming in which we have been indulging, and not least cancer.
  I am certain that as we go on we shall find these dread human diseases are often attributable to defects which are the result of faulty diet, and no diet is

  579
  more likely to be involved than meat which has been wrongly fed. If we have been denying animals which have been feeding on grass the right chemical diet we can be sure that this will have a damaging effect on the human system, not least the liver, which is very often the source of major ills in the human being. There has been no direct grant to agriculture which has been more outrageously abused than the ploughing grant. That was one of the principal reasons why I tried to raise some objections to this type of grant in 1961. I said that if we proceeded on those lines I would be prepared to vote against the Order.
  I was thankful that we got the indication we did last year, that we would be getting Schemes dealing with permanent grass in order to try to improve our permanent grassland, rather than adopting the three-year ley system of rye grasses and so forth, based on the assumption that if they were kept in the ground for more than three years they would go steadily back and that, therefore, they should be ploughed up and kept in the tillage rotation. Such a system might have done us some good in wartime, and in fact I believe it did, when we were denied grains, but it is an inexcusable policy in peacetime.
  For that reason, I welcome the trend to pay more attention to our permanent grassland. Over the years, while the ploughing grants have been in operation and while we have been encouraging the sowing of leys which have been ploughed up every three years or so, we have destroyed a lot of our permanent grass which can never be restored. If one studies the life cycle of grass—and I have done so along the lines of the famous Frenchman, M. Voisin, who has written some interesting books on the subject—one can see how the lean years follow if the leys are left in the ground for too long. If we continue to plant and drill the type of leys that we have, we shall have to plough them up in order to get the land in good heart.
  The sooner we can encourage farmers to plant permanent leys again and look after the permanent pasture, the better. That is one thing which is absent from these Orders which we are considering. We are looking after what permanent
  580
  pasture remains. We are encouraging winter keep, but we are still carrying an at £5 instead of £7 an acre with this three-year ley idea. I regret this. I want to see it taken right out of British agriculture altogether. It is unsound scientifically; it is open to the most monstrous abuse.

  Farmers, some having just bought their farms, mine the land for wheat, after which they put it down to ley farming on a three-year basis and take the three-year grant then they mine it again, and then down it goes to grass again, and again the ploughing grant is claimed. This is an outrageous misuse of public money, and it should be stopped. I want to see good farmers withdraw from this sort of practice.
  I support the encouragement of good farming of our permanent pastures, and I congratulate the Government on having introduced this Scheme dealing with permanent pasture; but the Government must realise that if they make the ploughing grant for three year leys greater than that which they are giving for the encouragement of proper farming of permanent pasture, they are running the risk of discouraging the man who ought to be encouraged. If we are going to have a £5 grant for the short-term ley to be ploughed up after three years, and only £4 for the permanent pasture, that is the wrong way round. It should be the other way round.
  As I say, I hope to see the encouragement of the short-term ley abolished. I have had some little experience of this sort of thing—I admit not in this country but in Southern Ireland—and I have seen what has happened when good permanent pasture has been ploughed up as a result of Government action during wartime. I have seen how the animals would always go, when possible, to the older pastures where there were deep tap-rooted weeds, bringing up trace elements from the subsoil, and how they would avoid these new leys if they had the opportunity. That is a lesson which the Government should bear in mind more than they have done in past years. The time will come when we shall look back on this period when we have encouraged the growing of short-term rye grasses as one of the most deplorable in the history of British agriculture.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mir. E. G. Willis: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has said. I think that it was the year before last when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland promised that the Part I ploughing grant, at least, would be looked at again. For the past few years, there has been general criticism of the Part I ploughing grant. and the criticism has not been confined to this side of the House. It has come from all parts. The Part I ploughing grant would be looked at, we were told, in connection with the abolition of the marginal agricultural production grants. The two were linked together. We were told that both would he examined and something would be put in their place.
  Now we have the substitute for them, and my first criticism is that the Part I ploughing grant is still to be £5, which is only £2 less than it was previously. As well as I can calculate it quickly, there will still be a considerable amount of ploughing grant as a result of this Scheme. I think that we expect to pay out a sum of about £1·2 million in Scotland instead of £2·4 million. Is that right?
  What is the position as regards the Part 11 ploughing grant? It has always appealed to me as being something in the nature of a reclamation grant. I do not know to what extent it is covered by other grants. Is the amount of land ploughed up in Scotland and qualifying for the Part II grant declining or remaining fairly static? If it is not declining and there is still a fair amount more to be done in Scotland, it is beneficial to have the grant at the level it was before.
  Turning to the Grassland Renovation Scheme and the Winter Keep Scheme, to what extent will the administration of these grants be likely to affect the people who are losing money by the stopping of the marginal agricultural production grants? The three Schemes are linked together, because, obviously, farmers will have to make a choice as to what they intend to do and what grants they wish to qualify for. Does that permit of sufficient flexibility to cover a number of people who will probably suffer hardship when the marginal agricultural production grants come to an end?
  At this hour of the night I am not accustomed to making long speeches, but
  582
  there is one other matter to which I would draw attention. In the Estimates for this year there is £2,500,000 for ploughing up and £740,000 for marginal production assistance grants—a total of about £3,250,000. I notice that the total under these three Schemes is expected to be £1·3 millions for winter keep in Scotland, £1·2 million for ploughing up, and £60,000 for grassland renovation. If my calculations are correct, that makes a total of just over £2,500,000, so that some £750,000 less is to come in as a result of these Schemes.
  We have argued in the past that we were not in favour of the Part 1 ploughing grant because we believed that a great deal of it was wasted and because we thought there would be considerable abuse and because much ploughing up was done simply for the sake of getting the grant. We have said that the money could he spent in better ways in Scotland. We have said that there would probably be bad consequences from giving the grant in some cases, but although we have criticised it in that way we have also said that the money could be used to better advantage. We have pointed out that there were large areas capable of reclamation and that there could be an extension of valuable areas.
  Therefore, the argument in the past has been that we would be better off in spending the money in some other way. It does not seem to me that what we are doing is the best thing. By these three Schemes the Government are saving £750,000, which is a 25 to 30 per cent. cut. Therefore, I am not quite certain that what the Government are doing is entirely beneficial. Personally, I would rather have seen something more positive which would have provided inducements to enable essential work to be done. I would rather have seen that than this cut. I am glad, however, that the Government have looked at the Part 1 grants, although I hope it is realised that this money could have been put to better use than it will be under these Part I ploughing up grants.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I have always understood that these Schemes were to help those people who have been helped up to now by the marginal grants, and when

  583
  I recall the excitement of a year or two ago when it was suggested that the M.A.P. grants should be abolished, I am reminded that it demonstrates to a certain extent the comparative welcome afforded by the industry to these Schemes.
  At this hour, I want to make only one or two brief observations. I am glad of the distinction made in the Winter Keep Scheme between Scotland and England. It makes at least some provision for the difficulties experienced by the farmers in Scotland, although I should stress that the Scottish N.F.U. feels strongly that the average rate of grant in Scotland under the Scheme should be at least £3 an acre and that barley should be included in the Scheme.
  Obviously, the administration of the Scheme in Scotland will to a considerable extent affect the fortunes of the individual farmers who benefit by it. I hope that the administration will be reasonably flexible, bearing in mind that anything that encourages the raising of livestock must be of value in the context of our agricultural policy. Indeed, one of the recent crises in the industry has been the unusual scarcity of calves coming forward.
  I should like to ask two questions. First, will a farmer get an acreage payment for the same field two years running if, for example, he sows it for hay in the first year and takes a cut of silage in the second year? Secondly, will there be any alternative to the Winter Keep Scheme? Will the farmer have any choice of registering under another scheme as well as under this one?
  I welcome the Schemes and am sure that they will contribute much to the solution of the difficult farming problems in the uplands.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland three questions. First, I am sure that all farmers who are concerned about the withdrawal of the Marginal Agricultural Production Scheme will be grateful to him if he can indicate how far it is likely that the same farmers will benefit under these Schemes and the extent to which they are likely to benefit. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could assure them
  584
  that in its administration the Scheme is likely to cover the same sort of land as is suffering, or is likely to suffer, from the withdrawal of M.A.P. grants.
  Secondly, as the Under-Secretary is, no doubt, aware, it is not always easy to discover whether a holding is a croft. It has not been made easier in all cases by the recent Acts. It would be an advantage to farmers, who do not have a great deal of time to read all Acts and Orders, to have it said simply under which scheme they are to apply. Many farmers in my constituency. in Orkney in particular, are owners but for certain purposes they are nevertheless deemed to be crofters. I understand that if they or crofters properly so-called are already entitled to grants under other Schemes, they will not be entitled to apply under this one. I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will clarify the position of owner-occupiers in the crofting counties who may be in doubt which scheme applies to them.
  Thirdly, what exactly is the meaning of paragraph 7 of the Grassland Renovation (Scotland) Scheme, 1963? It states:
  "A grant under this scheme shall not be paid where, within the immediately preceding period commencing with 1st September, 1963, any previous such grant has been made in respect of the same land."
  I take it that "land" is construed literally and that it does not mean in respect of the same holding: that is to say, a man may conceivably have a grant for one part of land which he holds and he may still be entitled to apply for grant for the next period for another parcel of land which he occupies.
  "Preceding period commencing with 1st September, 1963,"
  presumably means an annual period; that is to say, if a man has received a grant for the period 1963–64, he will not be entitled to a grant for 1964–65. But he may be entitled to apply for a grant for a succeeding period after 1964–65.
  I should be grateful if the hon. Member would clarify those points.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Stodart: I have three brief comments to make on the Schemes. On the occasions on which I have taken part in the debates on the ploughing grants, I have always maintained that it was not certain that the

  585
  subsidy should be payable for grass ploughed up after three years. This is too short a time. I wish that the £7 an acre had not been cut but that instead the period had been lengthened from three years to six or seven years. That would automatically have channelled the ploughing grants into the upland arras, because in the lowlands they would not have kept their grass down for that length of time.
  I welcome the Grassland Renovation Scheme, which is tackling a worth-while project. It reminded me of a comment made a year or two ago by the chairman of the Scottish Agricultural Industries at what is probably one of the best-farmed grass holdings in Scotland —at Leaths near Castle Douglas, owned by Imperial Chemical Industries. The chairman then commented that farmers who manage their grass well can make twice the money of those who do not. He bore that out, for within three years on that farm the costs fell by £800 and the income rose by £3,500, entirely due to a shake-up in grassland management.
  The Winter Keep Scheme has caused farmers in Scotland a good deal of interest. May I ask one or two questions about it? Referring to paragraph 2 (2) on page 2, will my hon. Friend fulfil the undertaking which was given to interpret the words "predominantly" and "to any material extent" in as flexible a way as he can? I believe—and I am supported in this belief by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland—that the grading principle for this land is a good principle because it moves towards paying the higher grant on the land which is most difficult and least productive. How is the process of grading getting on and when will farmers who will be affected know what their grade is?
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised a point which interested me in his calculation of present subsidies and the new subsidies. We do not know how much of the new ploughing grant will go to the lowlands and how much into the marginal areas. Has my hon. Friend any figures which he can give us about that?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) mentioned the question of barley. There is a case on strictly good husbandry grounds for including barley. I know
  586
  that oats is the traditional crop and that oats straw has played a wonderful part in cattle production. But we all know what is being done with beef with the the barley crop, added to which there is no doubt that on the high ground, in particular in the late spring, one can sow barley much later than oats and can get a much better crop. On that ground, I think that a good case could be made for including barley in the Scheme.
  In Committee I raised a point about a procedure whereby a farmer should be able to appeal to some body about the grading or about whether he was included in or excluded from the scheme. My hon. Friend said then that he would undertake to consider this matter. Can he say whether he has come to any conclusion? Has he considered, if he has come to any conclusion, having some sort of centralised body dealing uniformly with the whole of the Scottish winter keep grant or is he thinking of having rather more local bodies on which there would be members who would probably be thoroughly acquainted with the land under winter keep?
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: I want to ask one question. I welcome the Grassland Renovation Scheme, but what worries me is the cost of administering the Scheme if it is to be administered properly. I wonder if my hon. Friend, when he replies, could give us some idea of the anticipated cost of administration in proportion to the full cost of this Scheme, because I think that it is going to be terribly difficult for the Ministry really to discover exactly what operations have been carried out. I think it is very necessary to be certain that the grant is being paid after the work has been done. As I say. I wonder if my hon. Friend could give us that figure when he replies.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: A quarter past eleven! Such is always the fate of Scotland and, indeed, of agriculture. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, where are the people who were complaining earlier today that we had not sufficient opportunities to discuss agriculture. I remember that one hon. Gentleman opposite below the Gangway got rather heated about this. Of course, the debate which we had earlier was held because

  587
  the Opposition had decided to discuss the subject, but what we are dealing with at the moment are six Schemes which the Government are under obligation to bring before the House. They cannot avoid it. They have to do it.
  To my mind, these six Schemes, three for England and Wales and three for Scotland, are important subjects to which those interested in these individual problems should have been able in reasonable time, when their heads were clear, to apply themselves. This is really not a laughing matter, as it appears to be to some hon. Members opposite. It is a very serious matter indeed that we should be discussing these Schemes so late with all the usual pressures, the Scots, as usual, getting the blame for keeping the House up.
  The Government have a certain responsibility for the way they treat agriculture. The complexity of the matter, I think, was amply demonstrated by the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with it. I do not know of anyone who managed to get all the figures which he used. I am sorry to say that I did not. I think it is essential that we should have the figures and be able to assess them in relation to other Schemes on which the farmer, certainly the farmer in certain areas in Scotland, places a great deal of importance and who is very concerned about losing what was the marginal agricultural production grant.
  Quite frankly, with all the interlocking intricacies in relation to this matter, I think that it will be some time before any farmer will be able to find out what he can do and when he can do it, and how long it will be before he is qualified for another grant, if any. To take the odd man out, the hardy annual, the ploughing grant, many of us have expressed a certain measure of dismay that we are faced with relatively the same standby, because, if we take the cost of the others, which may well be construed as relatively much more important, we are left with the same old formula in relation to the ploughing grant.
  There is no doubt that any good farmer would do the ploughing anyway and leave his fields alone for the requisite time to enable them to recover. I do not think that there is any justification for spending the amount of money that we are plan-
  588
  ning to spend. The money could be put to far more beneficial uses. I suppose, though. that it depends on what one means by beneficial.
  One question which has not been asked is how do we reconcile what we are doing naw and the encouragement that we are giving to certain farmers who, by the nature of what they are doing are marginally relatively uneconomic, with what we were told in the major debate earlier today? There was a question mark against the Government's aims in relation to the expansion of production, yet what we are doing here is to encourage relatively uneconomic expansion.
  In what we are doing today we are harking back to what was promised in the Price Review of 1962, when the Government's policy was slightly different from what it is now. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present. He talked about the quinquennial courtship of the electorate. I never have any difficulty with the farmers in my constituency. When I think of what the right hon. Gentleman said today in relation to Commonwealth producers, and when I remember what has gone on during the past 18 months in connection with this problem of land reclamation and the renovation of grassland, and why we should do this and how we should do it, I begin to wonder.
  "…;no large scale schemes to rejuvenate hill land over a big area have been attempted…;
  If we are to reverse our policy two basic decisions must now be taken (1) To encourage the production of more home-killed mutton and lamb at a price which is economic to the farmer. Then either New Zealand must be encouraged to sell more of her meat elsewhere and rather less here, or the Government must help with a publicity campaign to sell British lamb in Europe. (2) To discourage excessive milk production"—
  this should be of interest in relation to the flexibility which we do not have in one of the Schemes before us-
  "and use the grazing saved for the fattening of the extra sheep from the hill country.
  Unless a major Government decision of this sort is taken and the industry is given a green light for a period of not less than 15 years, it is hard to believe that farmers will be willing or able to find the large amount of finance necessary."
  That appeared in an article headed "The Regeneration of Scottish Hill Land".

  589
  by Michael Noble, M.P. Ploughing grants are a mistake, and I think that this all stems from the Government being caught on the wrong foot.
  Then we come to the Winter Keep and Grassland Renovation Schemes. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) failed to notice the poetry of these Schemes. We read about the application of the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme, 1963:
  "Where it is tied to land situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath."
  I expected to see the Secretary of State in his kilt bringing this Scheme in with the bagpipes playing in the distance while he told us all about it and explained how he could not meet the wishes of the N.F.U. in Scotland in relation to what they thought would be an adequate spread of grant.
  We have an effort made here which certainly is not made in the English Scheme, which provides a flat £2 per acre. Here we have 30s. which can go up to 80s. People concerned with this land say that it could have started below 30s.—it could have started at 20s. —but it should have gone beyond 80s. to take in categories of land which should be considered in this respect. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why the Government decided to categorise land in this particular way and why they did not go very much further in reference to different types of land.
  Not all upland land is deserving of this grant, whereas from the point of view of economics and good husbandry 80s. is not enough for other land. An attempt is being made to replace a grant which people respected and in which discrimination was already present. This is one of the things which commended M.A.P. to the Scots. The amount spent on that, according to the latest available figures, was about £i million. I do not believe the figures are complete, but I understand that for 1962 the amount was somewhere about £743,000 and it has been much the same in the last cropping year.
  An answer must be given to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about whether those embraced by these Schemes will "lose out" altogether. In
  590
  his definition of "predominantly" the Under-Secretary should tell us whether farmers will be included who, because it suits the nature of their farms in those areas, go in for dairy farming to a certain extent. It is unfair to cut them out unless it is again the buyers. Judging from what has been said today, before long the buyers will be against beef, depending on how we interpret "standard quantities" and how they are to be related geographically. It may be that implicit in the article by the Secretary of State to which I have referred is the suggestion that the buyers want to get rid of excessive milk production and that this is implicit also in this Scheme.
  We have been told that the administrative costs of grassland renovation will be pretty high. I think that the figure of £300,000, or 10 per cent., was mentioned in Committee. I suppose that this expenditure in inevitable. This being so, why is the grant to be £4 per acre in relation to the minimum cost of £6 per acre? Considering the difference in areas, the average cost will be much higher. I should like to know what the average cost will be; although I appreciate that it will depend on what is done.
  An interesting article appeared in one of the farming journals this week on the reviving of dead land and, as far as I can see, £6 per acre would not cover the cost of the seed. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the comments made in the last couple of years by the experts in Scotland about the reclamation of marginal and sub-marginal land. J. D. Nutt, Advisory Economist at the Edinburgh School of Agriculture, has produced figures based on a survey that was carried out at Newton Stewart and other units. Referring to net costs, he wrote:
  "It has, however, been possible in a number of cases to arrive at a reasonable measure of the costs involved in the actual operations associated with reclamation after allowing for grants under ploughing, M.A.P. or the Livestock Rearing Acts. The available information on net costs can be summarised by saying that the average net cost for 22 cases worked out at £18 3s. 6d. per acre."
  For this type of upland farm this work involves a considerable expenditure—and the words I have just quoted appeared in the same booklet in which the article written by the Secretary of State, from which I quoted, appeared.
  We gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the sum of £7 per acre

  591
  was wasted because of what was done on a certain type of land. Thus there was no renovation and we did not get the production we should have got. It could have been £12 per acre—and remember that we are talking about the possibility of 17 million acres of rough grazing. Perhaps 46 per cent. of it could be covered. I do not know. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this can be done for £12 per acre, he must realise that it has not been done before and that the great bulk of the ploughing up grant option was based on the sum of £7 per acre. There is an obvious lesson to be drawn from this.
  Considering the type of work that had to be done, even £12 per acre was probably not enough. If so, the £4 per acre in relation to the minimum of £6 is totally inadequate. It may be that, once again, we will not be able to revive and regenerate the soil and the sward of these upland farms.
  Despite what I have said, I suppose that we will let these Schemes pass tonight. We never have the same Government spokesman speaking twice from the Scottish Office. I do not doubt at all that if we had another debate on the subject next week, we would have the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) taking her turn at it. Last year, we had to listen to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) on education—now we are to hear him on agriculture. I do not see the other Under-Secretary who then gave us the pledge that that would very likely be the last time.
  I hope that this will be the last time we will get this sort of patchwork, interrelated, interlocked, which does not add up to an effective policy to deal with the needs of our uplands farmers. And even with the ploughing grant there will be a considerable waste and unnecessary expenditure of money which could well have been devoted to more discriminating purposes elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the answer to the pleas of the N.F.U., not only about the limitation of the spread from 30s. to 80s. but about the exclusion of barley from the list of crops for winter keep.
  If we debate the two subjects together, nobody should be satisfied that the two
  592
  things we have been talking about and deciding make a coherent policy. They do not. I should like to know what the Government's long-term policy is for Scotland's smaller farms, the upland farms. I read an interesting article called "The Family Farm." That is what we are talking about tonight—not so much the business farm. How long will those farms last? There is a very considerable question mark, and I do not think that the answer has been given very fully by what we have heard tonight.
  11.37 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I am glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) appreciates the versatility of Scottish Under-Secretaries—as, indeed. we appreciate his versatility in dealing with so many subjects. Last year, when I was speaking on educational subjects, I was very conscious of facing an ex-schoolmaster, but now I think we are more nearly running level—
  Mr. Ross: We have a few more farms in the Kilmarnock area than the hon. Gentleman has in Rutherglen, and a Member representing Kilmarnock must be well up in farming, too.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I have done some very small-scale farming, so I have that to my credit. I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman did not this evening find a misprint—that is always a relief to me.
  The hon. Gentleman opened his remarks with a very pertinent comment on the importance of the farmers being able to appreciate, in this complex of schemes, precisely where the balance of their advantage lay in selecting their operations and planning ahead. In that, I hope that they will have received some guidance from the very carefully considered remarks of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.
  I will try, in a rather patchwork speech, to answer a number of questions raised, rather than try to review the whole subject again, but the main answers will, of course, come in the explanatory leaflets which we hope to issue before the Schemes come into operation, which will enable the agricultural community fully to appreciate the implications of the Schemes and their inter-relationship, and

  593
  make their decisions on that basis. We hope, too, that these farmers will turn to the advisory services for further background and support if they have any doubts about which course would be more advantageous to them.
  The subject of administrative costs was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and by other hon. Members, too. For the grassland renovation, to which the hon. Gentleman directed a lot of his remarks, the average administrative costs will be about 10 per cent., and the average expenditure by the farmer would probably be in the bracket of £8 or £9. Ten per cent. is a high administrative cost, but this is a Scheme which will involve prior inspection and obviously will mean travelling and work on the spot. Administrative costs will fall somewhat in line with those incurred in other schemes of the same kind which are subject to prior inspection.
  Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the cost was about £8 an acre?
  Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Member mentioned the figure of £6, but we think that on average it will work out in the £8 to £9 bracket overall on grassland renovation which, unlike the Winter Keep Scheme, is not limited to livestock rearing areas. This is one of the answers to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) who was worried that Scotland was proportionately not making as much use of this Scheme as was England. We expect substantially more use to be made of the Winter Keep Scheme in Scotland than in England.
  Mr. Ross: Even if the farmers obtain seed from the National Farmers' Union and use what they call the "hill reclamation mixture" it will cost £6 6s. an acre. Therefore, the figure of £8 is well out.
  Mr. Brooman-White: I take £8 for the limited degree of seeding which will be incurred under the renovation scheme rather than complete sowing out of new land. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) raised some points about the health aspects of grass husbandry. As a Scottish Under-Secretary I wear a statutory minimum of two hats, one of which is from the Department of Health and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no evidence at present of any ill effects
  594
  from our current methods of grassland husbandry.
  My hon. Friend and others have expressed some dislike of the ploughing grant arrangements. The general feeling in the debate has been that a reduction of the ploughing grant to £5 was a good thing. Certain hon. Members have gone further and wondered whether we would not have been wiser to discontinue the grant. Previous experience when that grant was discontinued showed a substantial going-out of cultivation. At one stage about 1 million acres had fallen away. Technical advice and experience indicate that a measure of ploughing grant is advantageous. Under these new Schemes it will be related to alternative forms of assistance and it is the considered view that the ploughing grant at the present level is still justified.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) were concerned with the relationship between these new schemes and M.A.P. There will be, of course, a variation. Certain farms under these new arrangements will be better off than they were under the M.A.P. arrangements. Some will not be so favourably placed. I do not want to give the impression in anything we say about the inter-relationship between the grants that one will break even. It is a changed situation which we think overall will be beneficial, and the money going into the hill areas will be slightly more than it was before. These assumptions are hound to be somewhat tentative at this stage.
  Here I pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) who asked about the total sums involved, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. We think on present estimates that the livestock rearing farms get just over £500,000 from the ploughing grant and about £700,000 from M.A.P. Under the new Schemes they will get the major share of £1–3 million for winter keep and a big share of £60,000 for renovation. By and large, the effect will be that the hill areas will get, in total, slightly more money under these Schemes than they did under previous ones, and we think—and the N.F.U. agrees—that the distribution of the money under these Schemes will he more beneficial to agriculture in general.
  Mr. Willis: I understand that the drop of something like 50 per cent. in the amount of the ploughing grants is likely to take place in the more prosperous lowland areas?
  Mr. Brooman-White: Not necessarily. I think that the balance of advantage will be in the upland areas, particularly those in Scotland, which would qualify for the highest rates of the winter keep scheme. The balance of choice will more clearly lie in the direction of taking up the winter keep grants.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige Gordon) asked about payments over a period of two successive years in respect of hay or silage. I think that is clear in the Scheme. It will certainly be made clear in the explanatory leaflets that one can qualify in successive years in respect of any of the eligible crops laid down in the schedule.
  Mr. Willis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am very interested in this redistribution of money. As I understand the matter, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, his argument appears to indicate that the drop from £7 to £5 in respect of Part I ploughing grants will discourage prosperous farmers in the lowland areas, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), from ploughing up in order to claim the grant.
  Mr. Brooman-White: What I said—I will put it the other way round, without wishing to argue the toss with the hon. Gentleman—is that in the more difficult farms of the hill areas, the balance of advantage will almost certainly lie in taking the winter keep grant.
  I should like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who asked me about the word predominantly". This also reflects on the point of who will or will not be eligible for these grants and the relationship with M.A.P. This was dealt with on the Report stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton), who
  596
  was a member of the Standing Committee, was concerned about this point and wanted us to look into the question of having a different definition of "eligible land". I think the House as a whole accepted that the description by my right hon. Friend of the general methods to be used in the administration of the Scheme was satisfactory and that it would not exclude people who sold a few churns of milk.
  To quote my right hon. Friend:
  "Normally, we should approve any case in which the return from milk, fat stock and crops was not more than, say, 40 per cent. of the total. In certain circumstances, we might find that, on a particular farm, an even higher proportion was justified, but it must be principally a hill farm within the context we all know"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th February, 1963 Vol. 671, c. 271–2.]
  I think the House accepted that reassurance, and I am glad to be able to repeat it this evening.
  Another important question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West with regard to eligibility and the relationship between the various levels of grant to be available in Scotland. He asked previously whether there would be some form of appeal or arrangements to assist in sorting out disputes, and we said that we should consider that. It is of particular interest in Scotland, of course, because of our division into three categories. Since our debates on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we have discussed the matter with the chairmen of the agricultural executive committees, with the National Farmers' Union and with the Scottish Landowners' Federation.
  We have decided to set up a national body drawn, in the main, from the membership of the A.E.C.s, probably with three members from each area. They will he appointed by the Secretary of State. This body will be given full information on the definitions and the criteria to be used by the Department in classifying farms, and it will be able to advise on general issues and individual cases. Where necessary, it will be able to help by forming inspecting panels from its membership to visit farms. We envisage such panels having, say, three members, one a local expert and the other two from different areas.

  597
  We hope thereby to meet the two necessary considerations which my hon. Friend mentioned in Committee, that these panels should both help to impose a general standard and also, through the local expert, advise on the particular circumstances of individual farms.
  The role will be advisory. The final responsibility will rest with my right hon. Friend. It is hoped to appoint this body and make a fuller announcement in the near future. We believe that it will make a substantial contribution in dealing with questions of doubt in establishing these different categories of farms.
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said in opening the debate, these Schemes have met with the general approval of the farming community and the Farmers' Union. I hope that they will be accepted by the House.
  Question put and agreed to,
  Resolved,
  That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
  Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Grassland Renovation (England and Wales and Northern Ireland Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]
  Grassland Renovation (Scotland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White
  Winter Keep (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]
  Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
  Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963 [draft laid before the House 15th May], approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

  ATCHAM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (OFFICE EXTENSION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  11.53 p.m.
  Sir John Langford-Holt: I regret having to detain the House and my hon. Friend at this time of night, and I am sad that, after many years in the House, I find it necessary to utter criticisms against one of the two local authorities which comprise the area of my constituency, many of the members of which are personal friends of mine. For many months now, I have tried to hold myself in a position between the two parties, and I have tried to effect, as far as it lay within my power, some form of reconciliation. I should have been prepared, had there been any sign or hope of reconciliation, to withhold the action I am taking tonight.
  The first fact to be understood in this dispute between the Atcham Rural District Council and my constituent is that the offices of the Atcham Rural District Council lie within the area of the planning authority, the Shrewsbury Borough Council. The premises, 23, St. John's Hill, were bought by my constituent, a Dr. Macaulay, from the rural district council in 1952. In May, 1960, the Shrewsbury Borough Council, as planning authority, approved plans by the Atcham Rural District Council, whose offices were next door to No. 23 St. John's Hill, for extensions to its offices which resulted in a building going up alongside Dr. Macaulay's garden, with large windows overlooking his garden.
  This proposal was approved in May, 1960, by Shrewsbury Borough Council, which is the local planning authority. Dr. Macaulay—and I have no reason to doubt him, because there is no evidence to the contrary—was never informed as to what sort of request the rural district council had made, or what it proposed to do. There is no written evidence that any information was ever given to him. I believe that it has been stated by the council that reference was made to the council's proposals, not to Dr. Macaulay, but to his wife and this was during a conversation in the garage at the end of

  599
  the doctor's garden. There was no written notification of what the council intended to do but, even if this conversation did take place, to make a statement not to the doctor but to his wife in their garage, seems to me a most strange way of conducting business.
  Dr. Macaulay first saw the indications that windows would overlook his garden when he was shown a plan in July, 1960. That was on the occasion of a visit which he had paid to the rural district council offices on a different matter. He was then told that the rural district council, when it transferred the ownership of 23, St. John's Hill, next door, had reserved the right to light and air. This was said to be in the conveyance the council made to Dr. Macaulay. This statement was repeated to an officer of the council a week later and it appeared to the doctor that this officer went out of the office for some minutes and then came back to say that the council had reserved the right to light and air in the conveyance.
  This, as I have said, was in July, 1960. In August, 1960, the doctor wrote to the Town Clerk of Shrewsbury indicating his objections to the proposal. In October, 1960, one month after work had actually started on the building, it was established that no right to light and air did, in point of fact, exist. The area with which I am concerned is shown on the town map as primarily a residential area and, at the inquiry later, there were many residents in and around this area who gave evidence on behalf of Dr. Macaulay. One cannot but help wonder if permission for this type of development would have been given to anyone other than a local authority. Would any business organisation have been given permission for similar development; would it be given now, or in the future? I most certainly hope not, because this is not only a beautiful area, but a beautiful residential area.
  Unlike the rural district council, Dr. Macaulay warned his neighbours—that is, the council—that if they went on with their building, he would take steps to obscure their windows. After an appeal to the borough council, then to the Minister, and after a public inquiry, Dr. Macaulay won his rights in this matter. That was in December, 1961. He won the right to do it in only one way, and that was by building a wall alongside the
  600
  new office extension, which the Atcham Rural District Council had built in such a way that apart from its appearance and apart from obliterating the windows, it would do little more than collect twigs and earwigs.
  I suggest again that the doctor having won his point—the windows were infringing his privacy—the correct, simple and most straightforward way is to block up those windows. The rural district council, however, takes the view that the doctor having won his point to build his wall, which was the only course open to him, this is what it will insist he shall do.
  What did the rural district council say about the building of the wall when the doctor took the matter to appeal? I have a copy of the report of the inspector. Under the heading "The case for the Council"—and I presume that this was on the basis of evidence which the council laid before the inspector—n states:
  "The erection of large blank, slab wall, built against the windows of a new well-formed office extension, would not harmonise with the present building, and would spoil appearances.…;The effect of the proposed wall against the new office extension would be harmful to the appearance of the locality. The top of the wall would be seen from St. Chad's Terrace"—
  which is a neighbouring street—
  "and would be detrimental to visual amenity. It would also affect the visual amenities of the gardens of neighbouring houses."
  That is the action which the rural district council now requires Dr. Macaulay to take.
  From this position the council has not budged, except to say that it is prepared to put in glazed bricks. This is quite inadequate. Anybody must know that through glazed bricks, people on either side close by are clearly visible, and privacy is bound to be affected. In addition, voices are audible in both directions through such windows. Thirdly, and not least important. if one is trying to make this ugly building less ugly, it ought to be possible to grow creepers and ramblers on it. but this would not be possible with the three large windows along the wall.
  The rural district council has not behaved in this matter as I should hope it would as good neighbours. One has only to consider what I call the story of the dustbins. By arrangement with the

  601
  district council, it had been the custom for Dr. Macaulay to take his dustbins through the council's yard. The only way in which he could get his dustbins out of his premises was either through his house or through a yard which belonged to the district council offices. Two weeks after Dr. Macaulay's letter of protest to the borough council saying that he would object, the permission to take dustbins through the back yard was withdrawn by the rural district council.
  One cannot help wondering why an authority with, presumably, adequate sanitary advice should consider it correct behaviour to compel a doctor of medicine to carry dustbins through his house, past his surgery and waiting room and out through his front door.
  That leads me to the most extraordinary action of all. In January, 1961, the rural district council said that it would allow Dr. Macaulay to continue to take his dustbins through the council's yard if he would apologise to the council for all the trouble he had caused it and would pay the council's legal expenses. This is not the action of a good neighbour. Here is a local authority compelling a constituent of mine to do something which the local authority itself, when it had the opportunity, said was unsightly and undesirable.
  I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend feels that the council behaved entirely properly in this matter and I express the hope that he will try to do what I have failed to do—to bring these parties together in the hope that ultimately reason will prevail and that benefit, in a small way, to the Borough of Shrewsbury will result.
  12.5 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has raised one of those difficult problems which involve, basically, differences between neighbours, and this case is complicated and aggravated by the fact that one of the neighbours in question is a local authority, although not, be it said, a local planning authority.
  It is never easy to be quite sure in these cases that one has all the facts, and this case is no exception, but certainly the physical features which my hon.
  602
  Friend described are not in dispute. There is no doubt that his constituent, who owns No. 23, St. John's Hill, has been faced with considerable intrusion upon his privacy. As my hon. Friend said, the Atcham Rural District Council's offices adjoin No. 23, and Dr. Macaulay's garden, a narrow strip about 70 feet long, is bounded for about half its length by the wall of the council chamber, which is a fairly old building, being the old Friends' Meeting House in Shrewsbury. That is the further end of the garden. The R.D.C., wishing to increase its office accommodation, has rebuilt an intervening building so that the whole of Dr. Macaulay's boundary is formed by this continuous building.
  The trouble has arisen from three windows which have been inserted in the intervening building and which undoubtedly introduce an intrusion into his privacy of a greater degree than that which existed from the three fairly ancient windows in the old Meeting House. This is aggravated by the fact that, as I observe from the photographs, immediately opposite these windows, Dr. Macaulay's house has large Georgian bay windows on the ground, first and second floors, which are, of course, the windows of principal rooms.
  I re-echo the regrets which my hon. Friend expressed about this matter. As he knows, I am a Salopian. I still own a little property in the Atcham rural district, more by sentiment than anything else, and my family connections go back a long way further than does the Atcham Rural District Council. I very much regret being put in this position tonight, because I have always had friendly relations with the council.
  But, on the face of it, it does seem that Dr. Macaulay would be justified in regarding this building as un-neighbourly, whether the neighbour was a local authority or a private person. On the face of it, too, he may well appear to be justified in believing that he has a right to expect something rather better from a public authority. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is no doubt that this was the view which was, by implication, expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), who, as predecessor to the present Minister, granted permission for a wall to be built to minimise the damage

  603
  caused. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has somewhat put me in the position of judging between these two contestants. And so, of course, I must look equally at both sides, and it is only fair to say that there is another side to this question.
  Naturally, I have had inquiries made, and indeed after my right hon. Friend brought Dr. Macaulay to see me I had certain approaches made, with regard to the question whether or not Dr. Macaulay knew of the intentions of the Atcham Rural District when he purchased the property. I find that there is clearly an element of genuine doubt. Unfortunately, the Clerk to the Atcham Rural District Council at the time has since died and there seems to be very little written evidence and remarkably little recollection. But, nevertheless, there was a contract of sale which clearly reserved to the rural district the right of light for any building which it might erect along the boundary.
  I would re-emphasise that the doctor did buy his property from the rural district council, which sold it to him largely because the Shrewsbury Borough Council was unwilling to give planning permission to make No. 23, St. John's Hill into the additional office accommodation which the district council required. It had the intention of making up the accommodation it required in the premises next door or in the garden adjoining. It is fair to say, I think, that since this matter arose, the council has gone some way to attempting to ameliorate the nuisance. I am assured that all these offending windows are glazed with obscure glass and that instructions have been given that the windows on this side of the building shall not be opened.
  In dealing with the merits of the matter, I think one has to be quite fair and say that there is a doubt as to what happened during the transactions leading up to the sale. It may well be that the council intended to make its position clear and failed to do so. What is quite certain is that there was a good deal of misunderstanding, and I am afraid it is equally certain that the office extension is up. The only question is whether anything can be done to resolve the present dispute. My hon. Friend
  604
  knows that there are powers under the planning Act by which my right hon. Friend can intervene in a pretty drastic manner, involving the removal of an offending building, but I do not think that my hon. Friend would suggest that this is an appropriate case for those powers, to be used. They are, as he knows, used only in matters of national rather than local interest or in matters where the planning authority or the local authority has clearly exceeded its powers in one way or another. This is clearly a local matter and there is no suggestion that the strict powers were exceeded in any way at all. Therefore, I do not think that anybody would suggest that these powers are appropriate in this case.
  I have, as my hon. Friend knows, been in touch with the Atcham Rural District Council and the Shrewsbury Borough Council, and, as I say, they have given this assurance with regard to the opening of the windows and the glazing of them with obscure glass. They have also indicated that they would not be unwilling to consider a suitable clause to ensure that this continues should they give up these premises and move to new premises, which, I understand, they have purchased or are about to purchase in other parts of the town.
  However, I do not hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that my efforts at mediation at this stage will be any more successful than his. In fact, I think there is a stage, as far as my Ministry is concerned, at which one must realise that one can persuade up to a point, and thereafter one has to decide whether local authorities are authorities or whether one is going to try to make them agents. Clearly, they are authorities with a great deal of autonomy, and I think the time has come to recognise that this is a matter within the discretion of the authorities concerned and that it is up to them to decide what to do, if anything.
  I hope very much that this rather sad little affair, very annoying no doubt to Dr. Macaulay, but I think clouded with a good deal of genuine misunderstanding, not entirely as deliberate as perhaps at first appears, will be cleared up and that the parties will get together, if necessary through the good offices of some local personality commanding respect, of which I know there are plenty in my native

  605
  County of Salop—perhaps the Clerk to the County Council, or even the Clerk to the Borough Council.
  I am sure that there are many people who would be only too willing to attempt to bring the parties together and reach a rather more sensible solution than the building of a wall slap up against windows when the same result could be achieved more cheaply, in a more sightly
  606
  manner, and in a manner much more likely to lead back to the amicable relations which we certainly hope to see preserved here, and particularly preserved with a local authority which, from my point of view, has always had a very high reputation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers, Morpeth
  School Leavers, Morpeth
  National Joint Advisory Council (Redundancy Scheme)
  National Joint Advisory Council (Redundancy Scheme)
  Industrial Training Centre, Greenock
  Industrial Training Centre, Greenock
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  Clothing Industry
  Clothing Industry
  Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries, Clyde Valley
  Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries, Clyde Valley
  MR. DEAN RUSK (DISCUSSIONS)
  MR. DEAN RUSK (DISCUSSIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (ADEN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA)
  UNITED NATIONS (ADEN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA)
  E.F.T.A. (LISBON CONFERENCE)
  E.F.T.A. (LISBON CONFERENCE)
  PORTUGAL (B.B.C. BROADCASTS)
  PORTUGAL (B.B.C. BROADCASTS)
  N.A.T.O. (DISTINGUISHED SERVICE DECORATION)
  N.A.T.O. (DISTINGUISHED SERVICE DECORATION)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Broiler Call Industry
  Broiler Call Industry
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Agricultural Holdings, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Agricultural Holdings, Wales and Monmouthshire
  G.A.T.T. Conference
  G.A.T.T. Conference
ROYAL NAVY
  British Trawler "Milwood" (Incident)
  British Trawler "Milwood" (Incident)
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Chatham and Rosyth Dockyards (Submarine Slipways)
  Chatham and Rosyth Dockyards (Submarine Slipways)
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
  Oberon Class Submarine (Building Costs)
  Oberon Class Submarine (Building Costs)
  Shipbuilding Orders (South Africa)
  Shipbuilding Orders (South Africa)
BRITISH ARMY
  Workshops for Blind (Mattress Contract)
  Workshops for Blind (Mattress Contract)
  Fork-lift Trucks
  Fork-lift Trucks
  Guards Officers (Education)
  Guards Officers (Education)
  Welsh Brigade Officers (Education)
  Welsh Brigade Officers (Education)
SCOTLAND
  Bishopbriggs Depot
  Bishopbriggs Depot
  School Leavers, Fife
  School Leavers, Fife
  Watt Memorial College, Greenock
  Watt Memorial College, Greenock
  Stromness (Communications)
  Stromness (Communications)
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Education (Bursaries)
  Education (Bursaries)
  Maternity Beds
  Maternity Beds
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Roads (Congestion)
  Roads (Congestion)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  V-bombers (Ejector Seats)
  V-bombers (Ejector Seats)
SHIPPING
  Nuclear Propulsion
  Nuclear Propulsion
ROADS
  Great West Road (Footbridge)
  Great West Road (Footbridge)
  Long Newton Bypass
  Long Newton Bypass
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  A.65 (Leeds)
  A.65 (Leeds)
  Junction, West Kingsdown
  Junction, West Kingsdown
  Traffic Signs (Report)
  Traffic Signs (Report)
TRANSPORT
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  Traffic Wardens (Marylebone)
  Traffic Wardens (Marylebone)
  National Cycling Proficiency Scheme
  National Cycling Proficiency Scheme
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Contracts (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
  Government Contracts (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
  Sugar Confectionery (Tax)
  Sugar Confectionery (Tax)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Scotland
  Scotland
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Immigrants (Republic of Ireland)
  Immigrants (Republic of Ireland)
HOUSING
  Rented Properties (Improvements)
  Rented Properties (Improvements)
EDUCATION
  Agricultural Workers (Release Courses)
  Agricultural Workers (Release Courses)
  New Schools, Bradford
  New Schools, Bradford
  School Buildings (Survey)
  School Buildings (Survey)
  Special Schools (Admissions)
  Special Schools (Admissions)
  Training Colleges (Older Students)
  Training Colleges (Older Students)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln
The Lord Milford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MIGRATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH
2.5 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, with regard to migration, whether it is now their policy to extend more encouragement for any migration programme to the Commonwealth; if so, what use is being made of the advice of the Oversea Migration Board, which it is understood has not met since October, 1962; also whether it is on the advice of the Board that grants in aid of migration to different directions have recently been reduced.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, it continues to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage migration to other Commonwealth countries. My noble friend will be aware that the Australian Government have recently announced an increase in their planned intake of British immigrants for 1963–64 from 34,000 to 42,000. In spite of this, the problem will be one of selection since applications for assisted passages to Australia covering 111,000 persons have been received in the past four months alone. Migration to Canada and New Zealand increased substantially in 1962, and the volume of inquiries so far this year has been much higher than usual. Thus it will be seen that migration prospects for 1963 are certainly favourable.
As regards the second part of the Question, the Oversea Migration Board has not met in recent months because
282
there have been no new schemes of emigration for it to consider. In accordance with the Board's terms of reference its views will no doubt be sought by my right honourable friend whenever any specific migration proposals are submitted to him. Until then there is no occasion for the Board to offer advice. To turn to the last part of the Question, presumably my noble friend has in mind the decision to taper off, over the next three years, the grant-in-aid paid to the Women's Migration and Oversea Appointments Society. The Oversea Migration Board was not consulted since this is a matter outside its terms of reference. The grant does not relate to a specific emigration scheme but is in respect of administration expenses at the Society's headquarters, and I might perhaps mention that no other voluntary migration society is in receipt of such assistance. I would add that this decision is solely due to the fact that circumstances have changed since the grant was originally instituted and is not in any way a reflection on the Society, to whose work I should most sincerely like to pay a warm tribute.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his full reply. Evidently from its tone he and his Department feel reasonably satisfied with the present flow. But it does seem, in view of the change of emphasis of Government policy in regard to economic matters in general, that some more imagination and initiative from the body representing that subject is needed. I would ask the noble Duke this: does it not seem that, in the circumstances of such a change, it might have been appropriate for that body to have been consulted? It seems surprising that they have not met. Would the noble Duke not feel that they should be consulted to a greater extent?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would refer my noble friend to the terms of reference of the Oversea Migration Board. They are:
" To consider and advise the Secretary of State upon specific proposals for schemes of migration from the United Kingdom to other Commonwealth countries and upon any matter relating thereto which may be referred to it by him."
Bearing those terms of reference in mind, I think there has not been anything for the Board to meet about. I am sure

283
my noble friend will agree with me that nothing is more tiresome than for distinguished men and women who serve on the Board to meet merely for the sake of holding a meeting, when there is nothing very concrete to discuss. So far as creating imaginative schemes is concerned, I should have thought that those interested in migration, as my noble friend is, would be more than satisfied with the knowledge that over the first four months of this year the applications to emigrate from this country to the Commonwealth are four times as much as they were for the corresponding period of last year.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the point is that the noble Duke has confirmed the fact in my first statement, that he was evidently reasonably satisfied. But surely it would seem natural, in the changed circumstances which have resulted from the change of direction from Europe to other quarters, that the body constituted to advise his Department should have been consulted and should have met.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, at the last meeting of the Board I, as chairman, gave an undertaking that I would call a meeting of the Board if any member of it so requested. I have not so far received such a request.

RE-LOCATION OF COVENT GARDEN MARKET
2.11 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received from the Covent Garden Market Authority their decision on the views expressed by the Fantus Company in their study for the Re-location of the Covent Garden Market; and whether they are able to indicate the future steps that will be taken.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, the Covent Garden Market Authority will not reach any decision on the Fantus
284
Report until they have considered the views of their three statutory committees. They will also need time to consider the views of other interested bodies, including other public authorities and trade organisations. If it is generally agreed that the Market should be rebuilt outside the Covent Garden Area the Covent Garden Market Act, 1961, will need to be amended. In that case, the Authority hope that their discussions will have been completed satisfactorily in time for them to introduce a Bill at the beginning of the next Parliamentary Session.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for the Answer he has given. Is he aware that the Report of the Fantus committee indicates that the Beckton site, in their own words,
" is the only site of the five examined at which it would be possible to construct an efficient Market providing all the facilities which are necessary for the economic handling of horticultural produce at a reasonable price "?
Does the noble Lord realise that it is extremely desirable that the Market Authority should announce fairly soon their conclusions upon this matter, and that if they come to any conclusion other than that the Beckton site is the right one it would appear to be a perverse decision flying straight in the face of all the evidence with which it has been presented?
LORD ST.OSWALD: My noble friend has asked, I think, three supplementary questions. I am aware of the conclusions reached by the Fantus Company. I am perfectly certain that the Authority will wish to come to a conclusion as soon as possible after proper consultations. As to the other, more difficult question, on a matter of opinion, I think it would be quite improper for me to give an opinion before the Authority have in fact communicated their views to the Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, before there is any question of developing the existing Covent Garden Market site, the Greater London Council, as the development authority and the traffic authority, will be consulted?
LORD ST.OSWALD: My Lords, really the first step is for the Authority to give their views on the Fantus Report

285
to the Government. I do not think I should answer any question further forward than that.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord must be aware that the Authority has not yet been set up. What I wish to know is: before this important area is developed as a market, will the newly-created Greater London Council, which is the development authority for the whole of Greater London and also the traffic authority, be consulted in the matter?
LORD ST.OSWALD: As I understand it, the noble Lord is referring to the existing site. The Question refers to the choice of possible new sites. I do not think that, by any stretch of his own imagination, the noble Lord can suppose that his supplementary arises out of the substantive Question.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would have been very much better, and that the whole difficult problem could have been dealt with far more expeditiously, had the Act under which the Covent Garden Market Authority was set up been modified, as was suggested by several noble Lords in the debate here, to enable them to take advantage of the recommendation of the Fantus Report without needing further legislation?
LORD ST.OSWALD: The procedure followed was agreed upon by Parliament and agreed upon by your Lordships' House, and I agree with that decision.

REBUILDING OF ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL
2.15 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the plans for the new building to be erected on the St. Thomas's Hospital site have been finally approved: and whether arrangements can be made for Members of both Houses to see the drawings of the proposed elevation.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, building of the first stage has started and detailed planning of the remainder is proceeding. The design was approved by the London County Council as planning authority and accepted by the Royal Fine Art Commission. A model, drawings and photographs were displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall in December, 1959. A model is on display at the Building Centre, Store Street, W.C.2.
LORD WALSTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information, and regret that I was not here in 1959 to see the model. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is now satisfied that, under the future arangements which have been discussed in your Lordships' House in the last few days, it will be possible, in the event of buildings being contemplated along this very important waterway and central theme of London, for an overall plan to be evolved and administered so as to make sure that the city makes the best possible use of what could be a very beautiful feature of it?
LORD NEWTON: I understand the import of what the noble Lord has asked me, but I think it is a very much wider question than the original Question, which relates to the new hospital which is to be built for St. Thomas's.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, although this particular Question relates solely to St. Thomas's, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be very unfortunate if planning permission and approval, even by such an excellent body as the Royal Fine Art Commission, were confined solely to individual buildings such as St. Thomas's Hospital, instead of taking into account the wider aspects of developing natural beauties?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a very much wider question. Certainly it is an important one, but I do not think it arises from the noble Lord's original Question. I do not think, therefore, that I ought to try to answer on such a very big issue without notice.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND WEST NEW GUINEA
2.18 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made for the regular transmission by the Government of Indonesia to the Secretary General of the United Nations of information of an economic, social and educational nature in regard to West New Guinea in accordance with Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am not aware of any such arrangement.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Netherlands Government were regularly transmitting information under this Article until October last? May I also ask him whether he will give instructions to our Representative on the Fourth Committee at the next Session of the General Assembly to raise this question and to press very strongly that the Indonesian Government should be required to furnish this information, as all other colonial Powers do? It seems to me that there is no reason why a colonial Power should be relieved of its obligations simply because it is of Asiatic race instead of European race.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should be reluctant to express an opinion whether Article 73(e) applies in this case, if only because this would have to be considered in the light of the views of the Government principally concerned, and I should accordingly prefer to await the views of the Indonesian Government, whose comments have, I understand, already been sought by the United Nations Secretariat.
LORD COLYTON: But, my Lords, I do ask my noble friend to press this matter strongly. It is really a most monstrous example of double standards at the United Nations.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend is quite entitled to hold that view. I would remind your Lordships, from the point of view of the Government, that the responsibility for this territory was transferred only three weeks ago. I think we must wait and see what the response is to the request from the United Nations Secretariat.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGEMENT OF SPORT
2.22 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to call attention to the necessity of reaching a decision on the co-operation, financial and otherwise, envisaged by the Government in its future relations with the governing bodies of sport so that sports facilities may be enlarged and used to the utmost; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper to-day, I have to declare an interest in this subject. My father was an Olympic runner, and ever since I could walk, never mind run, I well remember him bribing small boys with pennies to run races against me on the sands when I was very small indeed. Moving on from those early days, through participation in various sports to teaching in elementary schools in Leeds, it became obvious to me how much more the children could have achieved if they had had better facilities and better equipment. Certainly, we all did our best; but I remember buying small clothes horses to space out on the school playground for hurdles training. While these helped immensely, I am sure the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, will agree that they fell a long way short of perfection. But I should like here to pay tribute to all those youngsters in the Leeds schools who came my way. The difficulty was not to get them to stay after school for practice, but to get them to go home. They did wonderfully. They achieved what seemed impossible, and I have always felt that with better facilities and better equipment

289
some of them might have reached the very top.
To jump from then, the late 'twenties and early 'thirties, I come to 1951, to a period when The Times newspaper was good enough to help in all these matters we are discussing to-day by finding room for various letters from time to time. Though I would hasten to add, of course, that I do not propose to inflict these letters on your Lordships, I would say, going back to November 13, 1951, that I stressed that the success overseas of a British team can be as valuable as a trade mission both from the goodwill and business points of view. May I remind your Lordships that in 1954, when Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile, the Foreign Office rushed him off to the U.S.A.? His appearances there did a great deal of good to British interests, and not only to British sporting interests. I know that many of us had criticism of the methods of the Foreign Office on that occasion, but the significant fact was that officials in the Foreign Office had accepted the idea that prestige in the world of sport was important apart from sport itself.
I am sure that those of us who have had the good fortune to visit other countries have been told by our representatives there, whether these were trade or consular representatives, that there is no doubt that British victories in the world of sport in the countries in which they are living do make just that bit easier the selling of Britain and British goods. This, I think, has now become accepted as a fact; and accepted by this Government, too, to judge from more than one reply given to me in your Lordships' House over the past twelve months. I then suggested that the Government should authorise the issue of special stamps to enable the general public to give financial support to our Olympic teams in 1952. As your Lordships know, there is nothing new in this. Many countries do it. But, unfortunately, in this country that idea remained on the starting line.
To go on from there to 1954, being fortunate enough to be included in an all-Party delegation that was visiting the U.S.S.R., I had the opportunity of finding out just how promising athletes are discovered in that vast country. The system in the Soviet Union offers facilities
290
infinitely better than our own, and I do not believe that champions are trained to the neglect of others. If one takes some hundreds of the best youngsters in every town, one is bound to get a good selection of first-class performers from whom to choose a national team. Right through from the district sporting school the youngsters, boys and girls, have the chance of expert tuition. I want to ask the same question of the Government to-day—and I think it is a fair question—that I asked nine years ago. Is it impossible to ensure that every promising British youngster has that same chance?
Noble Lords will know that in the 'fifties, particularly in the mid-'fifties, there existed a fear among people keenly interested in sport that to have any Government aid at all meant regimentation, interference and being run from Whitehall. When I talked of what was being done in the U.S.S.R. this was the reaction I got from many quarters. But the critics never thought that exactly similar training was being given in the U.S.A., in Scandinavia and in Australia. Speaking for myself, I remember saying in January, 1956, that I wanted no Ministry of Sport, nor the extremes of training given to Russian footballers, American athletes or Australian tennis players. But it seems to me in this country that we have the happy knack of striking the middle path. I want to suggest that, if it was true then, it is much more true to-day that we should change our ideas and make it possible for every competitor good enough to be included in our national teams to have the chance. Has the spirit of the Olympics ever meant that those who could not afford to go should be barred from taking part? I do not think it has. And it is disgraceful that it has this effect in Britain to-day. So I may not have got very far, but I have tried.
In the Budget debate on April 17, 1956, in another place, I ventured to point out to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer what some of your Lordships will know: that at that time Sweden had 7 million inhabitants and 800 public cinder tracks. With our population of 50 million, we had 61. Finland had a track in every town and nearly every country district, built and maintained by the local councils; and their use was

291
free. But we had no indoor 10-metre diving board south of Blackpool. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he thought our competitors living in the south of England were able to train for the Games. The answer was that they would have to go to Blackpool—which was ridiculous. As for our gymnasts, it was not a case of whether we had any good enough to compete against the rest of the world; they could not get the equipment necessary for them to train to Olympic standards in this country because they had not the money. So I could have gone on.
I hope that there is no one in your Lordships' House to-day who would dissent from the proposition that we want more playing fields, more running tracks and more floodlighting, so that these can be used at night. Also of great importance we want more and better changing accommodation, so that people can go straight from work and have a shower afterwards. We also need more training coaches and instructors.
I do not believe that to-day in 1963, these are luxuries. I think that they are as essential for fitness and leisure as for the Olympic Games. But as most of us know, Governments in this country never have helped. The Labour Government did not do so when the Games were held in London in 1948. Conservative Governments have not done so, in 1952, 1956 or 1960. But I would say to the Lord President to-day that we hope that a change might be on the way. I believe that big-time world sport is no longer the privilege of the favoured few. It is the right of every healthy youngster in this and every country. And in saying this, I would emphasise that I am not solely, or even mainly, concerned with the attaining of championship standard in sport; I am thinking of physical training, recreation and the leisure of all young people. I would suggest, what seems an obvious fact, that if the base of the triangle is catered for adequately, then the apex of championship standard will emerge by itself.
I come to the Parliamentary background to all this. In September, 1960, the Central Council for Physical Recreation published, under the title, Sport and the Community, the Report of the
292
Wolfenden Committee on Sport, which was set up by the Council in 1957. I think that at this point I should declare a personal interest. I have done all I could to help the Central Council for many years now, and still do; but, having said that, I must emphasise that all I say to-day should be laid at my door and not at theirs. As your Lordships are aware, this Report recommended the establishment of a Sports Development Council, which would distribute annually £5 million in grants to national bodies concerned with the development of sport and other forms of physical recreation. Furthermore, it recommended an increase of £5 million a year in the permitted capital expenditure on sports facilities by local authorities. Other recommendations concerned just about every aspect of sport development—organisation, facilities, coaching, international competition, amateurism, Sunday play and the influence of the Press, television and radio.
I think that it might be advisable to point out what we in Parliament, in both Houses, know, but what the outside public may have forgotten—that the Wolfenden Report was published against a favourable background. Before the General Election of 1959 both major political Parties had issued pamphlets on the subject of sport. Both had pressed for additional Government expenditure, and both had advocated the formation of a Sports Council. We set up a working party in 1958, on which I sat, and in the spring of 1959 we were ready to publish our findings. But because a printing strike intervened, our Report, Leisure for Living, was not published until September. But the main recommendation was incorporated in the Labour Election Manifesto for the General Election and would have been implemented had we won. We said—and I quote:
" A Sports Council will be set up with a grant of £5 million."
This was, and remains, Labour policy.
Meanwhile, members of the Conservative Party interested in sport had been pressing for action in their own Party, and in February, 1959, a Committee was set up to study the subject. Their findings were published in August, 1959, under the title, The Challenge of Leisure. No official Party pledge was given,

293
because this was not an official Committee, and on the front page it was stated:
" This pamphlet is a contribution to discussion and not an official Party pronouncement."
But the recommendation was similar to ours—namely, the establishment of a Sports Council for Great Britain, with a grant from the Exchequer growing in size "to something like £5 million a year".
The first indication of the Government's likely course of action came in February, 1961, when, replying to a debate in your Lordships' House introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the noble and learned Viscount the then Lord Chancellor said that, although the Government accepted the case for more State aid, they were doubtful about the need for a Sports Development Council of the kind advocated by the Wolfenden Committee. In April, 1961, the Report was debated, somewhat inconclusively, in another place, and your Lordships will remember that on July 25 of that same year the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear, in the debate following his "Little Budget", that action on the main financial recommendations of the Wolfenden Report must wait for some time to come.
I hope that this afternoon, among other things, I may perhaps get over to the Lord President that there is one persistent, nagging quarrel that most people keenly interested in sport have with the Government—that is, that the Government continuously make out that they are doing so much in this field. How much money does sport in fact receive? The statement by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in another place on May 8, 1962, really was a supreme example of what I am saying. It seemed to me that even the Treasury Press Department itself was unable to untangle it, while The Times gave up any attempt to do so and just published the statement in full. As one columnist said:
" The Chancellor threw everything he could find into the pot—village halls, school playgrounds and park flower beds, but it was impossible to find out from all this padding what was actually being spent on sport and physical recreation facilities for anybody over school-leaving age."
My Lords, I hope very much that the Lord President will not be a party to any such padding to-day. At the end of last year, on December 20, to be exact, the noble and learned Viscount told the House that in his capacity as Lord President
294
of the Council he had been given special responsibility for ensuring the coordination and development of sporting and recreational facilities, so that the best value was obtained. Events moved a little further in January of this year, when The Times leader of January 10 came out against a Sports Development Council, but made one particular comment, which I should like Ito quote. It said:
" There is a crying need for more and improved sports grounds, playing fields, and indoor facilities, and the need will not be answered without public provision. But the task is essentially one for local authorities, with a knowledge of local conditions and prodded by local enthusiasts."
On January 31, the noble Viscount told the House that Sir Patrick Renison had accepted his invitation to be his principal adviser in carrying out the Lord President's responsibilities in relation to sport.
Leaving the Parliamentary background, I should like to say a word about the position in Western Europe. I think that this must be mentioned, however briefly, because of its relevance to what we are discussing. In November, 1962, a most useful Report was published, which I think is known to most of your Lordships, under the rather long title, Central Government Aid to Sport and Physical Recreation in Countries of Western Europe. It was written by Mr. D. D. Molyneux, a lecturer in physical education at the University of Birmingham. Always wishing to be helpful to the Government, I had some copies sent to them at the time of publication, and I expect that the Lord President has one in his file. Obviously there are many points in this excellent publication which we shall all have found of great interest. I have selected three only, because of their real significance to our discussions to-day, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I make these three short quotations which I think have a particular point.
On page 10 it says:
" Perhaps most important of all, when comparing what is done in Britain with that which is undertaken in countries of Western Europe, there appears to be no clear understanding and realisation of what can be done by the central government to foster and encourage the drive and initiative of local authorities and to underpin the voluntary efforts of sports organisations from local to national level."
On page 22 it says:
" But it would he extremely misleading to dwell on these national and regional centres

295
alone, important as they are in the pattern of sport in European countries. Undoubtedly the major emphasis in most countries with regard to facilities has been to encourage and stimulate their construction at community level."
Lastly, on page 25 it says:
" Next to facilities, the second main recipients of central government aid to sport in Western European countries are the national governing bodies of sport."
Leaving those three points to illustrate the background in Western Europe, may I, without disrespect, turn to my next section, which I have called the post-Hailsham era? There has been talk and delay for years, and now all of us want some action. I do not propose to make the case once again for a Sports Development Council, although doubtless many speakers to-day will refer to it. Personally, I am in favour of one; but the Government have refused repeatedly to establish such a Council, and I gather from the Lord President that he has not changed his mind on this point. I see that I cannot draw him into any comment until he comes to speak at the end.
I should like to make one aspect crystal clear (as I keep seeing in some advertisements) before I continue, and it is this. At the end of last year, on December 20, on the matter of a Sports Development Council, the Lord President told us [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 245 (No. 27), col. 1252]:
" This is not a matter that can be solved, in the Government's view, by creating another agency that would be interposed between the responsible Ministers and local authorities."
I wish that the Government and the noble Viscount would cease to put forward this kind of argument as an excuse for not setting up a Sports Development Council. I can assure him—and I hope they have done so also—that the governing bodies of sport do not look upon a Council as proposed in the Wolfenden Report
" as creating another agency that would be interposed between the responsible Ministers and local authorities."
On the contrary, they see it as something which would be able, without in any way impinging on the autonomy of governing bodies of sport or on the work of voluntary bodies assisting sport, to coordinate the efforts for sport in the community on such matters as facilities, general inquiries and scientific and
296
medical problems related to sport. As I said earlier, it is Labour policy to set up such a Council.
Soon after the Lord President's announcement on January 31, he was good enough to see me. I then raised, among others, three main aspects with him, and I should like briefly to return to those to-day. The first aspect concerned existing facilities and local authorities, including local education authorities. Some years ago, I thought the best way of proceeding here was to have a national survey to find out what facilities did exist and how they were being used throughout the country. But during the last eighteen months or two years I have reached the conclusion that, rather more than a national survey, what we need is local and regional action. At present, as many of us know, in far too many areas there appears to be little consultation, let alone co-operation, between local authorities and local education authorities on the provision of facilities and sporting opportunities. This again has led far too frequently to overlapping, to wastage of money and to wastage of manpower.
So I should like to suggest to your Lordships that a fundamental prerequisite of any expansion of facilities is a knowledge of what exists at the present time. I am sure that this sounds a very obvious remark, and many people may believe that such knowledge exists. My Lords, it does not. In respect of local facilities, I believe that local authorities should have permanently available up-to-date records of publicly and privately-owned facilities in their areas. I am sure that the governing bodies of sport would agree with me when I say that, when facilities for a particular sport are under consideration, the responsible statutory body should seek the technical views of the governing body of sport concerned.
Finally, on this particular aspect, I think that at all levels of sport and recreation we feel a deliberate and concerted attempt must be made right through the country to bring into co-operation the efforts of local authorities, local education authorities and voluntary bodies, to make certain that existing facilities are fully and properly used. Indeed, the Lord President on December 20 last said that this very thing was his

297
responsibility—that is, the co-ordination and development of recreational facilities so that the best value is obtained. Without wishing to commit him in any way whatsoever, it seemed to me, when I saw him in February last, that he was not unsympathetic to this line of thought, and I will not develop it further, in the hope that he will. Still on facilities, but on a slightly different aspect, may I say that I am sure that the governing bodies of sport would welcome developing co-operation, and one developing much more rapidly in the future than in the past, between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I can assure the Lord President that such a partnership, and obviously an active partnership, would do much to engender confidence and promote efficiency.
The second main aspect that I raised with the noble Viscount concerned his reference on January 31 last to an advisory committee, when he said:
" We also have to consider carefully the question of an advisory committee and how it should he formed."
As I have said, I wanted, and still want, a Sports Development Council. But if the Government do not feel able to give us this, then I believe, as I have been saying for a long time, that the Lord President needs a small working committee, composed of men and women well acquainted with the whole field of physical recreation, and not exclusively identified with one particular interest, to advise him on the development of sport and recreation in this country. I would suggest that, quite definitely, such a committee must not be in the hands of any particular Ministry, but must be answerable directly to the Lord President of the Council, whoever he may be.
The third aspect concerned the principles governing financial help on a reciprocal basis for international sport. I have been on this for years, as I tried to show earlier to-day. I am sick and tired and ashamed of watching our sports organisations scrape around for money to see whether they can send a team, or how many they can include in a team, to represent this country abroad. Furthermore, I think it is selfish for the odd organisation that can raise the money to say that they do not want financial help,
298
in case voluntary gifts and contributions suffer as a result. I am sure we should all agree that it would be a sad day for this country if the voluntary spirit were extinguished, whether in sport or in anything else, because it is one of our most valuable attributes.
I have never suggested that financial aid from the Government should cover everything, but that it should be on a reciprocal basis, pound for pound, for those organisations who care to make application. I am quite convinced that voluntary help needs aid in this connection, and if the Government were able to recognise this fact their action would be a tribute to all those who have done so much out of their own pockets in the past. Quite simply, I am saying that lack of finance should not prevent representation in international sport, either of a team or of an individual qualified to compete. Furthermore, I do not believe that help on, say, a pound for pound basis, is going to ruin either sport or the sporting spirit, or the principle of voluntary contributions in this country.
As your Lordships know, I have tried to get somewhere on this matter during the comparatively brief time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. Governing bodies have tried, too, by letters of application. The answer, phrased in a variety of ways, has been the same always: the answer has been, No. I think two of the comments made to me in reply might well be noted. Concerning applications made by sports organisations for financial help in meeting travel expenses in connection with amateur sporting events overseas in 1962, I was told on August 2 that [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 243, col. 404]:
" Any such assistance would need to be fully justified by the contribution which the teams would be enabled to make, as a result of it, to the relations between Britain and other countries."
Concerning those applications turned down, we were told that [col. 405]:
"…it was not felt that the political dividends which would flow from giving a grant in these cases would outweigh the cost involved."
However, earlier this year there seemed to be a slight softening in this attitude, if that is the right word, and on February 11 [Vol. 246 (No. 37), col. 781], not in any spirit of criticism, I asked the

299
Government whether they would tell the House
" what were the reasons compelling them to make good the deficit incurred between the income from appeals and actual expenditure by the British teams in the recent Empire and Commonwealth Games at Perth."
As your Lordships may remember, we were told that
" in view of the high cost of sending the British teams to Perth and in the interest of Britain being represented at this important Commonwealth occasion by a worthy team "
this contribution was being made. I think that, at best, these were most unfortunate phrases.
It would be a bold man to-day who would be prepared to guarantee political dividends in any part of the world, and certainly opinion on this would differ very considerably. I just cannot imagine anyone interested in sport and young people in Britain at the present time agreeing that opportunity to represent one's country in any sporting activity—if one is good enough, of course—must depend upon political dividends that some pundit thought might be reaped. As to sending a worthy team, I am certain I need not assure the Lord President that we none of us anticipate sending teams anywhere that are not worthy. I thought that was a most unfortunate implication on all those applications that were turned down. However, having recovered from the shock of these implications, I asked the Lord President whether he and his advisers on sport would consider applications on a reciprocal basis for world and European championships this year, 1963, stressing what I think the whole House would accept, that in this country it would seem that the best combination was one of voluntary contributions and official ones. The Lord President will remember that in reply, although he did not commit himself, he said that this would be one of the matters he would have to consider. I hope this will come about—I think it must. Some way of helping individual governing bodies and organisations concerned with competition in amateur international sports events is overdue, and must be worked out where such help is asked for. In this event, I am sure the Lord President would need the assistance of a small committee competent to advise him on applications for any such help.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but having prepared all this, I received one letter which I thought was rather relevant to what I was saying, and which would prove, if necessary, that this background was not a figment of my imagination. A member of the British Hockey Board wrote to me stressing one particular point. It was the cost of participating in international fixtures outside Britain. He said:
" Whether we like it or not, the scope of international sport has widened over the past decade and the Governments of most countries abroad have apparently realised this and have accordingly given financial aid to enable amateur sports bodies to carry out a certain number of international fixtures outwith their own countries…".
I was distressed to read the next paragraph, and I think the Lord President will be. I have a copy of the letter which I can give him. The letter went on to say:
" The Indian Government two years ago decided to sponsor a men's hockey tournament and to provide free accommodation and travel to sixteen nations (players and officials) for a fortnight in India. I think you can guess that the only country invited which could not afford the fare to go to India was Great Britain—all the other countries, including two from the Commonwealth, New Zealand and Australia, obtained their travelling expenses to India either directly or indirectly from their respective Governments."
Speaking of amateur sports in general, the letter said what I have been trying to say:
" There is a limit to raffles, lotteries, affiliation fees et cetera and we are falling behind even to the extent of being unable to finance our officials to conferences abroad concerning the rules and other administrative problems…".
The last sentence spoke of
" the frustration felt by those people who devote many unpaid hours to the administration of amateur sport in Great Britain."
Those were the points I raised in February last—and I have almost finished.
May I add something very briefly which concerns the third item selected from Mr. Molyneux's booklet, mentioned earlier to-day:
" Next to facilities, the second main recipient of central government aid to sport in Western European countries is the national governing bodies of sport."
I am Chairman of the Games and Sports Committee of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. Membership of this Committee over the years has given me

301
a wonderful opportunity of assessing the contribution made by the governing bodies of sport to all the matters we are discussing to-day. I believe that contribution to be without price. But, like the rest of us, these governing bodies vary: some are rich, some are poor, some are strong centrally and locally and some are not. Some have efficient staff, some have nothing at all except devotion, a desire to help and a determination to add some fulness to life. I think they must be helped, not only for themselves, but for what they can offer.
I want to suggest very firmly that, by strengthening the governing bodies where it is impossible for them to do more themselves, and where they ask for such help, we shall be rendering the greatest service to recreation and leisure in this country. I have a letter here which I received to-day. It comes from an amateur sports body, and it speaks of the struggle they are having to keep going. They say that in 1960 they had a deficit of £147; in 1961 of £498; and in 1962 of £312. Those are infinitesimal amounts in what we are asking for to-day, but they make all the difference to these amateur bodies between being in existence or having to go out of business. I would have thought that there was no argument that, where finance just does not permit even the most humble office accommodation or part-time secretary, help must be given. Again I believe—and I think the House would agree; I hope it would—that any national body concerned with a specific game, sport, outdoor activity or other form of recreative physical activity must come into this category.
Finally—and I think the Lord President understands this point of view—I would assure him once more what I told him at the time, that everyone interested in what we are discussing to-day in this House and outside welcomed his appointment from the beginning. We look forward to his reply with interest and hope. I beg to move for Papers.
3.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, it is only on very rare occasions that I inflict a speech on your Lordships, but it so happens that a strange combination of length of leg and shallowness of joint and a prod from fate took me at a fairly young age into the
302
athletics world, and it is a short step from being an athlete oneself to becoming engaged in the administration of athletics, which I have been for some thirty years now. I should like to preface what I am going to say by paying a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, not only for her excellent and well-informed speech to which we have just listened, but also because this is no flash in the pan. She has dedicated a lot of her life to trying to help the cause of amateur sport, and not least in that field, for she has continually brought up the problems and responsibilities of the community before both Houses of Parliament.
As many noble Lords will know, there are four main comprehensive bodies engaged in the administration of sport. First of all, there is the National Playing Fields Association, and my noble friend Lord Luke, with the authority that he has in that organisation, will no doubt be telling us about that presently and stating the problems and how he thinks they should be solved. There is the Central Council, for whom the noble Lady plays an active part, which have a very wide sphere of responsibility and cover all the recreational sides of sport and recreation. They are the godfather to a number of the smaller federations as well; and for the larger ones, with their regional organisation, often provide the administration for a course in an area where that particular governing body is not particularly strong. Then there are, too, the various bodies which go to make up what used to be called the Empire Games but are now known as the Commonwealth Games: the Councils for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Jersey and the Isle of Man.
Finally, there is the British Olympic Association, which, as you will understand by its name, is essentially engaged in raising the necessary money for transporting, equipping and housing our teams at this greatest international festival which may take place anywhere in the world, every four years, the Olympic Games. But it has another sphere of activity, too. There are some thirty sports governing bodies affiliated to it, and it is, therefore, a very useful forum for discussing such matters which affect competitive sport so far as all the national federations are concerned; and

303
it is rather of this British Olympic side that I should like to speak to your Lordships this afternoon because that is the subject on which I have had most experience. I have been chairman of the Council for some 27 years, and I feel that in this very large canvas which this problem of sport and recreation covers, this afternoon one should pick out one particular part and paint it in with its background, as the noble Baroness has already done in a large field, and has done far better than I could possibly have done. But there is one field in which I have had this special experience, that is, in the field of competitive sport.
I think it would perhaps be easiest if I were to give you what is the organisation in the world because, unbeknown to most people, there is an enormous and gigantic organisation for amateur sport which has grown up almost unnoticed. The days when in one country you could without repercussions change the rules, whether technical or whether of eligibility or of amateurism, have gone. Those days are past for all the great sports. We are part of something very much larger. In every country there is a national governing body in sport and those bodies owe an allegiance to the International Federation. Running parallel to that, we have the International Olympic Committee, to whom the Olympic Games belong; and below that the national Olympic committees, like the British Olympic Association; and on those committees the governing bodies of sport, under the I.O.C. rules, must have a controlling vote. To show the size of these organisations, there are no fewer than 100 national Olympic committees affiliated to the International Olympic Committee. In the sports, if I may take my own federation of which I am President, in the International Amateur Athletic Federation, we have 126 member countries; and there are many other great international federations with almost as many members. So you have here, literally in every country, a State within a State, and although World Government is, in politics, at this stage of history, a pipedream, it is an accomplished fact in the world of amateur sport.
We have our problems in this field, and I propose first to say on what this
304
enormous edifice is built. It is built, in the words of Dr. Zauli of Italy, who has just written a most interesting paper on the basis of amateur sport, on what he calls (and forgive my pronunciation) homo ludens. This is, that in fact from time immemorial, from the very start of man, there has always been a desire and an urge in all men to compete, to pit their strength, their dexterity and their skill against another man or even against their own best performance and thereby put themselves to a lot of discomfort and inconvenience in their training, and to do it for no material reward. That is what homo ludens is and, if I might interperse here, the difference between amateurism and professionalism, of which one hears so much argument, is basically really that. In the one case a man quite honourably decides that sport is going to be the vehicle to earn his livelihood and the material things of life, exactly as another man may go into the assembly line of a motor car factory or may become a bank clerk. But the moment that happens no longer is he in the same category as homo ludens.
In this struggle to maintain and build this great edifice we get attacks from two quarters. The first one is on the commercial side. There is always, in certain countries, an endeavour by those who are selling commercial goods to try to tempt the homo ludens to take money, to advertise some type of goods against some other type of goods. In this country we are most fortunate in that a very large number of newspapers, in fact almost all the national newspapers, have at one time or another backed international athletic meetings, swimming meetings and the like, and if they lose money they pay, and if they make money they hand it over to the governing body. But this is not always so in some other countries. There are leading competitors there whom the newspapers try to tempt to write articles and who thereby endanger their homo ludens position. And why do they do it? Not for the athletes, but so as to sell more newspapers.
So it is, too, that we have another attack in the field of what is called athletics scholarships which are given in the United States to-day; scholarships which are awarded not on mental ability but purely and simply on whether people are good at sport. These scholarships are

305
not given by the great universities, but by the smaller ones to try to increase their athletic prestige and that, incidentally, of the coach. I have spoken to people who have been through these courses and they say that academically it has done them no good at all; they have really been in the nature of gladiators for raising the athletic prestige of the university. In other countries—but not here, I am happy to say—sometimes there are also promoters who will do all they can to get the top athletes in order that the gate may be more satisfactory. I am not going to dwell on this subject any longer, but there is quite a clear field which is professional and another which is amateur, and there is a big no-man's land between. And I have no doubt at all that the argument on that will be going on by the time, as perhaps I may say in this debate, that I have been called to my last Olympic Games.
But there is another attack to which the noble Lady has referred to which I should like to refer as well, and that is the political attack, of which we have had a particularly bad year this year. I have now been for some thirty years a member of the International Olympics Committee and in that time have seen in different parts of the world a number of dictators spring up, a number of Parties with strong ideologies, all of which started by saying that sport and politics were quite indivisible. Your Lordships will note that it is the politicians, and not the athletes, who say that. They do not even dent the great federation. But the curious thing is that, as the years go by, and they become more sure of themselves politically, that cry is muted and finally disappears. The reason for this is that they start to realise there is a great value in having international amateur sport non-political, and that it achieves several things which they want.
It provides, of course, pleasure and recreation for competitors and spectators alike. It develops those characteristics which are needed in all our citizenry, in the training, self-denial; mastery of self; cheerfulness in defeat; modesty in victory; and—perhaps even more important—the gift of developing those characteristics which make people get on with their fellow men. Because there is a fellowship in sport; and in this fellowship, perhaps more than in any other activity, somebody who tries to be "the
306
cat who walks by himself" and takes no interest in anybody else is not going to find any great happiness. With their athletes going abroad too, and visiting other parts of the world, and meeting other athletes, there is an immense amount of good will engendered; and that is not confined to the people who meet each other. The image which goes back to other countries is most important, because it is impossible for everybody to meet everybody, and this image can do a great deal to make friends in other parts of the world. It is for these reasons, in the long run, in practically all cases I can think of, that they settle down and become good members of these international federations.
We have our problems at the moment. One tragic one was when China resigned from most of the international federations and all those which recognised Formosa about a year ago. It was a little difficult to follow, because in my own international federation in Melbourne in 1956, where we are not political, but deal with situations factually, the Peking association was recognised as being China; but equally we were not prepared to disenfranchise a country of 9 million people in Formosa or Taiwan. They remain in, not as China but as the geographical area of Taiwan. I do not think our friends in China fully understood this and so they resigned. I hope they will appreciate in due course the basic theory of homo ludens, that we are not political and that we may welcome them back in the fellowship of world sport once again.
That is not the only trouble we have had in the Far East. In the Asian Games less than a year ago Indonesia was the host country. We gave them a licence from our governing body to hold athletics—and many other governing bodies did the same—only on condition that all members of the geographical area were invited; otherwise there would have been no licence. Not only that: a further condition was that the athletes should have unhindered entry. Invitations were sent, but Israel and Taiwan were excluded from receiving identity cards to get into the country, and they were not guaranteed that if they got to Jakarta they would be allowed in. One international federation cancelled its events completely, and in the athletics we said there could be no athletics in the Games,

307
but as teams were there they could have an ordinary international meeting. That took place, and the Congress laid down that every country whose athletes competed there must accept the ruling of the international federation, that it was not part of the Asian Games but an international meeting. All except one, with whom negotiations are still on, have signed this undertaking.
To give your Lordships some idea of the power that can be wielded in these things, we have no army and no police. The greatest sanction we have is to disallow any country or individual from competing in the world of sport. In the Olympic Games in 1936 in Berlin, Hitler stated that the chairman of their organising committee, a respected member of the international committee because he was half-Jewish, could not remain in that position. The President of the I.O.C. went to Hitler and told him that he insisted there would be no Games in Berlin. Hitler had to climb down. The other day we met political interference in basketball in the Philippines: the Government refused to allow in players from Yugoslavia. The games were cancelled and went to South America We are not exactly in the clear about this in the NATO countries ourselves. In the political troubles which have taken place over the Wall, and the retaliation, the cancellation of visas of East German teams, the people who are suffering from this trouble are the young people whose fault it is not. The East German teams can no longer join in with the other teams of the world if they wish to compete. I hope it will be borne strongly in mind by the Foreign Office and the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary that a great many young people are suffering very much, to the extreme dissatisfaction of the whole of the youth of the sporting world.
We do meet successes, too. It perhaps will be of interest to your Lordships to know that Germany competes as one country in the Olympic Games, that they are affiliated to my Federation as one country and not two. We have just succeeded in bringing North Korea and South Korea together in one team for the Olympic Games at Tokyo. Those are some of the things we can put on the credit side of what we are achieving.
308
I have been telling your Lordships about these things because this is a side of the achievements of amateur sport which is often not appreciated. We have knowledge of the advantages inside our own country, what is done outside should also be known.
May I say a few words about what we hope will be the proposals of the noble Viscount the Lord President. I must say one thing about him: having had one or two private conversations with him, I am astounded that, with all the things he has to do, he has managed to get such a tremendous grasp of this complicated subject in such a short time. And it is complicated. What do we hope for? We hope for news of further facilities. We are lagging behind almost every other country in the world in this respect. When we hear from him, some may say that it does not go far enough; some may say that it does. But the most important thing, to my mind, is that we should get off the ground: because once you are flying you can rapidly increase your rate of climb; and once we are committed on certain lines really to start moving, I am sure that, as the months go by, we shall be able to increase the tempo.
Much has been done with the limited finances available. In the Amateur Athletics Association we have a very strong committee trying to urge upon local authorities their responsibility for providing facilities, and the Association gives advice on the layout of grounds to suit our particular sport. We work very closely with the National Playing Fields Association and the Central Council. What is the machinery to be? It is a difficult problem, because we are all attached, as it were, to different Government Departments. Quite clearly, most of the activities of the Central Council would depend on the Board of Education. So far as playing fields are concerned, I should have thought it would have been the Ministry of Education and the Departments which deal with local government.
With regard to the Commonwealth Games, obviously it is a matter for the Commonwealth Department. On the competitive sports, from that side of their activities so far as coaching is concerned we have these schemes already; and the Department is the Ministry of Education. Most of the coaching schemes are not

309
just to teach champions but to train volunteers how to coach others so that everybody gets the advantage. There is something that needs to be done in international competitive sport—the noble Lady touched on this, and it is very important. The way the bigger governing bodies usually arrange matches is to have a return match, one in one country and one in the other. That means the match in their own country pays for their expenses to visit the other country. But that depends on having an equally strong country to compete with. If you can compete only with a weaker country you cannot attract a big enough gate to meet the team's expenses. Yet it is the weak countries that need help and encouragement more than the others, not only those still joined to this country but those which are now independent and in process of building up; and others less strong in sport. Here we must call on the Government to help, and surely it is to the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office that we must look.
So far as the Olympic Games are concerned, we are on the verge of launching an appeal for Tokyo. We think that we shall be able to send teams by voluntary subscription. I have a splendid committee, mostly busy men in industry, commerce, trade unions and the like, who have come on the committee and are prepared to help us. The sports themselves will raise much of the money. But where we all need help in the governing bodies and the Olympic Association is in grants towards administration. We are poor in amateur sport. It is composed largely of young people who are still only in the lower brackets of salary. Many of them marry young, and therefore have further responsibilities. They can manage to run their clubs and help with their districts. But when it comes to the national field you cannot run great organisations without permanent staff; and that is not an easy thing to raise money for. If the Government will work through the existing channels of the amateur bodies and help them with the costs of administration I am perfectly certain that that would be one of the best ways to help.
One thing I pray that we shall not hear mentioned this afternoon is that there is to be a Minister of Sport. I believe that that would be a disaster,
310
because, after all, the whole make-up of sport is this great amateur edifice that we have built. From the nature of things, a member of any Government in politics has to deliver something good, and over a short period; such is the way that politics seem to work. In the national field this would surely mean that he would have to interfere in the actual administration of sport. If I may give an example of what could easily happen in the international field it is something that faces us at the present moment. The French Government, or their representative, has urged the Council of Europe to hold a meeting of all the amateur sports bodies in their area to discuss such questions as amateur status and the like. That has been turned down flat by the international federations, and by the national ones; because in the first place, this is not within their sphere of activity; and in the second place, the strength of sport is that we do not recognise Europe as two halves but as one whole, whether people are behind the Iron Curtain or are not. We work with our own European Commission, and quite successfully to cover the lot. If we had a Minister of Sport and he had been asked by his counterpart in France whether he would support him in this venture, I think it would have caused some disappointment in France to say, "No"; and if he said "Yes" he would find himself at loggerheads with the amateur bodies.
I think the idea of having a Minister for Sport, if I can put it that way, someone in the position of the Lord President, to whom we can go, who has other responsibilities as well as sport—it could be perhaps for all grant-aided bodies, but, at any rate, some other responsibilities as well—and who has a strong section under him who know all the details of what is going on in the various sporting bodies and can co-ordinate their applications for assistance to the various departments, is not so very different from something the noble Baroness was asking for. This, I think, would probably be the best way of tackling this most difficult problem.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question? I hesitate to do so, because he is making an extremely interesting speech. He does not mind, then, having a Minister who has a part-time job as

311
Minister for Sport, with special responsibility for sport, but he insists that this Minister must have something else to do. Is that such a tremendously important distinction?
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: Yes, I think it is, because if a Minister is responsible for only one thing, as I see it, he is going to find that if he is going to produce results politically he must automatically devote much of his time to pushing this one thing—and this would lead almost certainly to interfering with the governing bodies and their management of the sport. What we want is the money to be provided, but as it is provided from public funds, somebody has to assume the responsibility. This is what the Wolfenden Report had in mind in their recommendation: that there must be some body which will accept that responsibility, will ration the money out, but will not interfere with the running of sport itself. Because immediately a Minister gets into the matter of administration, then I think we are going to have great trouble. I have actually seen this happen in other countries where this has taken place—I am referring to democratic countries now and not to the world as a whole.
But, apart from that point, I should like to touch on one other angle, in conclusion. It is one which I hope your Lordships will think about. Within the next ten years everybody in this country is going to have a motor car. We have already seen what is happening across the Atlantic. There a lot of people will not walk even one block now. Should that happen in this country, it will be a sorry position, because if you have a physically soft people how long will it take before the rugged character of the people changes? This is something which no Government can tackle alone, and no sports body can tackle. All the facilities can be provided; you can get in a lot of extra people by supporting the voluntary bodies, but in the long run it is going to be an approach to life.
I would urge that not only those in politics, but also particularly those in communications, the Press, the wireless, all leaders in national life, should not wait until this problem hits us, but even from now should start putting, whenever
312
they can, a slight emphasis on the extreme value to the individual and the community of his being reasonably healthy. I do not mean that everybody should run marathons, or that everybody should play violent games of Rugger quite late in life. I mean that people as they get older should play a game of golf or tennis, or even should walk, because I believe this is extremely important so far as the community is concerned.
If we push on with help to amateur sport, I believe we shall do a great deal for the youth of this country. We shall bring much happiness and pleasure. At the same time, we shall produce the sort of characters that we want to find in our citizens. Not only that, but by taking our active part in this field we shall be able, in the international field, too, to play a part in one of the greatest experiments that has ever taken place, so far successfully, in the integration of the ordinary people of the world. Surely, if we achieve well in this we shall have made a real contribution to the only sure foundation of that building which is the prayer of mankind: "Peace and good will among men".
3.27 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I must start with an apology to your Lordships, and also with thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. I have, unfortunately, a longstanding speaking engagement during the course of the afternoon and must leave at an early stage of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has kindly allowed me to speak ahead of him. I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for initiating this debate, which promises to be not only an extremely interesting but an extremely important one; and also, if I may say so, to the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, for a truly magnificent speech. He said, in an exemplary manner, many things which we ought to know but which many of us, I am afraid, did not know and simply felt without realising why. I should like to carry on from the point where he stopped, or where he was just beginning to arrive at the end of his speech; that is, the effect of sport in this country, not in the international sphere.
We are now embarking on an era, and have been now slowly over a good many years, of increasing leisure. We

313
all agree that that is right, and we want people in this country to have more leisure. But as leisure increases, undoubtedly the problems of leisure increase. What should be done with the leisure time? Leisure is not an unmixed blessing. Leisure will be used in an antisocial manner, in a manner which gives rise to many things which all of us deplore. Leisure, wrongly used, can lead to juvenile delinquency, to crime, to unhappiness, to boredom and to many things of that sort. We and the Government in this country must turn our minds to how we should, not in organised leisure, enable people to profit from the leisure which they are now having in increasing quantities, and which we hope they will have in still more increasing quantities in years to come. There are many ways in which leisure can be well used. Education is undoubtedly one; the development of cultural life is another, and sport is yet another. It is in that context that I should like to say a few words on this subject.
In itself, of course, sport is not universally and inevitably good. There are forms of sport which are not so desirable. I remember finding myself on one occasion in Sicily, and I was there invited by the local Member of Parliament to join in a day's shooting, which I did, with considerable enjoyment but not very much success. When I returned to Rome I thought that it would be only civil to write to this Member of Parliament and thank him for my day's entertainment. Because my Italian was not up to it, I wrote in English and asked a kind young lady in the British Embassy if she would translate it for me. But in the course of my letter I thanked him for the fine example of Sicilian sport which he had shown me. A rather bashful young lady came back with the letter duly translated, and said "I am afraid we have had to alter one phrase, because in Italian ' Sicilian sport ' does not mean exactly what you want it to mean." She would never tell me exactly what it was, but I take it that your Lordships are well acquainted with Italian and have a very good idea what was meant. It is not that type of sport that needs a great deal of encouragement. In fact, it may be as a counterblast to that form of sport that we should agree it is a Government
314
responsibility that thought should be given to this matter.
In particular, it seems to me that there is one period in the life of people in this country which is of particular importance, and that is the period between school leaving and becoming fully grown-up. Most people at school have opportunities for sport and have the desire for sport; but when they leave school, no matter what their age at the time, or when they finish their education, and go into a job, it is very easy at that period to lose the habit of sport, never to regain it. We must concentrate on that post-education period in order to ensure that the love of sport, the desire to indulge in it, which young people have gained is given an opportunity of being carried on.
I will deal only with two forms of sport, in both of which I have had some experience and from which I have derived a great deal of enjoyment. One is fencing, a sport which has enormous advantages in the particular context of which I speak, and also in the more general context, because people can practise it and enjoy it without any great preparations; without the need to travel long distances; without having to do it regularly; and, indeed, without having to organise teams of other people to do it with them. Fencing is something which can be done in the odd half-hour or three-quarters of an hour in the evening, after the end of work in the factory or office. It can be done virtually anywhere where there is a relatively large room; it can be done so long as there is one other person; and it can be done at all seasons. Furthermore, it can be done with little equipment, and is therefore relatively cheap.
A great deal of progress has been made in the last few years, thanks to the efforts of a small group of very devoted amateurs of the sport who deserve a great deal of credit for what they have done. In 1945 there were only 51 fencing clubs in this country. The figure has now risen to 450—a considerable increase. What is more, it is a sport that has spread throughout the whole country; it is not concentrated only in London, and is not concentrated in any one class of persons. Before the war there used to be, for young people, only the Public Schools Fencing

315
Competition. That has now been overtaken by what is called the National Schools Fencing Competition, which is run on a regional basis throughout the country and attracts a very large number of entrants from schools of all kinds. The results of this spread of the sport are also shown in the international sense—and I do not think we should blind ourselves to the international aspect of this matter, although one should not elevate it too high, with the national prestige that goes with it. In the last few years British fencers have secured a gold medal at Melbourne; two silver medals at the Rome Olympics; two individual world championships; and four gold medals in the last Commonwealth Games. So that the results of the great growth of fencing are being seen in that way.
Of course, they are facing, as indeed are all who are connected with sport, considerable financial problems which I should like to deal with in a moment, but there are two particular aspects of their financial problem which I should like to mention. One which applies to many other types of sport also is the fact that they have to pay purchase tax on their equipment. That may be fair enough in one way, although it does seem rather ridiculous as so many of the fencing clubs are organised and financed by local authorities. The money for purchase tax comes out of the rates and in many cases there has to be a greater indirect grant from central funds, in order to help out with the deficiency on the rates. So a reduction in purchase tax, if not its entire abolition, would be a small matter, but would provide great encouragement to the people concerned.
Then there is a second matter, a delicate matter, I admit, but I think again there is justice and common sense on its side. This concerns the charging for admission for Sunday sport. With a sport like fencing, where many of the finals have to take place at week-ends in the London area, with the heat winners coming up from the Provinces, Sunday is the only day on which such people who do other jobs can manage to come along; but because admission fees may not be charged on a Sunday, the hiring of the hall and the expense of the finals competition cannot be met,
316
as it normally would in other sports, by charging admission fees. This puts a greater strain on the finances.
I should like to turn to a second and entirely different form of sport. Here I would quote some words from the Report of the Wolfenden Committee, to which my noble friend has already referred. In paragraph 2, Chapter 1, the Committee write:
"…a society which has the prospect of considerably increased leisure needs to look at this aspect of its corporate life more closely "—
as I have already suggested to your Lordships. It goes on:
" Especially, an industrialised society, in which repetitive processes have largely taken the place of individual creation, needs to examine the contribution which play can make to full living, for the individual and for the society. As more and more people live urban lives, play takes its place—for one man as affording an opportunity for social activities with other town dwellers, for another as affording an opportunity for introducing into his own life a balancing element of the countryside and the open air."
It is particularly on that aspect of it I should like to speak for a few minutes.
We are living increasingly, as the Wolfenden Committee so rightly point out, in what is surely an artificial environment. Increasingly people do not know what the elements are, or the risks taken by people who even to-day still have to come into contact with them. The average young person brought up to-day if he is too cold need do no more than put a shilling in the slot, or turn on the gas fire, or, if he is lucky, simply presses a button or turn on a switch. If he is too warm he may, and increasingly as time goes on he will, be able to do the reverse process and turn on his air conditioning. If the rain is coming down too hard he can get into a bus, into a Tube or into a motor car. It is very rare now for any young person to have to face the elements as they really are. And, my Lords, I believe there is something sound and healthy, not in going back to nature, not in living one's life clothed in woad and living in a mud hut, but in sometimes realising that there are elements over which man still at times and in places has no control at all.
If we can give help to those bodies and organisations that fill this need, I believe we shall be going a long way to filling the needs that the noble Marquess started

317
to touch on at the end of his speech. "Outward Bound" is the obvious example of the type of thing that I have in mind, but there are other organisations, too. There is mountaineering—and here, perhaps, the National Parks could help to an even greater extent than they do at the present time. There is camping, sailing—and not necessarily deep sea sailing, though that is one of the finest and most helpful methods of bringing this about. There are even such matters as canoeing. I met some young people the other evening who last year, having formed a canoeing club, went for a 100-mile trip down the Wye in canoes, camping in the evenings on the river banks. Activities of that kind, though not normally coming into the ambit of what most of us regard as sport, are of very great importance to the life of this country, to the enjoyment and development of people, and to the healthy and profitable use of leisure.
Now, what about the cost of all this? I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Marquess that we do not want sport to come into politics. We do not want a Government Department to organise sport and make political or administrative decisions about it. We have a fine body of individuals, groups, amateurs and, to a certain extent, professionals also, engaged in this matter, and it would be very dangerous indeed if they were overridden o: controlled by a Government Department. But we cannot get away from the fact that money is needed to enable them to develop their activities, and that money we are suggesting must come from Exchequer funds. So to that extent we must have some ministerial responsibility and some Minister, who is charged with the job of acquiring the money both from the rest of his colleagues and from the Treasury, and then of ensuring that it is distributed in such a way as will meet with public approval and give the maximum benefit.
I said just now that that money must come from public fluids. I am not sure that in fact it must. That is certainly the simplest and possibly the easiest way of finding it, but let us not forget that a lot of money is made out of sport by people who have no connection with sport. The football pools are an obvious example. Last year, for instance, football
318
pools and general betting on football was estimated to have had a turnover of £150 million, A levy of 2 per cent. on that would bring £3 million, or more than half the total of £5 million that the Wolfenden Committee considered was the correct amount at this stage to devote to the current expenses of sport. So it is possible that money could be obtained from sources such as that. And there is the example of the Betting Control Board, which makes valuable and substantial contributions from the money taken in by betting on racehorses to promote the breeding of bloodstock. Possibly there is a lesson to be learnt from that, and some revenue might be derived from that source.
But whether it comes in part or entirely from those, or from Government, sources, the next question is: how should this money be distributed among the different sports? As I said earlier, and as the noble Marquess made clear in his speech, there must be no detailed control of the bodies who are organising these sports. It must be left to them to do it. But we need one general overriding body to allocate the funds which we hope this Government, and we are confident the next Government, will make available to sport. There the answer seems to be the one that is suggested by the Wolfenden Committee—the logical and administratively simple method of a Sports Development Council. That would have its responsibility to whatever Minister it might be. The Lord President of the Council seems to be the obvious person for it on many grounds—not solely personal ones, but on general grounds of precedents as well as many others. The Council's job would be to decide the rival claims of the different authorities and bodies connected with the different aspects of sport, and to allocate this money accordingly; and, of course, to press the Government to increase—as I am quite certain they would press them to do—the annual amount available, and also the amount for capital improvements.
But however this is done—whether it is done, as I think it should be, through a Sports Development Council, or by some other means, so long as it is not done directly by one Government Department—the overriding need must be for the Government of this country to accept their responsibility in supplying a very

319
modest amount of money for the needs of sport. They must look on this not simply—in fact in no way at all—as giving a bit of money to people who, for some reason or another, like to hit a ball about with a bat, or who like to put on curious clothes and run up and down in the evening time, or even run round St. James's Park as I believe my noble friend Lord Longford used to do at one time—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It was Christ Church Meadow.
LORD WALSTON:—but as a contribution towards the correct, productive and valuable use of such leisure as society has at the present time, and the increasing leisure which we all hope it will have.
3.48 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness put down this Motion upon the Order Paper, and I rise to say one or two words to support her. I have no particular reason to speak about sport, though I think there are two reasons why I am doing so; one is that the noble Baroness came and asked me, and the second is that I think the noble Marquess, who has already spoken, and I were both members of the Olympic Games Committee when these were held in London in 1948.
There are just one or two rather rambling and disjointed remarks which I should like to make on the field of sport. I should like to support the noble Baroness and other speakers, in their claim that some funds should be made available to amateur associations which run sporting activities. One that I know something about is the Hockey Association, which at the present time is trying to raise money to train, coach and send a team to (I think) the Olympic Games, and is having certain difficulty in doing so. I think it probably will succeed, but it is putting a very big strain upon the various clubs whose subscriptions have been greatly increased to provide this money. At the same time, as has already been pointed out, although a large number of these sporting associations were run by voluntary people in the past, that cannot be done now. People have not the money and, therefore, have to find money to
320
provide some kind of staff to keep them going. I do not think they are very demanding in the size of their staff, but there must now be someone there who is paid, whereas in former days people did it voluntarily and were not paid.
I think the noble Baroness raised a very important point as to whether assistance cannot be given to teams going from this country to other countries for sporting events, and, at the same time, to people coming to this country from other countries. There is one case in point which was brought to my notice the other day. There was a team of, I think it was, lawn tennis players which went to Poland, and they were supported entirely by the Polish Government. They had their expenses paid, and everything done for them. It would be very difficult indeed for the lawn tennis people in this country to arrange a similar visit, because the expenses of travel from Poland are quite large; and, although they could probably arrange the hospitality, it is a question of the big capital sums, like the 'plane fares or the train fares, for which it is very difficult for these bodies to find the money. Certain forms of sport—cycling, for example—do, I believe, obtain some money from the manufacturers, but I believe that even that source of money is tending to dry up. So there are difficulties coming all the way along.
There is one particular form of sport to which I should like to refer. It always surprises me the number of people who have never been taught how to swim. One sees in the papers every year the dreadful toll of young people, and middle-aged people, who are drowned—some have been drowned in the sea, some in rivers, some in ponds—merely because they have not been taught to swim and they do not know what water can do. I am sure that if one were taught properly about water, one would regard it as the friendly element that it is. It does not want to kill you. It is a friendly element, but it must be treated with a certain amount of respect. I am sure that, if people could be taught that, there would be far fewer fatalities of this kind, quite often involving young people. Moreover, these eases quite frequently concern young people who have gone to the rescue of some unfortunate person

321
who has got into trouble, which makes it all the more tragic and sad. If we could encourage that particular sport on a national basis, that would be contributing something very important indeed to the field in which we are all interested.
Then, to jump to another point, I have been greatly interested in the amount of sport which is encouraged among prisoners. I am told that in most borstal institutions the facilities are fairly good and that to-day there is not a great deal of improvement to be demanded. But I think that in some of our bigger prisons the facilities are not at all good. A certain proportion, I believe, have a permanent physical education instructor; and they play games, certainly at the week-ends. Some of the teams, I understand, play against teams from outside the prison. Others play a certain number of games at the weekends, although whether against people away from the prison or people inside the prison I am rot quite sure. But in quite a number—and these include a large number of our big local prisons—there are only very limited facilities for sport, partly because these prisons were built in crowded, built-up areas, and it is difficult to find playing field accommodation for them.
One would like to see these sporting activities encouraged, because it is a good way of bringing prisoners hack to normality, making their life something more like normal. One would very much like to find something that could be done to encourage that. I am sure the Prison Commissioners are very interested in that now, and that they want it as much as anybody. One would like to see all prisons given ample facilities for the enjoyment of sport.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I believe that what he is saying is of tremendous importance. Does he not feel that, even where, in the big London prisons, facilities are not available, the prisoners should be taken out, under escort, so that they can use playing fields that are not otherwise being used?
LORD AMULREE: I am sure that could be done, but I did not want to go into too much detail. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that something
322
of that sort could be done, so that these young men could get some kind of physical sport going somewhere.
I should like to finish on a little more melancholy note. It seems to me that one has to be very careful to make sure one is not making a new form of privileged class in society. That may sound a rather curious thing to say, but I should like to refer, for example, to Hyde Park. The noble Marquess, I think it was, or the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to the fact that some people, when they are not as young as they were, take up walking as their main exercise. That, I am bound to say, is my main exercise. I live in London, and one of the things I enjoy very much is walking about this town. Until fairly recently it was possible for me to take a nice Sunday morning walk right round the Serpentine. I cannot do that now, because there is a big bathing establishment plumb in the middle of it, and I have got to make a detour to get around that. Even more parts of the park are taken up with golf and with bowls. I do not think there is a running track in Hyde Park, but there is certainly one in Regent's Park.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Only for horses.
LORD AMULREE: The noble Viscount says, "Only for horses", but that is not a privileged place; because if you cared to walk in Rotten Row, nobody would stop you. I admit that your boots would get very muddy and dusty, and you might get kicked by a passing horse: but you are not allowed to walk round the Serpentine and you are not allowed to walk where the bowling green is. If we are going to encourage facilities for sport, let us not make our public parks too full of enclosures for sport, and let us realise that there are certain people who do like to take normal, ordinary recreation. Those who wish to indulge in sport should have fields supplied where they can, and not interfere with other people. My Lords, Hyde Park is an extremely precious thing. I do not know if your Lordships remember, but when (I think it was) Queen Caroline, who took rather a liking to Hyde Park, asked what it would cost her to buy it, the reply was, "Three crowns, ma'am."
3.58 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is just over two years since I introduced a Motion in this House drawing attention to the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. At the time, the economic climate was far from good, and my Motion did not extract anything very helpful from the Government. I would congratulate the noble Baroness on having chosen a more opportune time to introduce her Motion, and I wish her better luck. May I also join with other noble Lords who have thanked her for giving us this opportunity to discuss sport, and say how much I admired the way in which she introduced the Motion, with her usual charm and with the vigour which confirmed our knowledge of her as an outstanding athlete herself.
A few months ago we were discussing in this House the Report of the Arts Council, and it seems to me that, in their relationship to the Government, there are certain similarities between the arts and sport. In the first place, there is, I would say, increased popular interest in both, partly due, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned, to the increased leisure that people have, and partly, perhaps, to television. In the second place, there is a lack of private benefactors. Certainly this was mentioned by many different speakers at the time we were discussing the Arts Council Report, and I think it is equally true of sport, although in the case of sport, perhaps, this voluntary aid comes more from industry and, as my noble friend Lord Exeter mentioned, from the newspapers. But certainly this sort of sport cannot be expected to go on for ever, and, indeed, may well fall off, because the demands on industry for every type of charitable cause are so tremendous to-day that most big industries have in fact to keep a special department to deal with them.
Certainly this is true in Wales. We are fortunate in being well-developed industrially in South Wales, but there are relatively few large companies, such as the Steel Company of Wales, Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds and British Nylon Spinners, to whom we have to appeal for everything that crops up, whether it is sport or the arts or charities. Also, we have a further slight disadvantage in Wales, in that many of these industrial firms are in fact subsidiaries of
324
English firms who may already have given money to the particular cause.
Because of these two similarities of the arts and sport, if they are valid, there is also a third: the increased need for Government support. I would echo what has been said to-day: that certainly none of us would wish that sport should depend entirely on Government support. Indeed, it is vital that it should continue to be supported by voluntary contributions. But there is a need for Government assistance to prime the pump if there is to be provided facilities necessary in modern conditions. This has already been recognised by the fact that there are certain Government grants in existence and by the appointment of my noble friend, the Lord President, to coordinate Government assistance to sport.
In the case of the arts, the organisational problem has, it seems to me, been very satisfactorily solved by the establishment of the Arts Council. The Government are therefore enabled to provide money to the Council which can then make its allocations as it seems fit and in the best priorities. It seems to me that the proposal of the Wolfenden Committee to establish a Sports Development Council would have achieved the same object; it would have given the Government the possibility of providing the money to an independent central authority which would then have been charged with the task of determining priorities.
However, this suggestion has not commended itself to the Government, and we have to face the alternative situation sin which my noble friend, the Lord President, has special responsibilities. Until he has spoken and given us some idea of what is in his mind it is perhaps difficult to speculate on how he sees the future; but I should hope, in whatever plans he has in mind, that there should be some form of regional organisation which would be enabled to decide priorities in the spending of public money, to assist sport in different localities and to make the best use of the money available. I hope, also, that his future plans will include making the best possible use of the various central bodies concerned, such as the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association, the British

325
Olympic Association and the British and Empire Commonwealth Games Council.
I now turn briefly to what I see as the financial needs of sport, with particular reference to those needs in Wales with which I am most familiar. In the first place, I would repeat what has already been said by the noble Baroness of the need for increased grants to governing bodies of various sports to help meet administrative expenses. My noble friend, Lord Exeter, gave us some idea—I must say it was something I had not fully appreciated before—of the very great responsibilities that governing bodies have in the whole world of sport, quite apart from their responsibilities for their own sport in this country. Yet, with the wide responsibilities that they have, many of them do riot even have a paid secretary. I believe that in England soccer, rugby, tennis, badminton, equestrian sports and cricket are the only governing bodies that have paid secretaries. Even the Amateur Athletic Association, with its tremendous responsibilities, exists with an honorary secretary to run it. In Wales, the situation is worse, and only the Welsh Rugby Union and the Football Association of Wales have paid secretaries. I believe it would be of great value and a contribution towards increasing the sporting facilities in this country if the administrative expenses of these national governing bodies were assisted to a greater degree. Like the stone in the pool, ripples would move out through the national governing bodies to the local groups aid would be of help all over the country.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness also mentioned, there comes the need for more assistance for the organisation of international sport. Although at first sight this might seem to be a bottomless well, I would suggest that there are ways and means of limiting and confining it perhaps to world championships, including the Olympic Games, the European Games and the British Empire and Commonwealth Games, either in the form suggested by the noble Baroness of "pound for pound" or perhaps in the form suggested by my noble friend Lord Exeter of taking care of the administrative expenses involved.
I think, also, that there is a case for Government assistance for overseas tours where these may be of prestige value.
326
Just as the British Council organises tours of the arts abroad, and uses public money for doing so, I would suggest there is a case for assisting sports tours on a particular occasion, such as the instance, for example, mentioned by the noble Lady, of the hockey team that might have toured India. I believe there are one or two cases of that sort. There was another case where there were Independence Games to be held in a newly-independent African State and where, for a long time, it looked as if the Mother Country alone was going to be unable to send a team to compete in the Games to celebrate independence. I am happy to say that that problem was finally solved; but there are cases where money should be available, whether it be through the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office or the Colonial Office, to sponsor worthwhile tours of that sort.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said about fencing. He mentioned that fencers had gained two world championship medals; but I believe I am right in saying that one of those medals was gained by Mr. Billy Hoskins, the only Briton represented at the world championships in America, because he sportingly undertook to pay his own fare to get there. The Fencing Association were unable to pay it; and he had to pay his own expenses in order to gain a world championship and to be the only person competing from this country. This only emphasises what I think necessary: that there should be funds available to meet cases of this kind. Thirdly, there is a need for increased assistance to the national bodies, such as the Central Council of the National Playing Fields Association; but there are many others better qualified than I to speak about these things and I need therefore say no more.
The last need, but not the least important one, is adequate provision of local facilities. In replying to the debate I initiated two years ago, the noble and learned Viscount who then sat on the Woolsack dazzled us with a figure of £18 million annually expended by the Government on facilities for sport in this country. But, of course, first of all he did fairly say that £9 million of this represented expenditure by the education authorities. This is admirable; but where

327
we are really so short is in the provision of facilities for people to continue sports once they have left school. The very fact that schools are so well equipped as many of them are, especially new schools, emphasises this need for the provision of adequate facilities for boys and girls once they have left school. The figures which the noble and learned Viscount gave of that side of the fence were rather more alarming. They were £100,000 in grants under the Physical Training and Recreation Act and £210,000 as a contribution towards the running costs of national voluntary bodies and towards coaching facilities. I think that a great deal more should be done under these headings.
It is true that the noble and learned Viscount also spoke of some £7 million expended by local authorities on providing facilities for sport, but he did not give any great details of how that was made up. But certainly in Wales, and I think unhesitatingly in the rest of the country, there is a grave inadequacy of proper facilities in many areas. In Wales, there is no real shortage of outdoor facilities, except for isolated cases, but there is a chronic shortage of indoor facilities both at club and international level. There is only one squash club of any size in Wales and this has a long waiting list. The southern branch of the Welsh Badminton Union, which plays matches with the English counties and represents the whole of South Wales, was unable to find a hall in South Wales which could provide two courts for their county matches. Various drill halls were available, but the cost of hiring for a match was beyond their resources. There are no indoor tennis courts in Wales, no ice skating rinks and facilities for such sports as judo are almost non-existent.
What we require in Cardiff is something in the shape of a sports centre which would provide indoor and outdoor facilities, to practise competition at all levels, something in the nature of the Crystal Palace national recreation centre though in Cardiff we are fortunate in already possessing a fine swimming pool. The other centres of population in Wales—such as Newport, Swansea, Haverfordwest and North Wales—would require something less elaborate in the form of sports halls,
328
owing to the difficulty and distances involved in travelling to Cardiff.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should like to obtain some clarification of the noble Lord's ideas. I am sure that all he says is absolutely right, but who ought to take the initiative, in his view, about providing the better facilities in Cardiff, for instance? Should it not be the local authority? And are they failing to get the proper help from the centre?
LORD ABERDARE: I think that the initiative should come from the local authority, but I hope that there would be increased possibility of getting grants to assist them with the cost of what would be fairly costly projects. Assuming that more Government help will be made available, the problem is to decide on how it can best be allocated and how priorities can be established. Perhaps sports councils could be set up regionally, consisting of representatives of local councils and voluntary sports bodies. I think that there is a need for some form of local organisation to establish priorities, if money is to be spent to the best advantage.
There are so many examples of where a comparatively small amount of money could accomplish such a lot. I can think of one scheme in South Wales, at a place called Merthyr Mawr, where by local initiative a farmhouse is being converted into a suitable changing room and overnight stopping area for athletes who can train on the sand dunes. So far the local initiative, which has come from the Welsh A.A.A., has done a certain amount of work and with a grant from the A.A.A. and a lot of local labour provided free, the job has been begun, but they are short of the final amount of money which would just make the scheme work. Unfortunately, it looks as if it will fail, unless more money is forthcoming.
I also think that this question of local advice on priorities should include the best use of local facilities. As the noble Baroness said, there is need for a survey of local facilities in every area, especially to make sure that the best use is being made of the facilities that exist. There are a number of sports facilities owned by schools, commercial firms and the Services which are not in full-time use

329
and which often could be brought into full-time use, if there was a little more money available to a local club or sporting association to pay the probably small extra cost involved in keeping them open. It may be a question of overtime for groundsmen, extra electricity or an extra roller, but for a comparatively small amount of money better use could be made of these facilities.
Another example is the use made of swimming pools in schools. I believe that I am right in saying that in many cases swimming pools have been built in newly erected schools which could easily be made available to the adult population in the evenings, but they are closed because the chlorination plant installed is not sufficient to cope with more than a certain amount of people bathing in the pool. I suggest that if there were better co-ordination between the local education authority, the local council and local sports bodies at the time school pools were built, it might be possible, at comparatively little extra cost, to put in larger chlorination plants, if that indeed is the problem, to make the pool available not only to school children during daylight but also to the adult population in the evening.
In brief, what I believe is required is more Government money and some form of regional planning to make the best use of it. We look forward with great anticipation to what my noble friend the Lord President has to say this evening, though I very much regret that I shall be unable to be present at the very end. I hope that he will accept my apologies and believe that no discourtesy is intended.
4.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I would appeal to the Government on grounds which are entirely different from those which previous speakers have put forward. May I say how delighted I am that my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has initiated this debate? While listening to her speech, I am sure we all regretted that we have never had an opportunity of seeing her run in some international event. I presume that it is too late now. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, has gone, because, as a doctor, I was intrigued by his comment that he
330
went into sport because he thought his legs were too short.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Too long.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thought that I should go into sport, though I was not terribly good at it, because my legs were so long. But if the noble Marquess said that, that equates us.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I can put the noble Lady's mind at rest. My noble friend said that he was too short above the knee and too long below—or it may have been the other way round.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I would not dare to suggest that I should measure them. Perhaps the noble Marquess will toll us privately about that. The very essence of British sport is willingness to adhere to the rules, to show consideration of others and not to be guilty of any unfair practices which might injure an opponent. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken would agree with that. With this eminently desirable approach to sport, if a man is injured accidentally on the football field, in cricket, in fencing or elsewhere, the crowd has the greatest sympathy for him. His fellow players may feel a little guilty, and particularly the one who is responsible for the injury. The game is stopped until he recovers, or, if he has a serious injury, he is carried from the field. Therefore it is a source of unceasing wonder to me that genuine sports lovers do not collectively denounce a business masquerading as a sport which bears no comparison to sports which are conducted in accordance with these high principles. I am referring, of course, to prize fighting, in which the objective is to injure your opponent so severely that he is rendered insensible. If he has a minor injury, such as a bleeding eyelid, then the instructions are to play on it. If he has been dazed by a blow to the head, according to a classic in the Library in the House of Commons which I have consulted, his opponent should mot wait for him to recover, but should deliver a knock-out blow as soon as possible. That, it is said, is the right sporting attitude to the dazed man.
How long will Britain tolerate this ugly business, which exploits youth in the name of sport and presents a brutal and

331
degrading spectacle on television to people in their very homes? Here, I should have thought, was a great opportunity for the first Minister for Sport (and I understand it is in order to call the noble Viscount the Minister for Sport, and not of Sport) to speak for a rapidly growing section of the public—not a tiny, cranky minority—and to denounce the business of prize fighting without any qualification.
Your Lordships gave me a courteous hearing last year when I introduced a Bill to ban boxing. The result was encouraging. We had quite a full House, and I must confess that I thought all your Lordships would go into the Lobby against me, because, obviously the male and no doubt the female, has a degree of aggressive instinct, even in the Houses of Parliament. But, no: many of your Lordships kindly abstained, and the result was that I lost by only seven votes. I felt that this House was deeply concerned, not only with the harmful effects on boxers themselves, but with the debasing effect on the onlookers. I said then that Parliament in the last century did not ban cock fighting because it was sorry for the cocks; it banned cock fighting because it realised it had a debasing effect upon the population of Britain in the nineteenth century. Since our debate there have been a number of deaths in the ring, and public opinion in many countries has been moved to protest against the business. That is why I come to the Government today and ask the noble Viscount whether he will be the hero of the nicest people in the country and recognise what other countries have done in the last year. I believe that your Lordships, in part, were responsible for this, because that debate was widely reported.
The New York Legislature, to start with (and we should all agree that this mis-called sport is conducted in the United States of America in a manner which is more brutal than it is in this country) set up a committee to examine the procedure, with a view to regulating the conduct of fights. I was very honoured to receive all the reports, and only about a month ago they finally made recommendations. They are making recommendations of such a kind now that I am told the promoters are saying that if these recommendations are carried out nobody
332
will want to go to see the fighting. In Belgium (and the Deputy Speaker of the Belgian Parliament has always been trying to produce legislation on this matter) last year they passed legislation to protect the fighter of such a kind, I am told, that promoters will not find it worth while to promote fights.
The Scandinavian countries are examining the question. And that great director of medical health, Dr. Karl Evang, who is admired by the World Health Organisation and is used by the United Nations to help developing countries to establish their health services, boldly and with the greatest moral courage denounces boxing. Little Iceland last year banned it. Again, in this last year the Pope spoke to the huge Catholic population of the world, and he was not mealy-mouthed on the subject. He denounced it in unqualified terms; and he has done it not only once, but has repeated it many times. In this country, I am pleased to say, the Royal College of Physicians (and noble Lords will recall that it was the Royal College of Physicians who pronounced on smoking; whose recommendations have been greatly respected; and on whose advice the Ministry of Health have advised people in this country not to smoke, following their Report) are setting up a committee to examine the business, as I call it, and to make recommendations. There is going to be a major medical conference on boxing held in London in the autumn. The British Medical Journal has, for the first time, published a detailed analysis of the cases of five boxers who lost their lives.
However, the most important scientific contribution was made three weeks ago by Dr. F. B. Byrom, of the Institute of Psychiatry of London University, who wrote in the New Scientist. Your Lordships have heard my views on the matter, and I have quoted many medical authorities, but what I say now are the views of Dr. Byrom, who is recognised as eminent in his particular field. He is more concerned with the effect on a boxer who has had blows aimed at his head over a period of years. His description of the symptoms include a steady loss of skill, deterioration of habits, a fatuous complacency, slurred speech and a mask like face. He says that this condition is progressive and incurable in severe cases; it turns a normal young

333
man into an unstable wreck, often drifting towards prison or a mental hospital; and it can, in Dr. Byrom's opinion (and I think those who have spoken on amateur sport during this debate to-day should listen to this), apply to both professionals and amateurs, for they both run a grave risk.
The A.B.A. handbook on medical aspects of amateur boxing mentions a boy so confused on the day after a contest that he travelled to the next town instead of going home. Other symptoms are double vision, headaches and changes in personality, which are detectable at first only by the boxer's wife or by his close friends. As I say, this applies to amateurs as well.
Of course, those who have financial interests in boxing—and the financial rewards are colossal, for both promoters and managers—pooh-pooh all this and declare that this condition can be found in only a tiny minority of cases. Unhappily, the fact is that, while brain damage may be obvious immediately after a head injury, it may often remain latent, sometimes far many years—and I am still quoting Dr. Byron. The latent damage to the brain cannot be detected with certainty, and cannot be measured or cured. Therefore, when you read articles which are inspired by the prize-fight business, and which are written in order to reassure the parents of these boys, whom they use, and tell them that the boys are examined before a fight, that they are examined afterwards by a doctor, and that the all-clear has to be given before the boys go into the ring again, remember that the facts are that the latent damage to the brain cannot be detected with certainty, cannot be measured, and cannot be cured. Doctors associated with the boxing business claim that most boxers who are knocked out can walk to their corners afterwards, and this in itself demonstrates their fitness. I wonder sometimes whether this ignorance of the latent damage to the brain in boxers is real or assumed.
In view of the public concern over the injuries deliberately inflicted in the ring, the question is being asked in some boxing circles: Can these be prevented? It is most interesting that, as various Governments have taken action, as I have described to your Lordships, the business itself is now recognising that it
334
may have to show the public that it is time to improve matters. Can these injuries be prevented? Gloves, even the heavily padded gloves of the amateur, protect the fingers rather than the brain. Moreover, lining the floor of the ring with rubber has repeatedly failed to prevent death and serious injury. There are those who advise the wearing of protective headguards, but in one of the recent deaths in the ring the victim was said to be the only member of the team wearing a headguard. Undoubtedly, the promoters of prize fights are now on the defensive. They declare that the aim in boxing is to score points, and not to injure one's opponent. However, I think they are well aware that the screaming betting crowd which surrounds the boxing ring would claim that they had been robbed if knock-outs were eliminated by banning blows to the head. It was Hippocrates who first said that no head injury is ever too trivial to be safely ignored. That opinion emphasises the medical case against boxing.
While I have stressed the medical aspect, I am even more concerned with the sheer immorality of these spectacles. We live in an age of increasing violence, with our prisons and remand homes full, and yet night after night in this country we permit public displays of men fighting each other and this fight being brought by television right into the living rooms of the people, when we know that such a display caters to the basest instincts. I ask noble Lords to be as roused over this as their predecessors were in this House a hundred years ago on cock fighting. Then, as our predecessors said, "We must protect the people". Surely, that is our object and our intention here. I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who I believe has a civilised approach to this matter, to use his power now, and to take action, just as the other countries have done.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I always enjoy listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, particularly when she is being as single-minded as she was just now, on a subject which we know is dear to her heart. It is always invigorating, but I am sure she will permit me to bring the House back to the Motion on the Order Paper, the

335
Government's future relationship to the governing bodies of sport. I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for giving us this opportunity to-day to discuss this important subject and, even more, to hear the view of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, with the particular hat he is wearing to-day.
I must declare an interest, inasmuch as I am Chairman of the British University Sports Federation. Therefore, I hope I know a little about this subject, since the Federation covers not just athletics but all forms of sport. While welcoming the appointment of my noble friend the Leader of the House as the Minister responsible for co-ordinating and developing sporting and recreational facilities, I can only say that I, too, was very disappointed that the Government had not thought fit to follow the advice and the recommendation of the Wolfenden Report on Sport, that a Sports Development Council should be set up to co-ordinate sporting and recreational facilities. That is water over the dam, so I will not try to persuade the Government to change their mind on this point. I can only assume (and I hope my noble friend will point out to me if I am wrong) that the Government have refused to set up this Council because the Treasury would not allow detailed control of public money to go out of Civil Service hands. Obviously, the Government must have overall control of the expenditure of public money; but to insist that detailed control of exactly how every grant, large and small, is to be spent, without there being an independent body with some knowledge of the subject to establish necessary priorities, does not make a great deal of sense to me.
However, as I have already said, the Government have made this decision and decided on another approach to the problem. I therefore welcome the appointment of Sir Patrick Renison, who has had a distinguished athletic career. I am sure that his attitude is, and will be, one of sympathy towards sport. This appointment is certainly a step forward, although, as I have said, I am not certain that it is in the right direction.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is forward.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: One can go slightly sideways as the bishop does on the chess board, and still be going forward. With all due respect to Sir Patrick Renison, I cannot conceive how he and whatever staff the Government choose to give him, can possibly know all the ins and outs of sporting activities all over the country. That is unfortunate, because surely this body will be able to save an enormous amount of money which is at present being wasted, in duplication, in one form or another; and also able to see that what little land we have available is put to the right use.
There are over 100 governing bodies, covering some 33 major sports, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there are several hundred local authorities responsible for providing facilities for recreation. In one way or another, most of these will press for their own cases to be considered—and quite naturally. If no expert advice is available to Sir Patrick Renison to decide between these varying claims, surely, the local authority which produces the most persuasive arguments, and probably the most persuasive lawyer, will, naturally, as happens in other walks of life, be the one most successful in its or their pleading. The decision as to what grants for public recreational facilities should go to local authorities, and how much should be given to each of the 100 sports governing bodies can be sensibly decided only after the overall picture of national sporting requirements is clear.
What is more important—and I urge this most strongly—is that, after the overall picture has been properly painted in by those who know the ins and outs of the various sporting problems and requirements, if the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House is not to have a Sports Development Council, he should set up an advisory committee made up from members of the British Olympic Association, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association, and possibly from the governing bodies of the various sports themselves. My noble friend Lord Exeter has already suggested this; and so, I think, has the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Only in this way can a logical and balanced picture emerge, instead of one which, to my mind, will depend entirely on the pleading abilities of the

337
authorities or bodies coming forward to put their case.
Perhaps I may go a little further into this aspect. If the Government agree to set up an advisory body for Sir Patrick Renison, then they should go one step further and allow for one local representative of the C.C.P.R. and the N.P.F.A. in each county with an office or a staff, and these representatives should tie in more closely with the local authorities. At present, the Central Council for Physical Recreation's representatives are far too thin on the ground and are not necessarily joint with the National Playing Fields Association. The duties of these representatives will be to make censuses of sports facilities, co-ordinate the work of clubs of all sports in their own areas, and, finally, to help the clubs. Secondly, there should be more national coaches, paid for by the Ministry of Education, for the governing bodies of the various sports, and more grants to governing bodies for sports equipment.
I come now to international sport, which, again, my noble friend Lord Exeter has already touched on far better than I can. But there are one or two points that I should like to make which he did not mention. As foreign countries are now so widely Government-subsidised, and as this question of prestige, whether we like it or not, now rears its ugly head in international sport, the Government ought to give grants towards the European Championships, the World Championships and (an event which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, did not mention) the World Student Games, so that this country can send teams of a reasonable size whenever these Championships or Games happen to take place. Prestige now, unfortunately, is considered of great importance in countries abroad, however much we may decry this development. Even the Foreign Office, as we have heard, have acknowledged the fact. This position of having to go cap-in-hand, every time these championships come up, to all sorts of sources is, to say the least, ignominious—and, in any event, these sources are running out.
At the moment my federation is trying to scrape a team together to send to the World Student Games in Brazil. We cannot even send a representative to the International Universities Federation, because he would take the place of one
338
more athlete. Yet that international body has almost as intricate international problems to solve as (as we have heard my noble friend Lord Exeter mention) the Olympic Council. I have not mentioned the Olympic or Commonwealth Games in this respect because I consider, too, that grants should be given, but only for administration and not to teams themselves.
Finally, my Lords, I would urge the Government to think again on the setting up of an advisory committee, even if they will not implement the suggestions in the Wolfenden Report. This country's sport is complex and widespread, and the problems are not the same in any two parts of the country. If proper facilities are to be provided, and money is not to be wasted—and later on, if he wishes, I can give my noble and learned Leader many examples of waste, both in money and in duplication of effort—then a body with a proper organisation, a body of men who know their sport (civil servants, with all due respect, cannot get to know the intricacies in the short time which will be needed) is needed. I therefore beg my noble and learned Leader seriously to consider this proposal.
4.45 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, first of all, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for moving this motion this afternoon. It has been a long time arriving on the Order Paper, but it has done so at long last, and I think the discussion we have had and will continue to have will have been very fruitful indeed. The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, ascended the lofty heights of the Olympic organisation and development, but it is my province this afternoon, although he dealt with the completed article, the Olympics, to stay at home on the bottom of the ladder towards greatness.
It is clear from our discussion that there are many branches of sporting activities among all sections of the community. These cater for our personal interests in every way, and I want to deal with only two or three of them which, in the main, are carried out by those at school or about to leave school. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned the difficulties of providing equipment for boys and girls at school and afterwards. I shall

339
not touch upon any activities in which mechanical aids play an all-important or, maybe, overriding part, nor those in which the destruction of bird or animal life is excessively severe. Neither of these have any attraction for me, in spite of my rural environment. Also, in these cases the question of Government aid does not seem to arise, as those who find pleasure in them can generally bear their own costs.
We can all discuss our likes and dislikes and may even be prejudiced one way or another. My plea to-day to the Government and to the Minister will be essentially one for the benefit of school and teenage athletes of both sexes, and I am encouraged to make this plea by reason of certain paragraphs in the Wolfenden Report which no doubt are know to the Government in respect of this particular aspect of sport. I have made this plea before, actually on July 31, 1962, and I do not apologise for repeating it, as I am unaware of any tangible action which the Government have taken in the meantime to give direct or implemented assistance where it is so greatly needed and could show such national benefit. A good case loses nothing by repetition and there is hope now that our discussion may be more satisfying. No doubt a number of requests and suggestions will have reached the ears of the Government this afternoon, and, so far as I can see, we should all stress our own particular wants in regard to money.
The English Schools Sports Associations covering football, rugby union, athletics, amateur boxing, cricket, swimming and basket-ball, are controlled by a National Council, and each constituent section is run on a voluntary basis relying mainly, and sometimes almost solely, for its existence on the goodwill, enthusiasm, loyalty and specialist knowledge of thousands of schoolmasters, teachers and mistresses, all devoted to their work of building-up and improving the mental and physical standard of those young folk who come under their care and supervision. They carry on unostentatiously in each county, and, in the whole, form a great organisation of immense value to the community. I especially ask the Government to bring them into consultation or schemes they may envisage, as voluntary experience and
340
knowledge such as can be found among these associations would be of inestimable value. At the moment, they have not been noted at all this afternoon in regard to suggestions as to who might, or might not, be brought into consultation.
I realise that indirect contributions made by the taxpayer through Government grants to sport in schools are considerable. They are appreciated and valuable. But I want to stress the growing and great need for help to be given for out-of-school activities. The Associations which I have mentioned, catering especially for out-of-school sports and games, are, with one possible exception, suffering year by year from financial strain. I do not believe any direct Government grant is received by any of them. Their annual income is derived from small gate receipts at matches, athletic sports and other events, and from any donations which may be sent to them. The affluent body among them would appear to be the Schools Football Association, which has the advantage of staging international matches at Wembley and elsewhere. About 90,000 schoolboys cheered their heads off at Wembley a month ago at the school international football match between England and Wales, a most inspiring assembly of budding footballers and citizens about to step out into the future of Britain, whatever that future may be.
I should like to turn to another association, the English Schools Athletic Association. This was founded in 1925 and has been carried out on a voluntary basis ever since. This is not in the same financial strata as its counterpart in football. It has to carry on, year by year, on a shoe-string. Here the situation would be precarious but for the generosity of the Schools Football Association and the National Union of Teachers in helping out. The culminating point of a year's hard work is the English Schools Championship athletic sports covering two days towards the end of July each year. Preparations for these sports will have extended over many months in order to make ground arrangements, accommodation provision for nearly 2,000 competitors and officials, and 101 smaller matters which arise before sports on this scale can be staged. The cost each year to the Association before the sports take

341
place is at least £1,000. The counties who have teams competing bear their own costs and in many cases the competitors do the same. The teaching staffs in the area in which the sports are held form voluntary committees, and the result of these are beyond commendation; they are excellent.
A mere £10,000 would satisfy all the associations' annual administration expenses—that is, the whole of the associations covered by the National Council. These schools championship sports are the greatest home national athletic event of the year. It is unequalled. I may not find favour entirely in that statement, but in my view it is correct. Here are not the grown-ups, the past national or foreign Olympic track and field athletes, but the cream of the English boys and girls of school ages, competing in fierce competition for the honour and prestige of their counties and their schools. They have to be first class and extremely fit even to get a place in the final of any event. Records are broken every year, and outstanding competitors find a place in international school events and take one step nearer to inclusion in the British Olympic team.
The figures I can now give your Lordships will impress you. These are the figures of competitors who competed in these annual school sports in years prior to various Olympic and Commonwealth games. In the Olympic Games of 1952 at Helsinki, 8 competitors came from the schools sports; in the Commonwealth Games in 1954, 11 competitors; in the Olympic Games of 1956 at Melbourne, 17 competitors; in the Commonwealth Games of 1958, 32; in the Olympic Games of 1960 at Rome there were 26 British competitors from the English schools sports of recent years, and in the Commonwealth Games of 1962 there were 39. So your Lordships will see from these figures that the number of boys or the young men and young ladies representing Britain increases, meeting by meeting. Recently 1,200 boys competed in three age groups, 400 in each, in the cross-country championships at Coventry. What races these must have been, with 400 competitors in each!The intermediate race was won by one of my Norfolk boys who is the junior mile record holder. His sister won the half-mile race at the last two annual championship sports. I am told this boy
342
is so keen to keen fit and to improve that he trains every day and runs approximately 50 miles each week. That is the stuff our young athletes are made of. They are the only material on which great nations can survive. They need every encouragement and are national assets of great potential.
The associations such as I have described should be considered by the Government and the Minister to be worthy of consideration for inclusion in any scheme or organisation for the future which may be envisaged. The experience and enthusiasm in this branch of school sport is unsurpassed, and what I have said, I am sure, is equally appropriate to the other branches in their spheres. I do not know if any of your Lordships read a newspaper report a fortnight ago concerning a Kent girl student, Linda Harman by name, who won the senior girls' javelin event at last year's championship sports and held the record for her age group. Her aim is to endeavour to become good enough in this event to represent her country in the 1964 Olympics, but she counted up the cost of buying equipment, attending training courses and travelling expenses, and had to give up any idea of becoming more than an ordinary club athlete. Her mother is a widow and has to work to support her two children, as so many widows have to do in our present society. However, the good people of Ashford have launched a local fund which will enable Linda to attend courses, compete with European women athletes, and, it is hoped, become a credit to her sponsors and her country. The people of Ashford are to be commended upon their foresight.
I have mentioned this case—there may be others—to show how stupid we are in our conception of the value to our country of first-class athletes. Can one suppose for one moment that either the United States or the Soviet Union would tolerate a position in which a possible world champion was left to her own devices, or to the good will of her neighbours to perfect her skill and carry out her necessary training under experienced athletes? We may not agree with the Continental or American methods of coaching and training, but in present conditions our own leave much to be desired. Urgency and need cry out aloud for appreciation and understanding.

343
Before I leave this particular part of what I have to say, I wish to pay tribute to the education authority of my own County of Norfolk, which, by direct and indirect assistance, by grants, equipment and the use of playing fields, make things as easy as possible for our internal county sports to be carried on. I expect that the same friendliness prevails in other counties. All this is excellent, in its way, to foster and promote activities in the schools; but the main concern among us at the moment is how out-of-school functions can be maintained.
My next point refers to amateur football in the counties. I have been intimately connected with this subject for well over half a century. Apart from professional clubs, we in Norfolk have 500 clubs affiliated to the county association. Most clubs run second or even third or "A" sides, and on this basis 10,000 young amateurs are playing the game each week, and not standing on the touchline at professional matches. On that basis I estimate that, county by county, there must be half a million young amateur footballers playing every week. That is a large total and most commendable. In addition, we have the oversight of 250 league and cup competitions and over 200 referees. No doubt these figures can be duplicated, county by county, throughout the country. The management of county football revolves around a devoted band of voluntary workers, with small and insufficient honoraria for some senior officials. If it were not for the generosity of members of supporters' clubs, county football would be carried on at poverty level, if, indeed, it was carried on at all. I hope that the Minister will bear this branch of sport in mind, too, because it is important.
May I turn for a moment, from amateur to professional football? I understand that a memorandum from the Football League has probably reached some of your Lordships, as well as the Members of another place, dealing with the question of financial gains made by individuals and other organisations who are not actively engaged in the sport of football. I am not really competent to discuss this memorandum. I mention it because it may possibly have reached the Government. From my reading of the memorandum, all is not well financially
344
in many directions and among many clubs. Certain suggestions are made as to how this could be remedied. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, made one or two points, although he had not seen this particular memorandum. If something is wrong in any branch of our national life we should be concerned about it.
I have tried to interest your Lordships in that section of our boys and girls who are endeavouring to succeed in sport and athletics, in keeping healthy minds and bodies, and certainly in developing into agreeable and loyal citizens of this country. I trust that voluntary service for the benefit of youth can still survive, and that the Government will recognise the sincerity of our pleas this afternoon, and will act accordingly.
5.6 p.m.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may I first apologise to those noble Lords who have made way for me and have allowed me to speak? I have come down from Scotland as fast as I could get here, and without getting "run in", to try to say a few words in this debate. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity that has been given me. I shall try not to cover again the wide area of ground that has already been covered in this debate, both international and national, and in regard to other forms of sport, and even individual organisations. May I tell the noble Lord, Lord Wise, at once that I know the English Schools Athletic Association well. I think I was taking part in it, though not as an athlete, 35 years ago, and I have seen the wonders that this organisation has performed.
Just for a moment (and I feel that perhaps I have a little right to speak, because I was in the National Playing Fields Movement on the very first day it was started) may I go back to the noble Baroness's Motion and look at the words:
" financial and otherwise "?
One knows that finance probably comes into everything. I should like to go back a little, and then to come on to that part of the Motion which says:
"…the governing bodies of sport so that sports facilities may he enlarged."
I may be able to say a word or two about possible enlargement. I have been 45 years in public life, and the one lesson I have learned in all that

345
time is that almost every single action taken is too little and too late.
I remember when I was chairman of an elementary education committee, now about 40 years ago, when the Hadow Report came out, and central schools, as they were then called, were started. As a quite junior county councillor, and as chairman of the elementary education committee, I had to go to the council and ask for £l¼ million. The county council thought I was mad: in those days they had never heard of £1 million. But I had at that county council meeting to promise that I would not spend one penny of it unless it was necessary. All I can say is that all we did with that £1¼million, or most of it, was to buy sites for elementary schools. Some 25 years afterwards those sites were the ones on which schools were placed. I only wish that I had bought everything treble the size that I did at that time. There would be no school playing fields in our part of what I believe is shortly to become Greater London if those sites had not been bought. I remember opening nine schools in Bexleyheath, and they all had playing fields. To-day those playing fields are inadequate in size.
May I draw attention to something else in regard to which I think a little improvement may be brought about? We have just had a considerable commotion about rates. There is an extraordinary differential in the rates assessments on various playing fields, and even on bowling greens. I know some cases in which the assessments have been trebled, while in other cases local authorities have decided not to assess them at all. I bring in bowls only because, although it is considered an old man's game—which of course it is not—the bowling clubs in my own county have been quite splendid in running contests, all of the proceeds of which have been given to the National Playing Fields Association to provide playing fields for other people.
I should like to give the Government one word of warning. I have heard several times to-day that the responsibility for the initiation of these things should be with the local authority. At our Kent Playing Fields Association annual meeting the other day the chairman of the county council came to the meeting to beg us to use what influence
346
we could with the Government to stop Government properties from being sold off to the first and highest bidder. I hope that the Government realise that aerodromes—and incidentally I saw another one advertised in my county yesterday—military, and Royal Air Force centres, and places of that nature, which not only are open spaces but in many cases have playing fields attached to them, are now being sold off owing to the reduction in military strengths. They are going completely. It is not just a question of their not being used but of open spaces and Service playing fields going right out of commission. This is something about which I believe the Government can help, and they can do it without setting up councils of this, that and the other.
I believe that the National Playing Fields Association—and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Luke, may tell us about this later—are now going from a policy of grants to loans. Without wishing in any way to say "I told you so", the Kent Playing Fields Association did that 35 years ago.
LORD LUKE: That is why we are copying you.
LORD CORNWALLIS: At a very small rate of interest, we have not had a single defaulter and that money has been used over and over again. I am wondering whether that principle of helping those who help themselves cannot possibly be brought into some Government arrangement. I know that in my own trade the Government are helping a certain pulp and paper mill company to build, and this sort of thing goes on every day. Could there not be some kind of fund—and I am all for its being a loan at a low rate of interest—from which money could be provided, and then those who receive the benefits would work hard to pay it back?
If I may take one other example, I have been on the M.C.C. Committee for over thirty years and I am now a trustee, and after considerable debate the M.C.C. granted £15,000 to form the Youth Cricket Association. We ail wondered whether we were going to "bust" the concern or what would happen, but that original £15,000 has brought back value one-hundredfold. And there again is an organisation which possibly might receive

347
some assistance, even if the M.C.C. were unable to provide it.
One last plea. I am now chairman of the sponsors of the University of Kent. After an inquiry, 70 acres was taken off the size of the site which we wanted for that University. I am not complaining, because I believe that it was as large a site as has ever been granted and probably we were lucky to be able to get that amount. But what are we told now, but that the University students will need recreation? We are told that that University may open next year with 300 students, at the end of seven or eight years it will have probably 3,000 students, and we are told to be ready for a final 10,000 students—and that figure is not outside the bounds of possibility. When there are 10,000 students there, how sad they will feel that that 70 acres was not included in the site!I beg the Government that they will not once more be too little and too late.
5.16 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, first I must apologise for inflicting a speech upon your Lordships at all. I am an exceedingly moderate athlete in the few sports which I attempt to play, and so I cannot speak with the expertise of most of the previous speakers, but I want to draw attention to one problem which worries me personally and which I think falls within the orbit of this Motion; and then I should like to say a little about the position in Scotland. To begin with, I am going to confine my remarks entirely to the sports which people play in their leisure time for pleasure, and I am also assuming that it is universally considered desirable that people should play these sports in their leisure time. I think it is exceedingly depressing that so few young people in fact do so. A report published by an organisation called Market Investigations showed that in 1962 less than 20 per cent. of the boys between the ages of 15 and 24—that is, for the first ten years after they have left school—took part in active sport, and the number of girls taking part was considerably below that of the boys.
This presumably is due to one of four reasons, of which probably the first accounts for the vast majority of cases. First, lack of inclination; second, lack of opportunity; third, lack of aptitude;
348
and, fourth, lack of means. I should like to take these four causes and to suggest quite briefly what might be done about them. I will take them in the reverse order to which I have enumerated them, because I consider that lack of inclination is by far and away the most important of these.
Lack of means, in my opinion, applies only in a limited number of cases. The same survey to which I have referred already showed that the average spending money of young people between 15 and 24 was £3 14s. 6d. a week, that is, after they had paid for their keep, their taxes, but before they had bought their clothes. If you take the figure for boys only it was £4 6s. These are average figures and do hide hard cases where finance is the limiting factor, especially where the more expensive specialist sports are concerned—in which category I am afraid that, so far as England is concerned, I must include golf, although I think it is considerably cheaper in Scotland. I must also include such games as polo, show jumping—which has grown very greatly in popularity—and real tennis. I would therefore ask my noble and learned friend the Lord President to consider giving grants, not only to the more major organisations, but also to the bodies that control these lesser-known sports but which, none the less, can afford great amusement and enjoyment to certain people.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, could I ask about polo? That is one of the few games I have never even dared to attempt. I realise this might provide a lot of fun for spectators, but surely as a playing game it is at present confined to the rich. Is there any way of overcoming that? Could promising young horsemen from the working classes be financed with State-subsidised ponies, or what is the noble Duke's proposition?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think the polo clubs have already done a lot towards this so far as they can, in that they now have club ponies, which of course saves people buying their own ponies; and one pays at most polo clubs so much a chukka. The figure is 12s. 6d., which I agree is very expensive, but I am sure all noble Lords would agree that keeping a string of polo ponies is very expensive for the club concerned.

349
Obviously, this is financed to a certain extent by the spectators. But if the Government would consider giving grants to such sports, the cost could be brought down to within the means of everyone, and I think this would be desirable. After all, there are many lads working at racing stables who, I think, would very much like to be able to afford to play polo, but who cannot possibly afford to do so at the moment. I would point out that polo is an extreme example, and I was mentioning it only for some time in the future.
Secondly, there is lack of aptitude. The average person has a horror of making a fool of himself, and because he shows no talent for either cricket or football he is terrified that if he starts on some other sport he will be equally bad and will make a fool of himself. He therefore takes part in no sport at all, which I think is a pity. I would ask, therefore, that schools should stop regarding any sport with the exception of football and cricket as a crime, and should positively encourage boys and girls to play other forms of games which are available in the immediate vicinity, as I hope that most games are. Is there any reason why one should be frowned on because one wishes to practise archery at school, or canoeing, or even golf, all of which sports were almost impossible in my school days? I think schools are getting a little more broadminded about this, but they have a long way to go in this direction. I would also point out that a team game is considered to be character forming. But if you dislike both the game and the hearty people with whom you have to play, I think it has a bad effect on your character; or, to put it in racing parlance, it "sours you up" for ever afterwards towards any form of sport or game at all.
Thirdly, there is lack of opportunity. This, so far as many sports and pastimes are concerned, has been overcome by the excellent work of the National Playing Fields Association. For others it probably never will be. It is hard to visualise easy opportunities for ski-ing in Southend, potholing in Penzance or even pony trekking in Pimlico. But we have a long way to go with many other sports which could be far more universally available. Unless you are comparatively well off, it is, as I have said before, difficult to play golf or tennis in many places.
350
Also golf courses are peculiarly vulnerable to both private and municipal building, and I hope that the Government have sufficient powers to stop this. Ice rinks are another example of a sport that would be far more popular were the facilities available. I suggest that the Government might agree to lend or grant money for such sporting studiums—if that is the right word—in exchange for an undertaking on the part of the promoters of these schemes that there would be heavily subsidised entrance foes for the under 25s, and also—which is even more important—equally heavily subsidised coaching.
Lastly, I come to lack of inclination. This, of course, is partly the side effect of the other causes. It is also due to bad salesmanship, or the complete lack of it. Commercial organisations both manufacture and sell the goods. They spend vast sums in providing the facilities and opportunities for people to sample their goods, arguing that once customers are "hooked" they will go on spending money. Sport is the same. Once people are "bitten", they will go on playing. But they have to have the initial step made easy for them, and in far too many cases the initial step towards taking up any sport is much too difficult. These are just a few reasons why I think such a deplorably low percentage of the population of young people takes part in active sports. There are of course other considerations, such as the contrast between the comfort and cheapness of a heavily subsidised youth club—by which I hope no one thinks I am in any way saying anything against them; but they are very comfortable and very cheap—and the tattiness of the surroundings of the run of the mill average specialised sports club. The fact that many clubs, especially golf clubs, positively discourage teenagers, and the resentment shown by present members towards new members in many of these clubs, are also factors militating against the young taking an active part in these sports.
I should now just like to say a few words about sport in Scotland. The Scottish Council for Physical Recreation have affiliated to them 118 organisations, including the governing bodies of all the Scottish sports. They are therefore in a unique position to act as a sort of Sports Development Council in an unofficial

351
way, and to advise the appropriate authority—which I think would be the education Department—on how to distribute what is necessarily a limited amount of money. They consider that a sum of £200,000 for Scottish sports development in 1963–64, rising in future years as the schemes get under way, would act as a great spur to the many bodies which are held back only by lack of capital for expanding sports facilities, on which Scotland's economy depends probably to a greater extent than in any other part of the country. May I say here, in passing, what a bitter blow it was that the Board of Trade Advisory Committee turned down the Cairngorms Development Board's request for a loan of £50,000. I would point out that this was a request for a loan and not a grant, and they were perfectly prepared to pay interest on it.
Now just a very few words about some individual sports of Scotland. First, fishing. This is of vital importance to Scotland and I hope that the Government will act quickly on the recommendations of the Hunter Committee when they come out. The present situation with regard to trout fishing is getting quite impossible, and unless something is done very quickly nearly all the rivers and lochs will be fished completely out of trout. Secondly, sea angling. I should like to think that the Lord President would go to the Republic of Ireland and have a look at the feature they make of their sea angling there. I think he would agree that much the same thing could be done in Scotland, given a bit of initial encouragement and outlay.
Thirdly, water ski-ing. I must congratulate the Scottish Office on their circular on development, but I hope that they have powers to confine water ski-ing to certain specified lochs because if it is allowed everywhere it will completely spoil the peace of the countryside. While I am all in favour of people being allowed to indulge in whatever sport they like, I think that water ski-ing raises special problems, and probably should be confined to certain areas.
Finally, a word about access. So many Scottish sports, such as pony-trekking, rock climbing, ski-ing and what is now called orienteering (which is a form of map-reading) depend on good co-operation between the landowner and the
352
persons who are undertaking this sport. Most of the governing bodies of these sports go to enormous lengths to get the permission and approval of landowners, but I regret to say that some individuals who take part in these sports do not go to the same lengths. I should like them all—in fact, anyone who is going on an outdoor holiday in Scotland—to read a pamphlet published by the Scottish Landowners Federation called, Access Without Tears. This, I think, will show that not all landlords are determined to keep people out at all costs, but that all we, as landlords, want is that people should behave reasonably when they get on our land. For instance, because the litter laws apply only when you throw litter on to a public place, there is no reason, in my opinion, for chucking your bit of paper over a hedge, even if thereby you avoid a fine of £10. I could develop this theme much further, but I do not think it is really entirely suitable for this debate. So, having made that appeal, I will merely say that I hope it will be heard by those concerned.
My Lords, I do not think we can feel particularly complacent so far as sport in this country is concerned, but it seems to me that the present Government are more aware of the value of sport than almost any previous one, and that they are full of the right intentions. I only hope that their actions will match what I believe are their intentions.
5.32 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that each one of the unfortunately rather small number of your Lordships who have been here this afternoon will agree with me when I say that we have had a most interesting discussion. I was particularly delighted with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, who made a flashlike appearance, and I am sorry that he is not still in his place. His was a good, Socialist speech. If he were still here, I should invite him to come over and sit with us. The speech of the noble Baroness who opened the debate was, of course, as we all expected, admirable. When she told us about her racing on the sands, I had for the moment a vision of Atalanta a long time ago.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: She did not win.
LORD CHORLEY: I thought for a moment, too, that the noble Baroness,

353
Lady Summerskill, was going to challenge her to a race. It would be rather nice to have a race for Life Peeresses, perhaps around Parliament Square, with a small trophy put up. After all, it is within my recollection that a Lord Chancellor raced a running Blue around Tom Quad at Oxford. So these sporting events are not unheard of.
However, to put aside the frivolous part of this speech, I feel that, considering how important a part sport plays in the lives of most English people—and, indeed, nowadays, in the lives of the citizens of most countries in the world—it is rather surprising that we do not discuss these matters more often; and it is a pity that, when we do, the attendance in your Lordships' House is not rather better. I certainly feel that we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for giving us this chance this afternoon.
I would also add my own gratitude to Sir John Wolfenden and his colleagues, who put a great deal of work into this Report. It seems that all of us, apart from the Government, pretty well accept the gospel according to Sir John; that is, of course, this orthodox gospel. There is another gospel, which is not so orthodox and not so generally accepted, although I personally accept it. However, on this occasion, it has met, and very properly met, I think, with general acceptance. It seems to me that Sir John and his colleagues have pointed out the way, the direction, in which our society is likely to move in regard to these matters, and I certainly hope that the Government will spend a few of their dying hours in paying attention to this doctrine, and accepting the recommendations in the Report.
It is not too late for them to accept the most important of these recommendations. They are, after all, entirely non-Party recommendations, and the Government would not be losing any face if they changed their mind on this particular matter. Now that the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House is in charge of these matters, perhaps there is a better chance of their doing so. Of course, nothing would give us in the Labour Party greater pleasure than to do this ourselves when, not very far in the future, we are sitting over there. But, in the nature of things this will take up some time, and it is important, in the
354
interests of sport in this country that we should get on with this job quickly and not wait any longer. Therefore, I would add to that of the noble Baroness my plea to the Government that they should get on with this job.
It seems to me that much the most important recommendation of the Wolfenden Report is the proposal for the Sports Development Council, which has been talked about a good deal this afternoon. In my view, this is absolutely essential if we are to give the green light to the British sportsmen. As I said a moment ago, I only hope that the noble Viscount, the Minister for Science, with a little interest in sport, too, will also take that view. I do not want to go over all these rather old and rather threadbare arguments which we hear so much, particularly in the newspapers, as to why this country, which was either the inventor of so many of our modern sports or developed them, should have fallen so far behind in recent times in international competition. Something has already been said about that aspect, and I think it is very important. Nor do I want to go over the detailed arguments in favour of this Sports Council, which have been effectively brought out by several speakers. I was particularly interested that the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, underwrote that so effectively.
I should like to refer to two points. The first is to express my personal opinion that the proposed Sports Council is very much the best way of encouraging, building up and taking a forward line in British sports. But it can operate effectively only if it is provided with a good war-chest. I think that is quite essential. If the Government cannot see their way to providing the sinews—and sinews on pretty much the basis proposed by the Wolfenden Committee—then I agree that there is not very much point in setting it up. Certainly a Council must have teeth—and for this purpose "teeth" are undoubtedly pounds, shillings and pence.
My second point, my Lords, is that I think all our recent experience proves that this sort of body is very much the best way of fostering any particular sphere of activity. It is not very long since we in this House—and I saw the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, here only a few minutes ago—had a discussion of the work of the Arts Council. And from

355
that debate it emerged very clearly that the Arts Council has had a tremendous effect in encouraging and building up the arts in this country in the comparatively short space of time during which it has been in existence. I have not myself the slightest doubt that a Sports Council would meet with similar success. This really meets the point which the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, was making. There is no difficulty about entrusting an organisation of this kind with a sum of money. That is what has been done with the Arts Council; and that could be done here equally well.
There is one aspect of this Report which I personally found particularly interesting. I refer to the part which deals with the non-competitive sports, such as mountaineering, hill walking, sailing small boats, camping, and so on, which have been referred to already by several speakers this afternoon. I have myself been particularly interested during the whole of my adult life with that sort of activity, particularly mountaineering, and I know that the noble and learned Viscount also is interested in it. I had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee of the Alpine Club with him for quite a long time. We share the same enthusiasm in regard to these matters. Here again we have a sport in which the British were undoubtedly pioneers. The Alpine Club is the Alpine Club: it was the first to be founded, and it is recognised as such by all the other Alpine clubs, the French, the German and the Swiss, whose clubs are, of course, the German Alpine Club, the French Alpine Club and so on. There is only one Alpine Club. There is nothing which a foreign mountaineer esteems more highly than to be elected an honorary member of the Alpine Club.
We still have cause to congratulate ourselves, at any rate, in mountain exploration. Here we are still in the van. I hope to see the noble and learned Lord next week when the 10th Anniversary of the ascent of Mount Everest will be celebrated in London. This was a tremendous achievement. Many young mountaineers on that expedition were trained in the small mountaineering clubs which, as the Wolfenden Report points out, have considerable difficulty in providing huts for their members to stay in and teachers
356
for training the young men and so on; because this is the sort of activity which does not bring in gate money. It is an activity which requires a very considerable amount of money if there is to be effective training, which is very important because these sports involve some element of danger. We are all accustomed nowadays to reading in the Press of some young fellow or young woman getting lost or killed. In nine out of ten of these cases it is because they went into the mountains without proper advice and training. This is the sort of thing which has been taken up by voluntary bodies like the Mountaineering Association (which was complimented by the Wolfenden Committee), and by some of the bodies which exist for the purpose of providing accommodation, such as the Holiday Fellowship, which also initiates training schemes. But it needs a very much bigger effort than they have been able to put into it if the hills and crags are to be made safe for these young people.
The Report brings out, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said, the fact that further access is essential to these people. This is a particularly sore matter because the National Parks Commission was set up under the National Parks Act and given the job of seeing that proper facilities are provided in the National Park areas. I see the Chairman of the Commission in the House now. I am sure he would be only too pleased to tell us how much the Commission could do if it had the funds that it was indicated it should have. Then much of this difficulty of access, of providing camping sites and of enabling the people of this country to enjoy the National Parks would be obviated. Again the difficulty is lack of finance. The National Parks Commission has been starved from the day it was set up. I think that when my Party were the Government we ought to have done rather better by them than we did.
Another aspect of the matter that has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years has been the use of the canal system for boating. We all know that we have a canal system which has rather gone out of use; and recently we were debating two important Bills in your Lordships' House: the Water Resources Bill and the Transport Bill. The Transport Bill had some connection with the

357
canals; the Water Resources Bill some connection with reservoirs. It was with considerable difficulty that we persuaded the Government to make even a gesture in the direction of supporting sports in this particular line.
We have here a magnificent opportunity for small boat sailing on these canals. At Stratford the National Trust now owns a section of disused canal and is rapidly getting it into order for boating and fishing. That could be done elsewhere if the Government would make available the resources which are at their disposal. It is significant that at Birmingham University a survey is now being made of what is available for this sort of sport in this country at the present time. It is also significant, in regard to the Wolfenden Report, that recently the Institute of Water Engineers (who had always set their face against the use of reservoirs for recreation) have swung round and are now prepared to agree that there is no danger to health, at any rate in most cases, if the reservoirs are used for recreational purposes. That is a very significant and important move. I could say a great deal more about this but I will refrain.
There is one other matter, however, about which I should like to say something. If we had a Sports Council it would be able to speak on behalf of the sportsmen of this country; it would be able to speak to the Government and ask them to change their policy in regard to the ban on the entrance of some East Germans in connection with international sports competitions to be held in this country. In my view this ban is a very sorry business; and I know that in saying that I speak for a very large number, if not the majority, of sportsmen in this country. So far as I know, this is the first intrusion of politics into British sport. It is certainly the first ban placed on the entry of foreign sportsmen into this country because we do not like their politics. It is contrary to the traditions of British sport. It is a policy quite unintelligible to the average British citizen. Teams of foreign representatives, brilliant youngsters, are constantly coming into this country, and our crowds have the delight of watching the brilliant football and athletics that they provide.
I realise that this ban on entrants from East Germany is not peculiar to sport,
358
but has been applied by this Government to scientists also; but that only makes the matter worse. At a time when the Government are continually talking about the importance of encouraging scientists, they go out of their way to provoke resentment among scientists—because our scientists undoubtedly resent this ban being imposed. I do not believe that the noble and learned Viscount, in his heart of hearts, approves of this policy. We know that he has recently been in rather hot water with scientists at Cambridge. I, for one, was very glad that he got out without being scalded and received an honorary degree, which we all know he deserves. He should bear in mind that it is particularly unfortunate that the Government should impose this sports ban, because it is a betrayal of what has always been a specifically British contribution to international sport. It is undoubtedly the fact that the British have always taken the view that politics should be taken out of sport. We have always stood for freedom in international sport. In the past, it has been very largely British influence that has kept politics out of international sport. Therefore it is a very serious and reactionary move on the part of the Government to reverse a tradition of great importance in the sporting history of this country. How are British sportsmen going to stand to their guns on this matter in future when their own Government have let them down in this disgraceful way?
There are two narrower arguments which powerfully support the case that I have just been making. These restrictions prevent the holding of most of these sports championships in this country, and also in NATO countries, because the statutes of the International Sports Federations almost all require that sports shall be quite free to all members and, therefore, that access shall be equally free to all members. The importance of this principle is shown by the fact that the International Olympic Committee itself has adopted it and recommended it to all its members. The Government's action might thus have the actual result of transferring these international sports championships from London to Moscow, which I am sure is exactly the opposite of what all of us would wish to take place.
Moreover, the Government's action in attempting to found this ban on a sort

359
of narrow patriotism might well cause political conflicts to commence inside this country in respect of political matters which have never previously divided Englishmen from each other in the field of sport. The action may be equally vicious in its results in connection with international sport, because in international sport there is always a tendency to fragmentation, and if the British, who have always stood out against this sort of thing, are now found to be going in for it, then the chance of fragmentation abroad is obviously seriously increased. It is a very sorry and tiresome business. I know that the noble and learned Viscount, in a speech he made not long ago, indicated in a rather guarded way that there was a possibility of this unfortunate policy being changed. I would close my remarks by appealing to him to bring his powerful advocacy to bear at the Foreign Office to see that this decision is reversed, so that we can welcome to our shores foreign sportsmen from all countries in the world, whether they are Communist countries or any other sort of country, in order that they may compete with our sportsmen on the playing fields here, whether in London or elsewhere.
5.54 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by joining with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for having introduced this debate and in congratulating her on the pertinacity which she has always shown in this matter. I think that I am right in saying that she has had pretty well all-round support in to-day's debate. I think, in addition, that we are all grateful for this oasis in the middle of our consideration of the London Government Bill. It is always a pleasure to talk about leisure and recreation, even if we do not get very much of it ourselves. People outside may think that we are rather busy about this. I myself seem to have earned the title of being busy about leisure. When I was in Canada and trying to find out what they were doing there, one Canadian newspaper had the headline one morning, "British Lord busy with other people's leisure." Ever since then, I imagine that I am regarded as rather a busybody in these things. However, I do not mind,
360
because I think that this is a subject which needs airing and which needs action.
There was one point in the noble Baroness's speech of which I took a note. She said, "The lack of a survey leads to overlapping and waste". I agree with that, but I would also suggest that it is lack of a survey which has led to too little being done, through ignorance of where the deficiencies are. I would add that to the noble Baroness's point. I am glad to note that most of the noble Lords who have spoken have thought that either a Sports Development Council or, as the noble Baroness suggested, a small working committee under the Lord President of the Council should be established.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, for the record, I said that it was lack of co-operation between local authorities and local education authorities which led to this overlapping, not the lack of a survey.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, but my point still stands, that it also leads to lack of information about deficiencies. So often we hear of what is being done, and from the Government from time to time, as though there were no need for anything more to be done. The need for some sort of change has been emphasised, not only in the Wolfenden Report but also in speeches in this House and elsewhere for some considerable time. The situation we are now in is that the provision of facilities has got quite beyond the capacity of voluntary effort.
In the National Playing Fields Association we have been carrying out to the best of our ability for the last thirty or forty years the task of giving assistance for the provision of facilities where the State is not doing just that. But we are coming to the point now where the State should be contributing more, though no one is suggesting that they should be contributing all or anything like it. To my mind, the voluntary principle in recreation and sport is very important, not least in encouraging people to work for their own recreation. The watchwords for the future, whatever organisations may be set us, must be freedom, flexibility and responsibility. What the mainly administrative organisations catering in the widest sense for national recreation have achieved over the years with voluntary money has been quite remarkable.

361
We all know that now the struggle for open spaces is fierce, and unless local authorities are prepared to protect and preserve land for recreation, high prices of land are going to force the surrender of land used for recreational purposes for building purposes. And it has happened. This is where local planning authorities must take more decisive action in keeping open spaces open. There is too little forethought, and too little afterthought even, in planning open spaces to-day. There is too much reliance on the "sloap", which stands for "Space left over after planning". I hope that noble Lords will remember this newly created word.
If I may, I would give an example of the trouble we are having over the provision of open spaces. In dealing with an application for planning permission, the local planning authority are required, in the words of Section 14 of the Town Planning Act, 1947:
" to have regard to the provisions of their development plan and any other material considerations."
Under this, or any other Town and Country Planning Act, the Minister should be bound by the same requirement. The provision of open spaces for playing fields and playing grounds in places where they are needed, whether or not they are found on a development plan, is a most material consideration. Where the local authority can show to the Minister's satisfaction that a particular piece of land ought to be kept open for this purpose, no alternative use should be allowed or contemplated. If through this the owner of the land suffers financial loss because 1947 prices no longer reflect the loss of development value, the basis of compensation payable from the Central Fund should be adjusted. This would ensure that many clubs threatened with the loss of their ground would be able to continue, because the owners would not lose financially by letting them stay.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Exeter when he says that a Minister of Sport should be avoided. I am glad my noble friend is in his place, because I can say that I think he made a magnificent speech and proved that he is one of our best ambassadors in sport. I am sure he told the Members a your Lordships' House many things that were perhaps
362
not known. As I am also a humble member of the same international organisation, I see what he is up to, and I know what a wonderful job he does.
If I may break off for one moment, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in his place, because he was particularly worried about two things. The first was the lack of swimming facilities, which is very deplorable. My answer to that is that swimming facilities are among the most expensive, and we have to wait on Ministries to finance them. Then the noble Lord was worried about his walk around the Serpentine because of the many people swimming. I do not think he can have his cake and eat it.
As I say, I entirely agree that we do not want a Minister of Sport. To my mind, we have had too many Ministers over this matter already: benevolent up to a point, when it has suited them, blowing hot and cold, but keeping control all the time over our difficulties in the sphere of recreation. I think the same might be true of a Minister of Sport; he might also blow hot and cold. But a Minister for the Co-ordination of Sport and Recreation is, I think, different, and I hope will be kept different: and I hope it is the Lord President of the Council. This Minister must be responsible for seeing that resources are wisely spent, and should advise, after due consideration of suggestions put to him, as to what he thinks would be for the benefit of the community at large. He must take note of and pay particular attention to the needs of all sections of the community, and not just those of school age. This was a point made by the noble Baroness. He must be a Minister who can be sympathetic to research and to pioneer projects that voluntary organisations are working on; and also he must have grant-aiding powers for sporting and recreational purposes. I suppose this paragon father figure is probably unknown in our body politic to-day, but I do not see any reason why we should not try and invent one. I think we have made a good start with the present Lord President, and Sir Patrick Renison, who is ably assisting him.
As has already been stressed, one of the greatest needs of the present situation is co-ordination of all the various elements dealing with the provision of space for playing. These include local authorities,

363
private sports clubs, industry, education authorities, voluntary organisations, services et cetera. I would suggest (and I am not going to be left out of making suggestions) that the formation of joint local sports development committees could well help in this situation. This has already been attempted in Hertfordshire from the playing fields side. This would give all those concerned with recreation the opportunity for consultation, for the circulation of information and the formation of properly planned programmes of development. With proper development of this sort, deficiencies will be revealed, and should be remedied, and areas which have been lagging behind must be brought up to scratch.
This sort of set-up would enable progress to be made through Government stimulus for new facilities, for a sports building programme, for the planning and building of indoor sports centres—I am sure that we need more of these—facilities for community use, programmes with play leadership, and so on and so forth. Co-ordination at these lower levels could well work through regionalisation to the higher level. These, again, must include the bringing together of the interests of whole sections of the community—those of school age, youth and seniors. At the present moment, I think there are far too many watertight compartments.
Perhaps I might give another quotation here. I understand that £500,000 was set aside in 1962–63 especially for sports facilities in the youth building programme for England and Wales, and this sum has increased to £1 million in the current year; and included in the facilities were two swimming pools, six playing fields and so on. The point is that surely these facilities must be made available to all members of the public and not just to those under 21 years of age. I think a good example has been set in this respect by the coming into existence of these tenpin bowling alleys. They are tremendously popular, and all sections of the community use them. Even tiny tots can go with their parents, and the parents can play as well. This has been a great influence in bringing families together in this way.
One problem that has to be tackled is the maximum use of present playing
364
space, and especially school grounds. This involves the question of empty and unused fields, and this whole problem is a demonstration of the lack of vision on the part of the Ministry of Education and local education authorities. What the public see today is fine school fields in holiday times, when no one is allowed near them. I have had it said to me many times by those who ought to know better, "There does not seem to be any need for more playing fields, because existing ones are not being used." They are quite correct in one way because they are not allowed to be used by local authorities in holiday times, or in term time by any but school children. I would ask: which is less expensive to the community—to have school fields used to the utmost and perhaps suffering a little from wear or tear, or to duplicate the space for another part of the community, doubling the expense of capital cost and maintenance?
This preservation of beautiful open fields is just another instance of the "Keep off the Grass" policy in parks. You may look at it, but you will be prosecuted if you go on it. There seems to be something rather precious about this. The Ministry of Education fold their arms and piously announce that this matter is not in their hands; that the autonomy is in the local education authorities. The local education authorities, equally piously, say that they have to preserve it for schoolchildren. In other words, they do not mind what happens to the children after they have left school. In all fairness, some enlightened educational authorities do permit dual use. We have prepared a booklet on this subject, but your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not propose to read it to you at this late hour. I feel very strongly about this and it is a pity, when some of us are struggling, and when we know the deficiencies, that these beautiful fields are just empty.
I have not much more to say, except that I may take the opportunity—it has not arisen before—of hoping that the Lord President, when he replies, may perhaps correct an impression that he gave when he answered earlier a Question from the noble Baroness. He said that £366,000 is already contributed by the Government to voluntary bodies such as the C.C.P.A. and the N.P.F.A. I

365
should like to point out that, out of that £366,000, only £5,000, representing a little over 1 per cent. of the total, goes to the N.P.F.A. Immediately after this announcement was made, we had people saying, "You will not want any more money now because you are so rich. This is what you get from the Government." So I hope the noble Viscount will make the position clear. It may interest noble Lords to know that during the past ten years the N.P.F.A. has paid out over £750,000 from these various funds, all raised voluntarily for the provision of fields.
In conclusion, I would say that there seems to be a good deal of unanimity over the Sports Development Council, or some such body, and in this I think we have a big subject which affects all of us. I hope that the Lord President has something worthwhile to tell us, because if we are to go on more or less as before, with a few minor changes, I think the disappointment will be very widespread. I feel that a new and vigorous chapter in the history of sport and recreation needs to be written here and now.
6.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I feel quite unworthy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Luke. His good works reach out into all fields of sport, particularly the humble ones where I occasionally find myself. I was asking a cricket team only last week-end whether they received any assistance from anybody outside the village, and they said that the only people who had given them anything were the N.P.F.A., who had recently given them £280 to build a new pavilion. I do not think you can build a pavilion, even a small one, for £280; but it was £280 more than nothing, and was enormously appreciated.
As did the noble Duke, in the very attractive speech (and I may have something more to say about it if there is time, but I do not want to speak too long and stand between us and the Minister), I should like to say a little more about his scheme for popular polo and other ideas. Like the noble Duke, I do not come forward as one of the great sportsmen in this House. I feel rather like the late Tim Healey, when he was Governor-General of the Irish Free State, as it then was, who was asked to address a gathering of
366
Irish sportsmen in honour of Prince Ranjitsinghi. He said, "Gentlemen, the only game I ever played was one of marbles". That may have been a slight exaggeration: and I played other games than marbles. But I did not compete, like the noble Baroness and others. The noble Baroness was the British Women's Sprint Champion. She may still be, for all I know—or she could be still if she could spare time from other duties. It is shocking to think that only a few years ago there were not any women's Olympics; for otherwise I have no doubt that, like the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, she would come before us as an Olympic champion. She has made a splendid speech and been finely supported, by my colleagues from this side and by other speakers.
The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, made us all regret that he does not come here more often. I do not think anybody, even the finest speakers in this House, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, could speak better, technically shall we say, than the noble Marquess spoke this afternoon. I remember so well when I used to go to Stamford Bridge or one of the other great grounds where he was running. The hurdlers would reach the finish, and the cry of "Burghley!, Burghley!" would go up from the thousands of people, and they knew there was something more than the long legs and joints which he modestly claimed for himself. There was another physical quality, which is also a moral one, called guts, which was recognised throughout this country and the world; and he will never be forgotten as a sportsman.
As I have said, my claims are not considerable. I captained the under-14½ team in my house, of which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was a distinguished member. We were beaten in the final. I will not say which let the other down. I suppose there are no bad teams, only bad captains, and I was the captain. But we shared in that defeat. Some years later, I captained the winning house team, and I should gain great satisfaction from that, except that a friend of mine, later a Member of this House, Lord Duffrin, always insisted that I was hissed, as I led in the winning team because of the rough, or even foul, standard of play. Be that true or not, and whether or not that constitutes a

367
qualification to speak in this atmosphere of cleanly sport, I have always been fond of games. I spent more time—I claim this without fear of contradiction—running around Christchurch Meadow than anybody in this House, or out of it. But though I have run around it more often, I have run around more slowly, probably, so that the total time expended must have been very much more than that of anyone else. When we were boasting of our distant pasts, there was a reference made to a Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Birkenhead, who with the help of a handicap, won that great race around the Christchurch Meadow against the Oxford Althletics President. I am surprised that no reference has been made to that greatest of all races around the Christchurch Meadow, in which the noble Viscount won a race by inches from Sir Roy Harrod, now the famous economist. But perhaps we shall hear more of that tonight. It qualifies him (he has other qualifications, too) to preside over our sporting affairs.
The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, told us a good deal about homo ludens. I suppose that was part of the man's life—it has been part of the noble Viscount's life. It is still, taking fun and games in the broadest sense. I think that homo ludens describes him now. But he is also a working man, homo laborans; or a man of prayer, homo orans; and a man of speech homo loquens, homo loquaciten, if that is permissible Latin. On the other hand, the noble Viscount is an all-round man fully equipped to cope with these problems.
I have little guidance to give the House and a few comments of a semi-political nature to make near the end. But I am glad that one or two speakers have touched on the problems of the middle-aged sportsman and here, in later middle age, I would offer one or two thoughts. I would lay down three laws: first of all, choose a physiotherapist (I do not say a psycho-therapist) who has plenty of un-athletic patience. The fatal thing is to adopt exercises which are recommended by someone on the ground that they are what Mr. Dexter has been trained on in the last few months. I found a distinguished abdominal masseur some years ago who made a great success of the health of Mr. Arnold Bennett.
368
When I heard that I was reassured, because I never saw a less athletic-looking man than Arnold Bennett; and I thought that anything he could do I could do. I am stuck with those exercises, and I must say that they have served me in very good stead.
Then I think that every few years one should take up in real life some new sport which one has not practised hitherto. The depressing thing about advancing years is that while your brain, wisdom and character may all improve, there is inevitably some physical deterioration; and if you have played some game keenly and fairly well, as the years pass, unless you have devoted an altogether disproportionate amount of time to the activity, you are going to get worse at it. It is hard to see any other outcome. But if you take up a game which you have never played before you are bound to get better. That is my advice.
Last year, for example, I took up swimming. I even swam in the pool of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I have swum many times in the Chelsea baths, where you pay only a shilling a round, if that is the expression. If you take up something you cannot do and you begin to do it, you cannot but improve. Last year I did the breast stroke. This year it could be the crawl, and so on. This, I suggest, is the secret: because I found that so many people get increasingly bad-tempered and increasingly less pleasant to play games with as they get old simply because they get worse and they will not admit that their handicap has become unreal. So my advice is: take up something you cannot do and you are bound to get better. Finally I would say, take up golf seriously about the same time that you take up whisky seriously; that is, in the later fifties. Many people, I think wisely, leave whisky to later life. If you take up golf and whisky at about the same time, I think you will benefit both ways. Those are my three rules for the middle-aged sportsman.
Now I must come to the great issues that have been raised in this debate, and I should like to say just a word or two—at the risk of offending my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, of whom I stand in awe, as I do the other Baroness, Lady Summerskill—about professional sport. I myself look back with some

369
regret on some remarks I made in the course of the last debate when our dear friend the late Lord Windlesham began to argue that the distinction between professional and amateur sport was much overdone and might as well be obliterated. I took an opposite view. Since then we have the distinction completely obliterated in cricket. I do not know whether everyone is aware of this, but if some great cricketer like Mr. Dexter or Mr. Cowdrey plays for a county he is now offered a fee. Whether he takes it or not is for him to say; but, in fact, there is no distinction. There is no question of the amateur being "Mr. somebody" on the card and the other person being "Bloggs"; or of leaving the pavilion by a different door. The amateurs are what used to be called professionals: they are offered money and it does not count against them if they take it. It is really a big change and rather a sensational development; and it refutes certain things that I argued against the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in the last debate.
But if we have reached this stage I think that in a debate of this sort we must ask ourselves the question: is the position of Britain in the world affected by her standing in professional sport at least as much as by her standing in amateur sport? I think one is bound to say that it is; and certainly I think it is with international sport. The Olympic Games rank very high, but they do not come very often. Our performance in the World Cup and the European Cup, or in the various professional football competitions makes, I suppose mere impact on the world as a whole than anything else does. I do not know whether the great amateur athletes facing me will accept this view. But if it is so, what is the conclusion? I am certainly not saying that the Government should use up £1 million or £5 million in paying it out to these professional football bodies. There is plenty of money there if you know where to find it. But what is shocking about professional football—and I have no doubt that a great coach like Mr. Winterbottom, who is now carrying even heavier responsibility, would be the first to agree—is this: At the present time what really prevents us from achieving the biggest things in international sport is that football clubs are so selfish, so commercially-minded,
370
that they will not release their people for these international competitions; they will not release them so that we can build up first-class teams.
Only the other day a young man was offered his first cap for England, and his club insisted on retaining him. It was Everton, who have just won the League championship. They insisted on keeping this young man, Mr. Kay, and would not let him have this cap because they wanted to win this championship. I think that is absolutely wrong. Your Lordships may well ask: what can the Government do about it? They certainly must not bribe these people into doing anything about it; but they must bring their influence to bear. But if we are going to have a Minister with special responsibility for sport or, as I should hope, a Sports Advisory Council—anyway, a great national approach to sport—this question of our prestige in international sport is so much linked up with our achievements in professional football that we must bring some gentle persuasion to bear on all these clubs who are acting in an utterly selfish and most unpatriotic way, if you take them all round. This is an aspect of the matter which must come into any debate on sport.
I should like to raise one or two questions with the noble and learned Viscount. I have not given him notice of them and he will have very many to answer, but I imagine that they will fall within his general reply. If they do not fall into his reply to-day, perhaps he will answer them on some other occasion. Incidentally, everyone else except myself seems to know exactly what the noble Viscount is going to say. I have not the slightest idea, but we have been told by speakers that this or that is what the noble Viscount is going to say. However, it seems a general and reasonable assumption that he is going to promise increased assistance to sport, and it seems to be assumed that he will offer or announce that increased assistance will be available to the larger national bodies; that he will offer help to those who are trying to organise our rôle in international sport. That is all very good and I certainly hope he will do that.
But, assuming that that at any rate will be part of his message, I should like to put in one or two questions which arise. How will the new kind of sport

371
or the smaller kind of sport be assisted to develop, and how will they obtain headquarters' assistance? Will anything called a national body get help, or will it be offered only to those who are large and well established? Can he tell us what steps may be taken or what pressure may be brought to bear on sporting bodies to co-operate more instead of wasting our limited space? I am told that there are not enough cases—I do not know how many cases—for example where you find running tracks around football fields. Of course, Oxford, where so many of us were educated—although not the noble Marquess, but I do not know how it was at Cambridge—had a running track and football ground combined. Would that be so at Cambridge?
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: There is some difficulty about the angles of the corners of the track if you have a football ground in the middle. We did play football in the final of the Olympic Games at Wembley when the track was there, but it had to be covered at the corners before we could play on it. You can have a track for training, but not one of international standards, for the corners would have to be too sharp or over the 440 yards to the circle.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: At Oxford there were three laps to the mile in the old days, because I remember what a very long way it seemed round the track. At any rate, I hope this point of the full use of the space will be looked at. Is the noble Viscount contemplating any national survey of facilities? This has been pressed on a number of occasions. It does not seem as if we know what is required, and a survey would obviously be of the utmost value. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be able to say something about that. A number of detailed points have already been put, and I am in support of those and in particular of those arguments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I will not argue with my noble friend Lady Summerskill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Wait until we hear what the Pope has to say.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have in mind that very reason. I feel I must find out what the Pope has said before
372
I myself make a pronouncement. Until that comes through the noble Baroness will understand that I am not at true liberty to get involved. But I believe that those who organise professional boxing should stop those very unsporting demonstrations of the crowds. I would go as far as that. We read an account of a boxing match recently when a professional champion had retained his championship and he was booed to the echo because he had not knocked the other man out. When I read that my mood is that of the noble Baroness, so that I have not closed my mind altogether.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You are almost converted.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I must find out what the Pope has said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: He said it six months ago.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am not in hourly contact. At any rate, I come finally to the question of the Sports Development Council. The last speaker, Lord Luke, said there seemed almost unanimous support for that in the House. That is my impression, and, if so, and if it is a fair impression of this debate, which is a non-Party or cross-Party debate, I am sure the noble Viscount will give it due attention. I would even hope, if he has not yet made up his mind about the appointment of a Sports Development Council, that he will not at any rate close his mind to it and will not announce that the door is shut.
I felt that an answer which I was impertinent enough to elicit from the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, in the course of his speech when I interrupted, was very relevant to this discussion. He was saying we did not want a Minister of Sport whose sole job was to be responsible for sport, for the reason that such a Minister, earnest and dutiful as we assume he would be, would interfere too much, would feel it his task to do something every day and interfere far more than was desirable. I think, on the other hand, he did want a Minister of roughly the present kind who had responsibility for sport and would do all in his power to assist. I would accept that argument. I felt the way he put that on the spur of the moment, but no doubt after a great deal of reflection, was right, and I accept it totally. But surely that kind of answer

373
is not inconsistent in any way with the establishment of a Sports Development Council. Indeed I would say it required a Sports Development Council to give effect to the philosophy explained in that answer.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not here; he spoke as always with much thoughtfulness. He implied that you either had a Sports Development Council or a Minister with that kind of responsibility. If he meant that—perhaps he did not—I am sure he was mistaken. It seems to me that the Sports Development Council is a logical corollary, a necessary supplement, of the idea represented by the Minister, because if the Minister himself—as seems to be the view of most people in the House, and I think probably would be the view of the Minister—does not see it as his daily function to play an active part in allocating funds and giving leadership to sport as a whole, then some other body, it seems to roe, must undertake that task. Surely we do not suppose that a civil servant, even the most enlightened civil servant, could do so. You would either have a vacuum or you must have something like the Sports Development Council—the name does not matter, but something like that to undertake this task of allocating funds and providing an inspiring leadership.
It seems to me that there is no question of criticising the appointment of a Minister, least of all this particular Minister, but what is necessary to round that off and give effect to the ideas of the House is a Sports Development Council. The Labour Party if returned to power will certainly set up a Sports Development Council. But I do not want to suggest that Party or personalities come into this. By the time the Labour Party come into power, no doubt the situation will be ripe for the appointment of the best man who is available as chairman of the Sports Development Council, and who better at that time, liberated from his duties, than the noble Viscount?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would visualise the Sports Development Council as handing out money to the various bodies, or purely advising on how to obtain this money and the money being handed out by the Education
374
Department in Scotland? I am not sure about the position in England.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The Labour Party must not be taken to have expressed precise policy as to how this body would function. I am sorry I did not find more time to speak about popular polo. I think popular golf should come first and polo next. If the noble Duke puts that question to me as an individual supporter of the Labour Party and of this idea, I would say that I do not see this body as itself making the allocations, but it would be concerned in the major decisions about allocation.
6.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid there is no possibility of my answering all the speeches of all the noble Lords and Ladies who have taken part in this debate, but there is one thing I can do without difficulty, and that is to begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and to say that I was very glad that she put this Motion upon the Order Paper to-day and very grateful for the opportunity for discussion she has thereby afforded. She has herself a large reputation as a champion of sport and indeed as a practitioner of sport, and I think she lived up to it this afternoon. There have been other very notable speeches. I do not think it is invidious to single out those of my noble friend Lord Exeter, which was certainly one of the best speeches we have heard, and my noble friend Lord Luke, who speaks with such authority for the National Playing Fields Association.
I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Charley, into the question of sportsmen from East Germany to-day. It is not, I think, within the terms of the Motion, although that would not necessarily stop me, but it really is a much wider question, as I think he pointed out. It is a question of foreign policy rather than of sporting policy, and it applies equally to bodies like the Berliner Ensemble and various scientific bodies. I think he should have said, in raising the issue, that it is not the sole responsibility of the British Government. This is a NATO decision and obviously could only be rescinded by the NATO Powers.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I did say it covered NATO as well. I said

375
it meant that these international competitions could be held neither in England nor in the NATO countries.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is true the noble Lord said it in this connection, but I detected from time to time an acidulous note of criticism of the Government which I think ought not to have been present if he had constantly in his mind that this was a collective decision which could only be collectively rescinded. Although there is much to be said for the point of view he put forward, perhaps he should have reminded the House that this was a protest against the particularly brutal treatment of the inhabitants of Berlin by the erection of the Wall.
I also do not propose to answer in any detail the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill. She made an excellent speech on her favourite theme of the brutality of prize fighting. Again it would not particularly stop me that this is outside the terms of the Motion, but I do not think to-day is the day to pursue the matter again from the Government Bench. I have always had a certain sneaking sympathy with the noble Baroness about this issue. Having tried boxing myself at an early age, I decided it was not the sport for me, and I have never encouraged my children to participate in it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I tell the noble Viscount he has said enough? He having said that, I hope the whole country will read it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is most unlikely. I shall probably be refused an honorary degree in boxing in some American university. But having at last "got in good" with the noble Baroness, I think I had better not say anything more about that.
I think there has been a general feeling that we, as a nation, and speaking from a Parliamentary point of view, need to make a new approach to this question of sport. I think I accept this as true and desirable. I am not particularly concerned about national prestige as such. I think that a nation gets prestige from doing the right things and not from seeking prestige; and if this is the right thing to do, well, let us do it because it is the right thing to do, and the prestige will follow in due
376
course, because a nation the quality of whose life is generally recognised as good should get the prestige from doing it.
I start, therefore, as much from the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, as from the Report of Sir John Wolfenden—from the point of view of recreation, and from the point of view of the need of leisure. And I think I accept, up to a point and with one reservation, the analogy which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, drew, between the relationship between Government and sport and that between Government and the arts. I will come back to that point if I may. By "recreation" I do not, of course, mean what is generally called "sport"; but sport, even in the most narrow sense, is an important and, I should say, a serious part of recreation. I think that in this age of specialisation, to which more than one noble Lord has referred, this artificial environment, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred, we should adhere to the Greek ideal of the whole man. It is not that we can afford to despise depth, or specialised knowledge or specialised skills. On the contrary, these things are essential to the full enjoyment of life and to the full development of the human personality. But, surely, the specialised man—and we are all specialised men and women—should not be a deformed one; no part of his nature should be mutilated, frustrated or denied, and there should be a generalised culture available to us of which each man and woman is at once a member and the guardian and the heir.
Among these things, fresh air and bodily exercise is surely a matter of vast importance. We live such an unnatural life in our cities, in our offices, in our factories and our mines, and in our little square brick boxes in the suburbs, recumbent in Parliament on our red and green seats, sitting in the pilot's seat in an aircraft, or the driver's cabin of a locomotive or a bus. Yet for 999,000 of the million or so years that the human race has been on the planet we have not lived like that at all. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, the natural life of man may have been as Hobbes said; but, for all that, his nature, his instinct, his body, have been formed by that period so much longer that his life

377
in cities and our industrial civilisation has had all too insignificant duration to have altered his character fundamentally. The strange and irrational things that we do, our addiction to alcohol and tobacco, to betting and gambling, our extraordinary ability to seek compensation in romance and fiction, and even our more dangerous sexual aberrations, our neuroses and, as Lord Walston reminded us, our actual crimes, are surely to some extent due to this frustration of our nature, the denial of our physical life, the unnatural canalisation of our activity implicit in the very being of modern industrial civilisation.
Is it not right, therefore, that the State should take an interest in all this? We used at one time to limit our political activities and our thought to war and law, encouraging aggressive national instincts for external security and curbing the same inclinations for the protection of life at home. Later, economics became the preoccupation of the statesmen, and social organisations of all kinds, good and less good, have come within the power of the State. In one sense we are all Socialists now; in another, perhaps, we are all Conservatives. But happily, there is still enough difference between us to provide food for argument.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: What about the Liberals?
VISCOUNT HAILSFIAM: I hope that we are all Liberals, too. In one sense we have to be, otherwise there would be nobody left. But, if I have been right in my argument, while the State cannot manage a man's recreation for him, it equally cannot—and I agree here with Lord Walston—laugh off its responsibility for seeing that our curious population has a means of seeking compensation, not merely in innocent and harmless, but in active and beneficial and satisfying ways. I think it was considerations of this kind which led me to welcome the Wolfenden Report when it was published three years ago. Even the proposal for a Sports Development Council which the Government have rejected had, at least for me, considerable attractions.
As Lord President and Minister for Science I have had rather considerable experience of operating what I might call semi-detached grant-aided bodies, or wholly supported bodies, like the Research Councils, and I have seen others, like
378
the Arts Council, to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare referred, the British Museum, and the University Grants Committee, at fairly close quarters. I am frankly attracted by this administrative pattern and I think it could be extended and consolidated more than has been the case. But I think the rejection of the particular Wolfenden proposal in the form in which it was put forward, was a foregone conclusion.
Much of the work which is done for sport is, of necessity, already aided by the Government or supported by local government funds. Even the grant for single purpose sporting bodies, to which much reference has been made this afternoon, is within the statutory authority of the Ministry of Education, and it is administered through that Ministry. There is no real field, I think, for taking it away from the present machinery, and, to do them justice, I do not understand the Wolfenden Committee to have suggested that. Whatever we do, education departments, housing and local government and local authorities represent a triangle of activity on which most Government support for recreation must be based—and a Sports Development Council which aided the already aided, or supported the already supported, could not, I think, in that form have a useful part to play.
Nevertheless, having regretfully agreed that what I thought to be the imaginative and attractive proposal at the end of the Wolfenden Report had to be rejected, I thought that there was a great deal in the Report which ought be welcomed and implemented. Indeed, if there had not been, the proposal itself would have been nugatory, for, taken by itself, it was a merely administrative and organisational suggestion and not a proposal for policy. I think it was for this reason that I received from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister my present responsibility. My first act on receipt of it was to create a small working party of officials from departments, to consider both the Wolfenden Report and what I might describe as the present state of play on the internal Government front, to suggest improvements and to set about creating the same kind of change of atmosphere which has, I think, infected the Youth Service since the publication and implementation of the Albemarle Report on that Service.

379
At first I looked for the working party to be chaired by a member of the Civil Service. This was the natural course, and it seemed to me to be the proper one. Unfortunately, or rather, perhaps I should say, fortunately, no immediately suitable choice presented itself, with the result that I was lucky enough to secure the part-time professional services of Sir Patrick Renison. I think that this has been extremely happy, for, apart from his personal qualities, Sir Patrick has brought to his work both familiarity with Whitehall and detachment from it—a working knowledge of politics without political alignment. I am sure that if this adventure is to be successful it will be due very largely to him.
I should now like to analyse the problem with which I was faced and to outline the general limitations within which I have had to work. In the first place, I wanted to inaugurate some new breath of fresh air within the shortest possible time. This meant that I would so far as possible have to do without legislation, and it meant, in turn, that I would have to work, if I could, within the existing framework—that is to say, the Scottish Office, the Education Ministry, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the local authorities which provide the main framework for contact with the composite national sporting bodies and the particular sporting interests. As it happens, the working party decided that, with trifling qualification, amending legislation was not in fact desirable. So we were all happy, if for slightly different reasons.
My next task was to make up my mind whether I was to argue myself into a job or out of one. This is never an easy question for a man to decide. My original conception had been, rather similar to that of the Wolfenden Report, for some sort of advisory council roughly dependent on the Lord President, and—on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Luke—rather as the research councils are roughly dependent on the office of the Minister for Science. Once, however, you have decided to go on with the existing structure for the time being, there is less obviously a case for a separate sponsoring Minister; and in so far as there is a job of co-ordination to be done—and I am absolutely satisfied that there
380
is—it could easily have been done by one of the existing Ministries.
Here my embarrassment was happily removed. It became apparent that the officials both of the working party and, I think, of all the composite national bodies—the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association and the British Olympics Association, as well as the Scottish bodies whom we consulted—strongly favoured the continuance of the responsibility I had undertaken: a senior Minister with a responsibility for sport, co-ordinating the efforts of other Ministries and with direct access to members and organisations of the sporting world, untrammelled by the need to approach them through other Departments. I, too, favoured this arrangement. I was, and am, interested in my special responsibilities in this task, and I should have laid them down with regret. A useful by-product of the arrangement is that it brings Scotland—and, should it desire it, Northern Ireland—within the general picture without constitutional impropriety—which, oddly enough, would have been quite difficult in any other way. I have this afternoon been greatly fortified by the fairly general support for a Minister with the kind of responsibility for co-ordination that I am outlining, a Minister who should not be one of the Departmental Ministers primarily concerned.
The next problem to be solved was the crucial issue of advice. As I have just said, I originally favoured a national advisory council, like that supported by the noble Baroness, and certainly by my noble friend Lord Luke and by Lord Gosford in his very interesting speech. Such a council might have representatives of the Ministries, the composite sporting bodies, and independent figures forming a sort of national sporting cabinet advising the co-ordinating Minister. I am bound to say to the House that this attractive idea, an idea which attracted me very greatly, has been firmly rejected on further consideration. This rejection has not only been by officials, but by all the sporting bodies.
I think, on the whole, their advice is sound, at least in the first instance. I think that it is true that a national advisory council would impose a barrier between the Minister and the bodies

381
with whom he simply must work closely if he is to carry conviction: that is to say, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association, the British Olympics Association, and the Scottish bodies, and perhaps one or two others. Moreover, it is, I am satisfied on reflection—and I am bound to say that the discussion this afternoon has strengthened this conviction—difficult, or perhaps impossible, to conceive a body whose independent representatives would be considered satisfactory by all the interested parties, if it is true, as my noble friend Lord Gosford said, that there are at least 300 national bodies of independent status. For, in a sense, in this field there is no such thing as sport, but only sports. All of these various sports and pastimes might have a right to direct access to the Ministers concerned.
Instead, at any rate in the first instance, I propose to work closely and continuously through the existing national composite bodies, and through a network of ad hoc committees where necessary on which appropriate interests will serve as needed. I think that this will serve the needs to which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl referred of the lesser known sports, some of which, in their way, are just as much entitled to direct access to the Government, because they have their special requirements and interests, as are the larger activities. Should experience of this indicate some further development as necessary, I think I can rely on the consensus of sporting opinion advising me to this effect through the bodies concerned. Indeed, I would heartily endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Luke who said that when this "contact" organisation had developed properly the idea would naturally grow and would come into effect.
Before I come to more solid issues of policy, there is the other organisational question with which I think I ought to deal. In England there is no focal point of regional planning between the local authorities and the State. In Scotland to some extent the Scottish Office and St. Andrew's House supply a pattern of need which is not met here. I think that the gap in the English arrangement is to be regretted, and I hope that when we are discussing the
382
structure of Government in this country at some time in the future I shall deal a little more fully with this issue. In the meantime we must live with our system with all its defects and advantages. However, in the sporting field I think that we can do something to remedy the defects. This is important. When I come on to policy I will point out that there may well be certain large facilities which ought to be planned—and the noble Baroness adverted to this—on a national basis and which are not adequately catered for at present.
At this stage it is worth pointing out that in addition to, and as part of, the facilities provided locally there is need for facilities conceived regionally. For example, a local swimming bath can be turned into a competition bath, or even an Olympic bath, by alterations in dimension, and not necessarily very great ones: and facilities which may be regionally justifiable may not be locally required. As a matter of fact, the sporting bodies are, like the political Parties, and many other voluntary associations, very largely regionally organised already. It only remains for local authorities and sporting bodies to consult with their regional neighbours and with one another to produce a pattern of regional planning throughout the country. They are in fact already beginning to do this.
My noble friend Lord Luke referred to an experiment in Hertfordshire, which I understood to be of this nature. In the South-West periodic conferences are held between the local authorities, the C.C.P.R. and the Inspectorate of Schools. These conferences are valuable for good communications and for pooling experience, but also they enable local bodies to plan regional coaching and training schemes, and I should like to see them using regional meetings to plan the provision of facilities. In the North East, I am particularly glad to hear that a regional conference on sport and recreation is planned for this autumn, on the initiative of the North East Development Council and other local and voluntary bodies. Nonetheless, we are still short of a coherent pattern for regional planning, and I am sure that this will happen in practice only as and when Government gives the lead—but this I believe my colleagues will now do.

383
My Lords, this brings me to the main issues of policy. It is fair to the Government, I think, to insist that a good deal has been done since the publication of the Wolfenden Report. It was, of course, a pity—and, perhaps as the noble Baroness reminded us, with hindsight, even a mistake—that the original consideration by the Government of the Report more or less coincided with, or perhaps was overtaken by, the financial measures of 1961. In spite of this handicap, the scale of Government support for sport has been steadily mounting, both in the facilities made available in schools and other educational institutions, in the amount invested by Government and local authorities in capital expenditure and in increased grant by the Ministry of Education and Scottish Departments to voluntary bodies. I should like to give figures of some of these increases, but I may say, by way of trying to placate the noble Lady, that one of the recommendations of the Working Party was that it should be possible more easily to identify in the public accounts those items which are properly referable to sport—because I happen to agree with her that to combine sport with flower beds, although philosophically justifiable, is not necessarily very informative from this point of view.
My Lords, by way of public capital expenditure on sport and general amenities, not including schools and other educational institutes, in the year 1960–61, which I think was the year of Wolfenden, we were spending £5·6 million; in 1961–62, it was £10 million; and 1962–63, £14·2 million. That is more than twice and nearly three times as much in three years. To turn now to the capital expenditure by public bodies exclusively for sporting activities, in 1960–61 it was £2·6 million; in 1961–62, £5·8 million; in 1962–63, £8·8 million; and the estimate for the current year, 1963–64, is £11·3 million—in three years more than four times, and in four years nearly five times as much.
To take the annual grants to voluntary bodies, they received during 1961–62, £178,000; in 1962–63, £288,000; and in the current year, 1963–64, an estimated £373,000: again more than twice, although less than three times as much, in three years. I do not know of many other fields where the rate of expansion
384
is comparable to this. The total expenditure from public funds on sport rose from about £21 million in 1960–61 to about £32 million in 1962–63.
On the other hand, there seems to me, botch organisationally and quantitatively, room for considerable advance, and I will enumerate some of the points upon which the advance will take place. In the first place, I do not think that the present organisation allows for the fact that some very large facilities are probably best planned on a national scale. It is difficult to enumerate these in advance, or to indicate the extent to which national funds, as distinct from local or voluntary funds, should be made available in any particular case. But one of the advantages of the kind of relationship I envisage between the national bodies and my own office is that it will enable us for the first time to examine these possibilities. Until this has been done, it is difficult to say exactly what or how many of these projects there might be, or what chance there might be of getting the Government to support them.
In answer, in passing, to a question put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I have been into this question with some care. I do not think that a total national survey would be either helpful or practical. There are fields in which the facilities for sport are so numerous and sometimes so small that this would, I feel, clog up the administrative machinery for many years to come. But there are fields in which one can pick out the kind of thing to which the noble Baroness referred in her opening—for instance, the particular height or dimension of a diving board. I think Mr. "Jumbo" Edwards wrote to me (if I may use his name in vain) about an Olympic rowing facility. These are things which one must examine in conjunction with the national sporting bodies, and see what is there and what more can reasonably be required. Until that is done, I cannot offer any greater precision of the kind of thing that I there have in mind.
Secondly, on a more pedestrian level, the Government have decided that the volume of starts on the construction of sporting facilities by voluntary bodies with grant-aid from the Education Department should increase from the present level of about £500,000 by steps to about

385
£1½ million in 1965–66, in addition to the element for sporting facilities in the Youth Service building programme. Thirdly, we have decided that grant-aid in England and Wales to voluntary bodies under the Physical Training and Recreation Act should be increased from its present English level of 33⅓ per cent. to the present Scottish figure of 50 per cent., and that both in England and Wales and in Scotland the upper limits (which are £4,000 in England and £6,600 in Scotland) should be removed, although £10,000 would be regarded as a normal limit.
Fourthly, we have decided that the present restriction which is imposed by the two Education Departments by which grants are refused to single activity sports clubs should be removed, and that grant should now be available to such clubs. My Lords, of course, it is difficult to estimate either the volume of applications under these heads or what allowance should be made for them; but additional Government funds will be made available under the Physical Training and Recreation Act to allow capital projects to go forward on this improved basis of Government support. In addition, we expect to provide a further £150,000 in a full year to enable grants to voluntary bodies for general recreational projects, such as community centres and village halls, to be made on a similarly improved basis.
Next, my Lords, and perhaps more important, we are increasing the grants to the national voluntary organisations for headquarters administration (a point which has been referral to in more than one of your Lordships' speeches), including the cost of coaching schemes, from £375,000 to £425,000 in the current year; to £525,000 in the following year and to £625,00 in 1965–66. My Lords, I think it is also highly desirable that investment in sport and physical recreation should be separately identified and shown in the annual Public Investment White Paper—his for the reason, or one of the reasons, to which the noble Baroness referred. On the advice of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, I have already asked the Medical Research Council to advise me, after consultation with them, on all medical matters associated with sport,
386
and I hope that informal contacts will be kept up between the two bodies.
As regards assistance for international sport, I have discussed this matter with the Overseas Departments. There is, I think, the genuine difficulty, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Exeter, that action by Government should not be taken in such a way as to discourage voluntary contributions, for instance, to the expenses of teams overseas. But we may be able to find a solution. One suggestion which is under consideration and which we are examining is that which has been made, I think, by the noble Marquess—through assistance with headquarters administration; but I shall also look again at the particular suggestion which the noble Baroness made, and see what we can get from that.
My Lords, I now turn to some slightly more technical matters. The first of these, of course, is rating relief. The Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, enables local rating authorities to reduce or to remit payment of rates on premises occupied by clubs or similar bodies used for the purpose of recreation which are not conducted for profit. It is for the rating authority to decide whether they can make this concession, and no doubt they must have regard to the effect of any concessions on householders and other ratepayers. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked rating authorities to look sympathetically on bodies, such as amateur sports clubs, who are eligible for this discretionary relief.
I do not think I could answer off-hand this afternoon the question about purchase tax which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, or the payment for admission to Sunday sports. The tax on sports equipment which is at the 25 per cent. rate is something which would have to be looked at in relation to other items also having to bear the rate. This is something which would have to be discussed through a Finance Bill in the ordinary way. I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that there are ways of getting round the requirements of the Lord's Day Observance Act, or whatever it is, for the payment of admission to Sunday entertainment, which he might care to explore with his legal advisers.

387
I now turn to the machinery for achieving better co-ordination and consultation at the national level. The Committee of Officials under the Chairmanship of Sir Patrick Renison which has been advising me will remain in being, to help me put into effect the new Government approach to sport. Its presence will help to co-ordinate the work of the Ministries which are represented on it. Its members, and particularly its Chairman, will maintain the closest possible liaison with the national voluntary sports organisations. There will be much for the members of the Committee to do as Government support develops for all the healthy leisure interests of the community. The first new task will be, in conjunction with some of the national sporting organisations, to produce as soon as possible—and I think this may help the noble Earl, Lord Longford—an authoritative pamphlet giving clear instructions to voluntary sports organisations, down to the single activity clubs throughout the country, how to qualify and apply for the increased aid which Government is now making available. Its further immediate task, also in conjunction with the voluntary sports organisations concerned, will be to prepare and arrange expert examination of the priorities of a list of large national sporting facilities which this country needs and does not yet have.
None of this means that I shall be taking over any of the functions of my colleagues, the Education and Housing Ministers. Apart from anything else this would not be welcome by the national sporting bodies, who would, I am sure, not wish to see any weakening of the relationship which they have with individual Government Departments. But I think that we shall improve our methods of consultation and co-ordination on general questions affecting national and international sport if Sir Patrick Renison's Committee could act as a focal point under my general supervision. It is my intention that his Committee should hold meetings from time to time with the main national and international sporting organisations to survey the situation and to advise me in my co-ordinating capacity.
I would sum up by saying that a way of life is developing in this country which gives, the whole community an opportunity
388
for healthy leisure which has never before existed. This is something which no Government can afford to ignore, and indeed the figures I have quoted show that there has been a very large and encouraging increase in expenditure on sport and physical recreation for the whole community, as well as that for schools and youth groups, since the Wolfenden Report was published. Nevertheless, we believe there is scope for greater help than has been given in the past, and in particular for Government assistance to be better directed to meet specific needs. My aim since my appointment has been to see, in the first place, what improvements we could make quickly through the existing machinery rather than to hold things up by organisational changes and large scale surveys.
I have from the outset held the view that significant help could be given at comparatively little cost. The measures I have announced in my speech, and in particular the decisions to make grants available to single activity clubs and to increase Government support for headquarters administration of national voluntary organisations, will, I believe, help to achieve this. I regard these measures as a modest but well-considered start in improving the method of Government support for sport activities and recreation. I hope that the improved arrangements for consultation and co-ordination which I have mentioned will demonstrate the Government's intention that the needs of sport and recreation will be fairly and sympathetically considered, and that the Government will have at their disposal the best possible advice for future action. I should like in conclusion to thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity of taking part in this debate.
7.17 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate, and I am sure we are all agreed that the Lord President really wants to help on these particular matters. I personally regret that there is to be no Sports Development Council, but we are all very glad that there is to be no Minister for Sport. No voice was raised asking for that. We all are glad that there is to be a senior Minister to co-ordinate this work, and it was felt by everyone that this should be so. Speaking personally,

389
I am very glad that the Lord President shares the point of view that it would be helpful if these figures could be broken down, so that we all know exactly what help is received for sport. I should like to leave the Lord President with the feeling that help is needed now in the matter of people and teams taking part in amateur international sport. We have waited a long time for that. I see that the noble Marquess agrees with me. I realise that the Lord President appreciates that we all want to bring this about, and if he could expedite that, then we should be very grateful. I am appreciative of everyone who took part in the debate, and I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND RECONCILIATION BILL
7.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Matrimonial Causes and Reconciliation Bill. As your Lordships know, this is a Private Member's Bill which has passed through all its stages in another place. Like all Private Members' Bills in another place it is fortunate to have got as far as this House, and I hope that we shall be able to help it on its way. Although in another place they are scrupulous in not referring to our activities here, I think that I must pay my tribute to the instigator and inspirer of this Bill, Mr. Abse, who has shown extraordinary knowledge, ability and patience in dealing with a difficult and, at times, contentious measure. I would mention also that it has received considerable help from the Government and from the Law Officers—particularly in a technical way—but I am not suggesting that this necessarily commits the Government in any way to any or all of the provisions of the Bill as it stands. But it would be right to mention that it has beep helped on its way and, I believe, improved by their efforts.
The Bill as it now stands is mainly concerned with conciliation and with tidying-up. I appreciate that in moving it I have none of the experience that certain noble Lords have—or, indeed, Mr. Abse—in what is very much a legal
390
measure. Therefore I shall be at a disadvantage when the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Hodson, come to speak either in support or criticism. I am fortified by the fact that my noble friend, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack are here to explain some of the technical points. I should mention that it is a great pleasure to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hodson (though I am sometimes in disagreement with him), is to make his maiden speech, because I have served as a member of a board of governors of which he is chairman and I know the enormous quality and calibre he brings to considering a difficult issue.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove any inhibition which exists within the domestic law that might obstruct reconciliation between estranged parties. The other clauses are concerned with amending the law of collusion, which has caused great difficulties among solicitors, and sometimes causes special difficulties at the early stage of divorce proceedings in discussing problems concerning the future of children of the marriage, maintenance and arrangements for the matrimonial home. Though, fortunately, I have not been through divorce proceedings—I have just celebrated my silver wedding—like all of us who have had occasion to deal with people involved in divorces, I am aware of how painful, difficult and embarrassing it is to solicitors when reasonable arrangements cannot be even discussed without running the risk of collusion. This risk also inhibits the possibility of solicitors themselves contributing rather more to assisting reconciliation by bringing home to the parties concerned in precise terms what the effect of this may mean.
Finally, the Bill is concerned with giving power to the court to deal with stratagems adopted to defeat proper claims for maintenance and gives additional strength to the court in allowing lump-sum payments to be ordered in lieu of, or in addition to, maintenance or alimony, and thereby allowing maintenance proceedings to be dealt with by the court in a better manner than at present.
I do not propose to discuss the Bill in great detail to-day. I hope that it will receive a Second Reading, although, of

391
course, this will not imply that there will not be points on which noble Lords will disagree. But undoubtedly there is a great measure of support for the Bill as it stands at the moment. The first clause implements the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, which drew attention to the fact that condonation by one spouse of a matrimonial offence committed by the other spouse acts as an absolute bar to a divorce being claimed in respect of that offence. An offence is condoned where the injured spouse, with knowledge of the material facts, forgives the other spouse and confirms that forgiveness by reinstatement in the matrimonial home. The husband who has sexual intercourse with an adulterous wife, with knowledge of her adultery, or with a wife who has treated him with cruelty, is deemed conclusively to condone the offence unless it can be shown that intercourse was induced by the wife by fraudulent mistatement of fact. The Morton Commission went on to suggest a period of trial co-habitation but, they said, whether or not there should be a trial period, they were agreed unanimously that it was anomalous that a husband and wife should not be on the same footing with regard to the presumption of condonation which is raised by acts of sexual intercourse between them.
Clause 2, which is sometimes known as the "kiss and make up" clause is intended to enable an injured husband (this does not apply to an injured wife) to cohabit with his wife without fear that by so doing, he condones the matrimonial offence and thereby reduces his chance of divorce. This recommendation was made by a majority of the members of the Morton Commission, fourteen of them, and has been strongly supported as likely to lead to more reconciliation and therefore to less divorce, which must be in the interests of society and certainly would be approved by your Lordships' House. These are the two main clauses.
Clause 3 is concerned with maintenance and alimony and gives the court power to make orders so that payments of alimony can be by lump sum, and Clause 4 is concerned with other aspects of maintenance and alimony. Clause 5 is concerned with giving power to the court to prevent any attempt to evade or defeat claims for financial relief where, for instance,
392
a person against whom proceedings are being brought, is about to make a disposition with the intention of defeating any claim for financial relief. I should emphasise that Clause 3 does not exactly follow the Royal Commission, but was strongly supported by the Solicitor General, and Clauses 4 and 5, I understand, have been drafted by the Law Officers as a consequence of suggestions which had been made by Divorce Judges.
I said, that it was not my intention to-day to argue at great length the case for the Bill, since I hope your Lordships will give it an unopposed Second Reading. For that reason, I do not propose to refer to the controversial issue of the seven-years divorce clause, the exclusion of which from the Bill I regret. It is possible that an Amendment may be moved to enable this House to discuss that matter, and it seems to me that the right time to deal with that will be when such an Amendment appears on the Order Paper. Therefore I hope that the harmony of to-day's proceeding will not be disturbed in any way by that particular issue. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
7.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I feel that before I come to the Bill it is necessary to explain to your Lordships that my presence here at this unusually late hour and that of my fellow Bishop is in no way the result of the strictures addressed to our empty Benches last night by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I am glad, if he had to rebuke us at all, that he rebuked us for our absence. That is much better than being rebuked for our presence. I am glad that he did it with tolerance and with expressions of kindly feelings to all Churches; for I have heard my predecessor in the See of Leicester, the late Bishop Guy Vernon Smith, speak with warm appreciation of his relations with the noble Lord when they were respectively Rector and Mayor of Hackney.
I must take one moment to remind your Lordships of something of which I am sure noble Lords are fully aware. It is extremely difficult, under modern conditions, for Bishops to play the part

393
they might like to in the legislative business of the House, as contrasted with the consultative business of the House, if I may make that distinction: because, whereas the consultative business can to some extent be foreseen and our engagements co-ordinated so far as possible, the legislative business is bound to wander over all times and seasons, and if we are committed to public duties in the country on which other people are dependent, it is obviously very difficult for us at short notice to adjust them. That is all I wish to say on that subject. If I were to get drawn any further I should have to consult my shop steward.
On this Bill we thought it wise that perhaps one of us on these Benches might say a word or two in welcome of it and in appreciation of the motives that have inspired its principal promoter. In the form in which it comes before us now it is obviously a Bill that all those who have the interests of happy family life and stable matrimonial relations at heart will welcome. I should be quite unable to go in detail into the exact legal force of these early clauses of the Bill, but it is clear to us all that: the result of these clauses becoming law will be to increase the likelihood of reconciliation between estranged parties, particularly by removing the fear of losing status in possible divorce proceedings by following a course of action which would appear to be humane, kindly in nature and often of having the express purpose of preventing the final break-up or of restoring some chance of reconciliation. That is obviously something which should be welcomed, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right in saying that it will receive a universal welcome in this House.
Other clauses put a stop to possible financial measures that can be taken by parties to divorce proceedings the result of which would seem to be against natural justice. I was not at all surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, indicate that a debate might arise at some later date on the clause that was omitted in the final stages of the Bill in another place. I agree with him that the time for a full and considered debate on those issues will arise most naturally on the Committee stage, which might easily become a kind of Second Reading debate on that particular clause. There are,
394
however, one or two things that I should like to say, not about the merits or demerits of the clause, but in relation to the attitude of the Churches and others interested so far as the Bill has already proceeded.
After the withdrawal of the controversial clause by Mr. Abse, there was a good deal of suggestion in the Press and elsewhere that the Churches were wrongly attempting to dictate to the community as a whole how it should react to these possibilities, and that the day was past when the Christian sanctions could be assumed to apply to the country as a whole. I think it is necessary, therefore, that somebody should just remind this House, and through this House wider circles, that all that happened in that particular direction was that the leaders of the principal churches in this country issued a statement giving their own reasons for disliking, and hence opposing, that particular clause. Whatever we may think about the clause—and obviously there is room for a great deal of discussion about it—I think it has to be said that we have not yet reached the point where it is a crime for the leaders of these large religious communities to express in a public statement their own views on this or any other matter.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate to say respectfully how very much I agree with him. But does he not think that in fact the strength of Christian witness is now growing the whole time? We are not declining, but growing in strength.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: It pleases me very much to hear the noble Earl express that opinion. I think there is much evidence that can be adduced to support it, although I always try to avoid committing myself on these broad generalisations. I am often asked at meetings whether I think there is a religious revival or a religious decline, and I think it is the kind of question that is so easy to answer without full consideration. However, that statement was made, and we are not to know whether or not it motivated the action taken in another place which I understand led the promoter of the Bill to withdraw that particular controversial clause.

395
The other thing I want to say about it is this. As legislators, whatever may be our personal views and convictions about religious or ethical matters in relation to divorce, we shall all agree that we must be guided by what is best for the whole community at this particular time in history. I know that I speak for fellow churchmen when I say that we do not hope, and we do not even desire, to impose on unwilling fellow citizens either the full rigour or the full blessing of the Christian marriage standard. That is something which, if they are to accept, they must accept from the dictates of their own conscience and judgment. Many exceptions to the full Christian standard as commonly understood have already been accepted, or at least tolerated, in the mixed society in which at present we live. But having said that, as legislators we have to do our best to preserve the institution of marriage so that it exists as a live option before every couple entering upon holy matrimony, and it has to be accepted by them as the normal outcome of what they are embarking upon.
If we come to debate this clause, or something like it, in weeks to come, and if the main point of the debate is likely to lie in this particular area, on the one side we shall have to scrutinise carefully the extent and nature of any further encroachments on the laws which aft present ensure stability and permanence for marriage unions. We shall also have to consider, from the other side, the extent and nature of any measures that may be conceived to mitigate hardships, prevent collusion, deception and subterfuge and to protect illegitimate children and their interests. Because some have thought it right to oppose the clause that has now been omitted, it must not be assumed that we look with self-satisfied and hypocritical favour upon these unfortunate results of the present law, which we recognise as much as anybody else.
Wisdom, so I believe, will emerge from an honest conversation between these two sides of the argument. It will not be helped by either side accusing the other of low and unworthy motives. I should like to put on record my sense of the sympathy, the humanity and courtesy which has motivated the promoter of this Bill in another place. But
396
I hope that those who have expressed themselves as doubtful about the wisdom of the clause now dropped may be spared immediately being classified as either bigots, fanatics or hypocrites.
7.41 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we have a Bill before us to-day which, in this form, is entirely innocuous, and I have no doubt that the whole House will support it. Except for one aspect of it which I shall comment upon, I fully approve of it. I think my noble friend Lord Shackleton said that he hoped nobody would mention the clause which has been omitted—which, by the way, he said he regretted—in order to maintain harmony. I think in a matter of this kind that is entirely the wrong approach.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Lady allow me to interrupt? She realises that she is misquoting me. I never used the word "mention".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am sorry. I do not know in what context I said, "mention". I said that my noble friend regretted that a clause had been omitted. Surely I was right in that.
LORD SHACKLETON: All right, carry on.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That, surely, is the matter I mentioned.
LORD SHACKLETON: All right; carry on.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It seems to me that the word "mention" is entirely irrelevant to that point. The noble Lord should not interrupt me on such an absolutely irrelevant matter. He said that he had no intention of mentioning—very well; he regretted that this clause was omitted. He having said that and then hoped in the name of harmony that we should not pursue this matter, I feel that those who do not see eye to eye with him and are very pleased that that clause has not been included in the Bill must say something about it; and I am glad that the right reverend Prelate realised that this matter is of such great importance that he made some most important comments on it.
I would say this also. I hope the House will realise that in the course of

397
the passage of this Bill through the Commons, it was not until the Committee stage that the other place and the country realised the implications of what I shall call the compulsion clause. It was a very curious thing. It took some time before the Married Women's Association, for instance—which is an association of intelligent women, who examine Bills of this kind very carefully, because they have a number of women lawyers on their executive—realised its true implications. The reason why I am going to discuss it is because I think that on the Committee stage—and I have it on good authority—an Amendment will be moved in order that this clause shall be debated, and I feel it is time that the House should realise the true import of the clause which has been omitted from this Bill.
I regarded the original Bill with the compulsion clause as a husband's Bill, drafted by a man who doubtless means well but who has failed to recognise that marriage has different values for a man and a woman, values which are determined by the fundamental difference in sex. The same different considerations influence their attitude to a break-up of marriage. I am not concerned with the theological approach or the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church; I am concerned with protecting the little earthly paradise, tie home, the source of most women's greatest happiness, which she has created for her children. This, I believe, can be more easily destroyed if this Bill with the compulsion clause becomes an Act of Parliament.
I was shocked to read that the Member in another place who introduced this Bill criticised Sir Jocelyn Simon, the President of the Divorce Court, for making some observations on the principle contained in this measure. I read the report of Sir Jocelyn's address on divorce, which he gave to a branch of the Magistrates' Association, and I think he should be congratulated for his wise counsel in a matter which is of paramount importance to the ordinary men and women of this country. We were told during the debate on this Bill that the primary objective of the Bill was to help illegitimate children. I heard this reiterated time after time. I take the view that in the long run the Bill with the compulsion clause in it would harm more children than it would benefit. The most effective way,
398
and the only ultimate way, to help illegitimate children is to deem all children legitimate, and mark only the union as illegitimate.
Before I speak further on the controversial clause which I expect will be moved in the Committee stage, I should like to comment on Clause 2 and say this about the reconciliation clause. This is the only qualification I have to make. This reconcilation clause is designed to help heal the marriage by allowing the parties to cohabit for three months after they have separated. Surely this is fraught with some danger for the woman—and, of course, this has been mentioned before. If she becomes pregnant during the trial period, presumably the husband can still assert that the trial was not successful and that he wishes to proceed with the divorce. Although this is a matter with which many of us are concerned, nevertheless I shall vote for this little Bill.
Now I come to what will be the controversial clause when it is moved in Committee. From my experience, the preservation of the home, especially with children, is more important to the wife than to the husband. The mother will strive to prevent the break-up, even if it involves persistent ill-treatment from her husband, for she believes that a home for her children should include the father. Finally, if he is guilty of a matrimonial offence generally repeated, she may admit defeat. It should be recalled that the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in 1956 recommended that divorce should continue to be on the grounds of the commission of a matrimonial offence; and they were against making the breakdown of a marriage grounds for divorce. They also voted against divorce by consent, and by the compulsion of one of the parties after a number of years of separation.
Are we to ignore the advice of the Commission? After all, a great deal of thought is given to these Commissions before they are set up. The men and women who serve on them are carefully selected. Is it for us, within a few short days, to dismiss decisions to which they have come after, perhaps, months and sometimes years of careful consideration? Those who support this Bill with the compulsion clause claim that increased

399
divorce facilities make the family a sounder and more stable institution. They think that divorce should be made easier, so that more parents who have families outside marriage could marry and have legitimate children. But what of the children of the married pair and their happiness? Are they to be totally disregarded?
The voices of adults are always raised on these questions but the voices of the children of divorced parents are never heard. These children too often appear later on, after a divorve, as emotionally unstable individuals, and they come before the doctors, psychiatrists and magistrates as individuals unable to adjust themselves to their environment. It is sometimes argued that a home broken by divorce is better for children than one in which the parents indulge in frequent quarrels. I do not agree. I believe children can endure quarrelling parents because quarrelling is not alien to them. They hear it among their friends, in their friends' homes, between their friends' parents; they hear it in the school and in the street. But a divorce makes an end to the security which is important to the maintenance of a child's emotional stability.
If divorce is to be made too easy, then marriage is itself imperilled and the stability of the family threatened. Why should the happiness of one partner of the marriage be bought at the expense of the other partner and the children? Marriage is now undertaken so lightly that the 1960 figures suggest that where the wife is aged under 20 at marriage there is a one-in-four risk of divorce, and this Bill with the compulsion clause will encourage young people to undertake it more lightly; there is a certain release in seven years, whatever happens. In fact, with the compulsion clause, this Bill will make marriage for seven years, not for life. And the young person who is called a beatnik will enter into marriage quite lightly. If he makes a mistake at 19, whatever happens, he is out of it at 26, however badly he behaves. The innocent wife—or the reverse, the innocent husband—cannot object. They must consent to a divorce.
My Lords, how can one, on careful consideration of this subject, accept such a clause? It is sometimes argued that
400
we already have divorce by consent and that divorces are arranged between husband and wife. I have discussed this with lawyers and I find little corroboration. I, as a doctor, have been told the secrets of her married life by hundreds of women, but I have never had it confirmed that there are women who cared to sit all night in an hotel bedroom and read a book with a husband in order to facilitate divorce.
Those in favour of the compulsion clause which has been deleted claim that justice can be done to the separated and divorced wife and children of the marriage by making an appropriate maintenance order. This, I feel, is insult added to injury. How many men can support two families adequately? If they cannot, then the children of the first marriage must suffer. It is inevitable. The second wife is there, in charge, and it would not be her children who would suffer.
The financial aspect of the matter has been glossed over too lightly. The fact is that on divorce the first wife is no longer eligible for the National Insurance benefits, including the widow's pension. This goes to her successor. The first wife may be much older than the second wife. Let us examine the economic argument, which certainly cannot be ignored, a little further. A wife spends her youth and middle age rearing children and caring for the home and, consequently, freeing her husband to pursue his business. During these years, despite the great service the wife gives to the partnership, she is not legally entitled to one penny of the housekeeping allowance which she handles, and any savings are the property of the husband. Most deserted wives therefore have not a penny in their own right.
It cannot be ignored that the frequent pattern in the break-up of a marriage is for this woman, when the worst years of struggles are passed, to be replaced by a younger woman. This is factual. The newspapers tell us this every day. While, with the passage of years, the wife has lost her looks, the husband has had an opportunity of improving his financial position and consequently becoming more attractive to a certain kind of younger woman. My Lords, I have never yet heard of a young, good-looking woman being attracted to an

401
elderly man without money; and if any noble Lord knows of one case I shall be very pleased to hear it.
This Bill with the compulsion clause will remove the deterrent which might prevent some woman from having a liaison with a married man. The deterrent, namely, the risk that the association may remain indefinitely illegal. If divorce without the consent of the innocent party is introduced, then we shall establish a new form of marriage proposal. The older married man can ask the young woman to marry him in a few years' time. She will change her name by deed poll; seven years will soon pass; and she can plan for the wedding. There will be no anxiety on either her or her parents' part. In a few years' time she will marry a well-to-do man. No doubt this Islamic element in our institution of marriage will in time become quite respectable and the second selected wife recognised as part of our society like the young wives in polygamous marriages. If this Bill in its final state permits compulsion to be brought to hear on an innocent wife or husband, I say that it will serve to des-credit the whole institution of marriage in this country.
7.56 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, it is with great trepidation that I venture to address your Lordships to-Night, in that I am very vulnerable, having been a Judge for a great many years. In fact, I think I am at the present time the senior man holding judicial office in this country; and Judges, if not notoriously, are somtimes accused of being averse to legal reform. It was a Judge, I think in this House, who was foremost in opposing the abolition of the death penalty for stealing. And I am in a worse position perhaps than an ordinary Judge, because for many years I sat in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and, worse still, before that, at the Bar, I appeared for people who were in matrimonial trouble on both sides in connection with their own affairs, monetary affairs and their children. Before I make any suggestions of my own, I should like to say that in all my experience as a Judge, which extended in the Divorce Division from 1937 to 1951, I had the opportunity of listening to people of both sexes, people in great trouble, who bore their troubles bravely and with patience and showed
402
that they had done so over many years; and in listening to what might be thought to be dreary stuff I never lost my respect or affection for my fellow countrymen and countrywomen.
Having said that, I am going on to say something which may seem to be harsh, at any rate to the ears of those who desire to make divorce easier. May I begin by saying how heartily I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said about forcing a divorce on a woman—because that particular provision, which is not in the Bill as it stands, is almost certain to be brought up at the Committee stage, and I think it right shortly to state my views now. I do not propose to discuss the matter at length. It would not, I think, be a suitable time to do so, especially as the noble Baroness has set out the case against that provision.
I would emphasise that the economic factor seems to have been entirely overlooked by those well-meaning people who advocate this measure of relief to the long-suffering husband. The man who is a working man, the wage earner with £8, £9, £10, or £11 a week, cannot possibly afford to support two wives; and this provision in the Bill which is supposed to provide for a man making provision for his wife's maintenance before he gets this compulsory divorce after seven years provides, in my submission, a quite illusory safeguard. The man will not be able to do it. The woman with whom he is allowed to contract matrimony will get the money, and in some cases will get all the money, on Friday night, and the deserted wife will get nothing.
I had an experience in the village where I live of an unfortunate woman who had been left by her husband some years before—he had gone off with another woman. She was taking no steps to divorce him, and I said, "Have you thought about divorcing him?" She said, "No, I am not going to divorce him. I shall not get my money if I do ". Why should this woman be told by her friends or the husband's friends that she is being vindictive? I think a woman in that position is quite entitled to take the stand that her financial position, and indeed that of her children, will not be protected.
I also endorse what the noble Baroness said about children. I have had a good

403
deal of experience of listening to cases where children are involved. What she says about health—and, of course, from her own profession she is in a position to know something about children's health—is borne out by my own experience. I remember that one day Counsel in a case was addressing me about a child, and he said, "Your Lordship will no doubt be surprised to learn, perhaps for the first time in all your experience, that the dispute in this case is about a perfectly healthy child". That is the sort of situation which we are accustomed to see in the courts where there are disputes about children after divorce. I will not detain your Lordships further over this matter, because I do not propose to do other than declare my position as it will be if an attempt is made to reintroduce the clause which has been dropped.
I should like to say a word about Clause 1 and, again following what the noble Baroness said, emphasise the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the sexes. It seems to me quite monstrous to say that if a man, having found out that his wife has been unfaithful to him, sleeps with her and has sexual intercourse with her, he is not to be held as having forgiven her. That seems to me quite dreadful. Quite apart from the fact that she may become pregnant, the whole idea to me is revolting. The same consideration does not apply in the reverse situation, as all your Lordships will at once, I am certain, appreciate. A woman does not always find it easy to leave home when she has found her husband out, and she may be put in a difficult position even in resisting his attentions. But so far as the man is concerned, if in these circumstances he does have marital intercourse with his wife it seems to me quite deplorable, although the Royal Commission have reported in the other sense, that he should not be taken to have overlooked her infidelity.
The other matter I should like an opportunity of raising at Committee stage—and I hope I may be forgiven for mentioning it now—is perhaps of less importance; that is, this provision about collusion. It is a little difficult, looking at the draft Bill, to see what the draftsman has done; because, in order to understand it it is necessary to look at
404
the original Act. What he has done is to take the section about collusion into the clause which deals with absolute bars to divorce and include it in the provision which deals with discretionary bars. I should have thought that was unsatisfactory. If somebody goes to his wife and says, "I want a divorce", and she says, "I will give you a divorce if you give me £50,000. We will not raise any defence. Nothing will be said. We will keep everything quiet, provided that I am paid enough ", I cannot see why that should not be an absolute bar.
The argument on the other side is that nobody knows what collusion is; that everybody does it, anyhow; so let us get it out of the way, and make it easy to get a divorce after they have made an arrangement which is contrary to law. So long as divorce is based on the position that there is a complaint by one spouse against the other—because that is, broadly speaking, still the basis of divorce law in this country to-day—I find it very difficult to conceive a position in which collusion could properly be treated as only a discretionary bar to divorce as opposed to an absolute bar. I know that there is room for difference of opinion about that, and I know my noble and learned friend Lord Denning takes a different view, and so I think does the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I do not propose to detain your Lordships any further about that.
May I revert for a moment to the serious part of this Bill, around which all the rest has been wrapped—namely, the seven-year clause, with its compulsory element? I said this in my evidence before the Royal Commission, and none of the writers on this subject that I have read has taken me to task for what I said then. I drew the attention of the Royal Commission to the extraordinary feature of our country that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. As the noble Baroness pointed out, this seven-year business is going to help only the rich: the poor will not be able to make use of it at all. The odd feature of our law is that, husband and wife being taxed together as one, well-to-do people can have half a dozen wives all living at the same time, deduct all allowances for surtax purposes and go on as happily as before—or, I

405
will not say happily, but as well off financially. Before people begin to increase the grounds on which divorce can be obtained I think it would be a very good thing to have a look at the financial repercussions, not only as regards poor people but as regards rich people as well.
For these reasons, although not desiring to prevent this House from giving a Second Reading to this Bill, I indicate the line which I myself, as at present advised, should like to take at the Committee stage. May I, finally, thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, my colleague, for whose judgment in other matters I have the most profound respect but not apparently in this, for the kind words he said about me in his speech?
8.10 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships realise how great a welcome we should give to my noble and learned friend, Lord Hodson, who has enriched our debate by a unique contribution. Versed as he is in many branches of the law, his unrivalled experience in this particular field is of the greatest value. Both at the Bar and on the Bench, I think I may say that he is outstanding, and his contribution to-day ranks as great among your Lordships' annals. While thanking him, I must say for myself, without his great experience, I most warmly welcome every clause of this Bill.
Divorce is always a failure. We spend on legal aid millions of pounds in helping people get divorces; but reconciliation, which should be the prime object of society for the sake of the children and the stability of family life, we do little for; and it is something to see that in this Bill we are remedying in this way some of the hindrances to reconciliation.
Let me take this first clause. My noble and learned friend deplores it; but in 1944 this House, sitting judicially, held that if a husband knowing of his wife's infidelity, attempting in a reconciliation to come together, has one act of sexual intercourse with her, he conclusively condoned her offence and could not thereafter seek a divorce. I have seen wives who know that law and have sought to entrap husbands by it. I can well recollect at least three cases where a husband, knowing of his wife's
406
infidelity, at her invitation, in one case in their own flat and in another case in an hotel, met his wife. They did not achieve a reconciliation and the husband afterwards sought a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery. In those three cases the wife put up what I held to be a false case, charging that the husband on his visit to her with a view to reconciliation had had sexual intercourse with her. I was quite satisfied that the wife knew of the law and had sought to entrap the husband by this charge that he had condoned, and I did not hold it good. But, in truth, a law which so hinders reconciliation, which prevents husband and wife attempting in this way to come together again, is, I suggest, a bad law, and indeed the whole of the Royal Commission recommended unanimously that husbands and wives should be on the same footing in this regard.
Then as to the next clause I should like to say how much I would support it. A committee over which I had the honour to preside as long ago as 1947, recommended, again unanimously, that a party should not be held to have condoned an offence simply by coming together for a time and attempting reconciliation. You otherwise prevent people from attempting reconciliation, which they ought to do, or coming together again, and they lose any chance of divorce if they do not succeed. We recommended then, and a Royal Commission by an overwhelming majority have now recommended, that the fact that husband and wife try to make it up again, to forgive and start again, should not be conclusive condonation, and indeed that it should not be held against them. Three months is allowed. I should have thought that was just about right.
Then, in regard to the third clause, I am afraid I must find myself at difference with my noble and learned friend on the question of collusion. In Scots law collusion means an agreement to present a false case to the court. In English law any bargain between the parties about maintenance or about children may be challenged as collusion if it wears the colour of a bribe. If, for instance, the husband says to the wife, "I will see that you get special extra maintenance if you divorce me", or "I will let you have the children ", or whatever it may be," if

407
you divorce me ", or if there is the element of bribery into a bargain, it is held to be collusion.
Because of that, a feeling has grown up among solicitors that it is most dangerous to let husband and wife, or even the solicitors themselves, pending a divorce, discuss such questions as, "What is to be done about the children if we are to be divorced?" or "What is to be done about maintenance?" The wife wants to know before divorce what she is going to live on if there is a divorce, or what is going to happen to the children and about their schooling. At the moment, solicitors fear that if they discuss these matters or come to an agreement on them it will be said afterwards to be collusion, and therefore they do not attempt it. But only recently a case came before us in which solicitors had come to an arrangement and had advised the parties, and the divorce went through. We had to hold that it was collusion under the present law. But it only stopped that action; they could start another on the next day.
What this new provision says is that collusion is not to be an absolute bar to a divorce; that it is in the discretion of the Court. So all the parties have to do, as they should do now, is to inform the Judge what discussions have been held about the children, what discussions have been held about maintenance and, even though it appears that there was an element in it which was unsatisfactory or could be said to be collusion, the Judge is not bound to refuse a divorce; he has a discretion in the matter. That is all that this third clause in the Bill does: to make collusion a discretionary bar. On this clause also I would say that this Bill is greatly to be welcomed. I would say nothing on the controversial nature of a clause which does not yet appear in the Bill. I will wait to say anything I have to say at a later stage. I warmly welcome this Bill.
8.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, every speaker so far has more or less welcomed this Bill, and I imagine that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading. Therefore it is not necessary for me to comment on it at any great length. I should like to say just a word or two, first of all, about
408
the Royal Commission which sat for four years and reported at great length. So far as I know, their Report has never hitherto been discussed as a Report, either in this House or in another place. I think it is time that they were thanked for their efforts, particularly the Chairman of the Royal Commission, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, and the members, for the great work that they put into it. It is now nearly eight years since they reported, and it is to be regretted that the Government themselves have taken no action on it. That is a great pity, and I feel that it is not altogether desirable that a matter of this great importance should be dealt with by a private Member in a Private Member's Bill. Although I recognise that the members of the Commission were not unanimous on a great many points, I feel that the Government ought to have taken responsibility for doing something about implementing the Report.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Shackleton, for taking the responsibility of introducing this Bill in this House, which he did in a competent and able manner and without raising any controversial issues. He almost did, and the noble Baroness tried very hard to find some point of disagreement with him; but I really think that my noble friend did not intend to raise any controversial issue at this stage. I should like to say to the right reverend Prelates who are now sitting on the Bench that there is no complaint about their attendance this evening. They represent a very large proportion of the attendance of this House, far beyond their actual numbers, and we welcome them. I also very much welcome the way in which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Leicester dealt with this Bill.
Finally, while I am on the preliminaries, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, on a very remarkable and, if I may say so, unusual maiden speech. I imagine that he must have made many speeches in this Chamber before his maiden speech—though not to this House—and I suppose that most of his speeches were controversial. Certainly this one was. I remember that when I made my own maiden speech I made the mistake, I think, of making it controversial. The

409
result was that I was constantly interrupted, and had to deal with these interruptions, with the result that towards the end the atmosphere became a little unfriendly. That was not the fate of the noble and learned Lord this afternoon, although certainly what he said was very controversial, and I thought it was very effectively dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. However, we welcomed Lord Hodson's speech, and we are well aware that he comes to this House with an immense knowledge and experience of this subject which is not lightly to be disregarded. A noble and learned Lord who has had fourteen years of dealing with divorce cases must have a point of view which is entitled to respect, and I can assure him that when we come to the later stages of this Bill we shall certainly listen with the greatest attention to any comments he is able to make.
I do not think that it is necessary to say very much about the contents of this Bill, which, after all, is a very modest and harmless sort of measure, particularly after the explanations given by my noble friend who introduced it, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. A good deal of this debate has centred on a clause which is not in the Bill at all and which, if my noble friend Lady Summerskill will forgive me, was not a clause that is likely to be presented to this House. I think that she rather misinterpreted the actual provisions of the clause that was finally omitted; and so also, I think, if I may respectfully and with some trepidation say so, did the noble and learned Lord.
In the particular clause that was omitted from the Bill there were so many safeguards that it would be quite wrong to construe it as compulsory divorce. If the noble and learned Lord will take the trouble of looking at that clause and refreshing his memory, I think he will find that there are very considerable safeguards and that there is no automatic divorce where the parties have been separated for seven years. However, we shall have an opportunitly—and I think I can say that with a certain amount of confidence—of considering this particular major proposal; because it is right that this House should consider it objectively.
410
The last thing I want to do now is to discuss its merits, but I am sure that we all have the same approach to marriage: we all hope that marriage means that people enter into matrimony regarding it as something permanent, and we deplore the fact that some marriages break down. Nevertheless, they do break down, and the question is what is best, first, to safeguard the institution of marriage, and also, and no less important, to safeguard the happiness of the individuals concerned. While I fully recognise that very often the wife is in an inferior position as against the husband, and needs protection, that is not always the case. We have to look at this question objectively, and see how we can help to ensure that when a marriage has finally broken down, and there can be no doubt about it, there should be some way of giving the parties an opportunity of seeking happiness elsewhere.
I do not want to embark on the merits of the Amendment which I have no doubt will be moved—in fact I hope to move it myself. But this House is being asked to-day to give a Second Reading to the Bill as it stands. It will have complete freedom to do what it likes about any Amendments that are proposed; and, if I may say so, this House is particularly qualified to take an objective view of this whole subject. I think it is a better tribunal for taking an objective view, by virtue of its composition, then the other place; and I hope that we shall have ample opportunity of considering all aspects of this question when I shall have an opportunity of once more disagreeing, I hope in a most friendly way, with my noble friend, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and with anybody else who takes a different view. I am sure that this House will, in the end, take the right course. I have great pleasure in supporting this Second Reading.
8.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, and I wish that we had begun it at an earlier hour; but it has been a remarkable debate for the speeches that have been made in the course of it. There was a very authoritative speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought it was

411
in some respects controversial. That is an adjective which one is always apt to apply to a speech with the content of which one disagrees, but it does not mean that in fact it was a controversial speech. I thought myself that Lord Hodson was expressing, as he is fully entitled to do, a point of view based on long experience, without raising any single note of controversy at all.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will feel that he can acquit me either of discourtesy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, or of seeking to criticise him. I said it was an unusual maiden speech, and I even went on to say that I made the same kind of maiden speech myself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no doubt Lord Silkin's speech was controversial, as he in fact admits it was, and that he was interrupted. It was only the use of that particular adjective on which I was seeking to comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was in error, I am sorry to say, in certain respects. He began his speech by taking the Government to task and by suggesting that the Royal Commission's Report had never been fully discussed. My Lords, it was, in fact, fully debated in this House on October 24, 1956, and since then four Bills giving effect to the Commission's recommendations on a number of points have been passed, and were passed in 1958. I think I am right in saying that in each case the preparation of those Bills took place with Government assistance, as indeed in this case—and it is only right that it should happen in a matter of this kind—the proposals put forward in the other place had the assistance of Government Parliamentary draftsmen to get them in the proper form. When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that the members of the Royal Commission should be thanked for their efforts, I well remember having done so myself in the course of the passage of one of those Bills through the other place. I mention that only to put the record straight.
It is, of course, to be expected that a good deal of this discussion this evening should have taken place in relation to the clause which is not in the Bill. If
412
I may say so, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made a very remarkable and thought-provoking speech, to which serious consideration will have to be given. I have heard her speak on many occasions, and I thought, if I might say so with the greatest respect, that this was really the best speech I have ever heard her make, from its content and from its delivery. There are real issues which this House will have to determine in relation, I believe, to every single one of these clauses. The idea of giving further opportunities for reconciliation as is proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill, and in subsection (2), is one which I have no doubt commands universal support. All of us dislike divorce. I do not think anyone really wants to make divorce easy, or indeed automatic, but the idea of giving an opportunity for reconciliation is, as I say, I think, one which commands support from all quarters.
I think, too, that there is great force in what the noble Lady said as to what the position will be when a man has resumed cohabitation, which can last under the Bill for three months, and his wife in consequence becomes pregnant. Is it really right—this is one of the subjects I think we shall have to consider in Committee—that, in those circumstances, after that has happened and the reconciliation not having been effected, the husband can turn round and say, "Now I am going to divorce you because the reconciliation has failed. Although you have now become pregnant, I am going to divorce you because of your matrimonial offence committed before this attempt at reconciliation "? I find it very difficult; and I hope that we shall have—and I am sure we shall have—a very valuable and interesting debate upon that particular subject. Indeed, really the same question seems to me to arise partly in relation to Clause 1 of the Bill. There the same consequences may occur. The conduct may be held not to be condonation, but it might result in a pregnancy. There are all these matters for consideration.
As to collusion, I listened with interest both to my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson and to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I must say that I myself come down on balance in favour

413
of collusion being made a discretionary bar. I fully accept the view put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson, in the case that he mentioned, that the bar should be applied. There are other cases and borderline cases where, because of one judicial decision, the freedom of the parties may be prevented. They may be held together when, in fact, the marriage has completely broken down. I myself feel that one can safely leave it to Her Majesty's Judges to apply that bar when it should be applied, and so one should make it a discretionary remedy.
I said that perhaps we should not tonight discuss the clause which has been omitted, and I do not propose to say more about it than this. I really cannot share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the clause I have seen tabled for consideration was not a clause for compulsory divorce. The noble Lord said it would be wrong to describe it as compulsory divorce because of the safeguards it contains. I know it has safeguards, but the clause as I read it provides for a divorce being obtained against the innocent party, and without the innocent party's having any power of preventing it. Therefore, I would say that it is a provision for compulsory divorce.
I do not propose to say much more about this Bill at this stage. I think that Clauses 4 and 5 are very desirable, and will improve the law as it stands now. We shall obviously have a great deal to discuss on the Committee stage, and the views of people who approach this matter very seriously and carefully differ, quite obviously, with regard to Clauses 1, 2 and 3. No doubt there will be full discussion and a free vote on these issues. I hope this Bill will be given an unopposed Second Reading, because I think it is right and proper that these matters should be subject to the most careful consideration that can be given to them in your Lordships' House.
8.36 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that has been given to this Bill and for the fact that it is clear that it will receive its Second Reading. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, make such an eloquent and powerful speech, and even more pleased to hear
414
it so powerfully controverted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
I should just like to deal very briefly again with this point of Clause 1 and Clause 2, and the rather Victorian view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodson, and that eminent Victorian, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. It really does seem to me to be quite extraordinary to use such words as "deplorable" if any man makes an honest attempt to achieve the reconciliation of a marriage when confronted with the shock, as it may be, and the horror or the anger, as it may be, according to his temperament, of discovering that his wife has been unfaithful to him; and to argue that it would be wrong and for that to count as condonation for fear that there should be a pregnancy seems to me to be destructive of those very purposes which we seek to achieve. Indeed, if a wife, in those circumstances, did become pregnant, I think it is exceedingly likely, even more likely, that the reconciliation would succeed. It may be that the noble and learned Lord, with his long experience of the divorce courts, has a poor opinion of human nature, although I do not think that is so: he indicated a deep sympathy in his speech. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, for anybody who is not—and the great majority of people are not—as unutterably had as we might gather from reading the more extreme cases in the newspapers, this particular argument about pregnancy is one that ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of an honest reconciliation.
My Lords, I appreciated, too, the arguments of the right reverend Prelate, and the way he expressed his views; and I hope that we shall all approach this in a spirit in which there is not acrimony. Clearly, there will be points of strong disagreement. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, attacked the honourable Member who moved this Bill for criticising the President of the Divorce Court. He will, of course, not be able to reply to her in another place, because their Rules of Order in this matter of criticism are much stricter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The President of the Divorce Court could not reply either.
LORD SHACKLETON: The President of the Divorce Court is perfectly able to

415
make a public statement; but this is a custom between the two Houses of Parliament and the noble Lady was long enough in another place to have learned the rules of behaviour in that House. But let me hope that the calming words of the right reverend Prelate will influence both the noble Lady and me in this matter.
I should just like to turn briefly to the missing clause on which the noble Lady did, in fact, misquote what I said. I do not agree—and I confess I am not a lawyer—that this can be described as a compulsory divorce. It seems to me that the terms which are drawn up are of the very kind to provide the sort of protection or, at least, some proper protection, both in terms of financial and personal circumstances, that would commend the interest and the support of the noble Lady and those who are critical. This is a matter which is going to arouse strong feelings; it is a matter over which
416
many of us are greatly concerned, and we and others who are opposed to the clause would find it very difficult to bring a moral judgment against the person who obtains a divorce in those circumstances. There are too many cases among the rich and the poor; cases which date back to the days before the desertion grounds were available; and it is clear we ought to have this out in this House and give it a proper discussion. But I do not intend to discuss it to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has indicated his intention of moving the Amendment and there will then be an opportunity to do so. I am grateful to noble Lords for the encouragement—somewhat qualified, but enthusiastic on some sides—that we have had for the Bill as it stands.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.