Sitting of 30 November 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES
  Address for Return,
  "showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1964."—[Mr. George Thomas.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Voluntary Service Overseas
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will endeavour, in suitable cases, to arrange short training courses for voluntary service overseas personnel soon after their arrival in the countries to which they have been posted.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): Such courses are a matter for the voluntary bodies, which fully appreciate their value. Some courses have been held and others arranged, and the number is likely to increase.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that although a short course for a week in this country before departure is certainly indispensable, it should, if possible, be supplemented by a further week on arrival in the country concerned, in order that these persons may learn about
    1204
    local problems and conditions? Will the hon. Gentleman, or his right hon. Friend if she is sympathetic to this point of view, consider asking at any rate the larger Commonwealth countries whether they would be prepared to undertake this work?
    Mr. Oram: My Answer referred to courses in the recipient countries. This is in addition to those which are held in this country.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is her present estimate of the number of graduate volunteers who will be going to serve overseas during the year 1965–66.
    Mr. Oram: About 900 graduate and qualified volunteers.
    Mr. Longden: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any reasons for this rather disappointing shortfall of volunteers from his right hon. Friend's estimates, and even from the more realistic estimate of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) last year?
    Mr. Oram: In the latter part of the summer there was an unusual number of withdrawals by people who had already volunteered. No doubt there was a variety of reasons for those withdrawals which are not easy to trace. As to whether this figure is disappointing, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the figure for last year was 507 and that therefore the voluntary societies have done a magnificent job during the course of this year in stepping it up by over 300.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Overseas Development how many visits to schools and higher education institutions have been undertaken so far this year by her Department's officials to acquaint graduates and school-leavers with the opportunities for service overseas, both in professional and volunteer capacities.
    Mr. Oram: Eighty-two, Sir. These visits were concerned with professional service. In addition, meetings have been held with voluntary associations which have access to audiences in schools and higher educational institutions to supply them with information and literature about professional service overseas.
    Mr. Longden: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that last July he expressed agreement with one of his hon. Friend's anxiety for dynamism in this matter? Is he satisfied that dynamism has come about since then, because the 900, which is 300 short of the graduate volunteers the Government were prepared to finance, is disappointing? Is sufficient being done through the schools and universities?
    Mr. Oram: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seems to relate more to volunteers than to professional opportunities to which my Answer referred. I think that the Answer I have given and the figures in relation to volunteers show a considerable improvement, and I think this justifies the phrases that I used during the debate last time.
    Sir E. Boyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter has gained added importance since last year's Ottawa Conference on Commonwealth co-operation, with important new schemes like the study and serve scheme? In view of those new initiatives, would the hon. Gentleman ensure that these matters re ally are brought to the notice of as many higher educational institutions as possible as well as schools?
    Mr. Oram: Officials from our Department are constantly engaged in this work, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we put the utmost effort into this matter.

    International Development Association
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether it is her intention to provide a further British contribution to the International Development Association when the present funds of the Association have been fully committed.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Yes, Sir, when the current replenishment phase ends in 1968.
    Mr. Fisher: I am very glad to hear that. Will the British contribution be on a multilateral or a bilateral basis? Can the right hon. Lady tell us at this stage whether it is likely to be a larger or a lesser sum than the original contribution, and whether it is likely to be a larger or a lesser proportion of the whole?
    Mrs. Castle: By definition this is a multilateral organisation, so any contribution to it must be multilateral. With regard to the size of our contribution, this is a matter which we shall have to consider partly in the light of what contributions are made by other countries and partly in the light of other claims on our resources.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Overseas Development, what increase or decrease there was in the staff of the Department under her control in the period 16th October, 1964 to 15th October, 1965; and what increase or decrease she anticipates in the period up to 15th April, 1966.
    Mrs. Castle: Staff increased by 432 during the year in question. A further increase of up to 90 is expected by April, 1966.
    Mr. Onslow: Could the right hon. Lady say how she justifies this very considerable increase at a time when actual disbursements of aid are not increasing, nor are likely to increase much? Could she also tell the House whether the establishment of her Department could stand a cut of 10 per cent. or more?
    Mrs. Castle: I justify this increase easily in view of the fact that functions have been transferred to me from other Departments and corresponding reduction made in the staffs of those Departments. It is also justified in the light of the highly increased efficiency of the management of our aid as a result of the setting up of the new Ministry.

    Pakistan (Third Five Year Plan)
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Minister of Overseas Development, what contribution Great Britain will make to Pakistan's third Five Year Plan.
    Mrs. Castle: I am not in a position to announce what aid Britain will offer during Pakistan's third Five Year Plan. This plan covers the years 1965 to 1970, but I understand the Pakistan Government are now reappraising it. As a first instalment, the British Government announced on 23rd September the offer of a loan of £4 million for non-project aid to assist the Pakistan development

    1207
    programme during the first year of the plan.
    Mrs. Williams: While thanking my right hon. Friend for her information about the first instalment, may I ask her for an assurance that there will be no question of Her Majesty's Government cutting off aid to Pakistan in view of the efforts now being made for a cease-fire and a friendly settlement in Kashmir?
    Mrs. Castle: I can give that assurance.

    India (Fourth Five Year Plan)
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Minister for Overseas Development what contribution Great Britain will make to India's fourth Five Year Plan.
    Mrs. Castle: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 23rd February. The Government of India are still considering the final shape and size of the fourth Five Year Plan which is to cover the years 1966–71.
    Mrs. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say if there is any possibility of a substantial part of any British aid being in the form of interest-free loans to India?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, India qualifies for interest-free loans. This has been of great help to her.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Lady agree that India's first requirement is assistance to overcome the famine in that country? Can she say what Britain is doing to help India in this respect?
    Mrs. Castle: We have already this year given £15 million worth of non-project aid to India, which is of very great economic assistance to her, and in her annual plan which she has drawn up for the coming year India is placing, I am glad to say, a greatly increased emphasis on the development of agriculture, which we welcome.

    Kenya (Drought)
    Mr. Frederic Harrisasked the Minister of Overseas Development what discussions she had with the Kenya Ministerial delegation on the effects of the drought in Kenya this year; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Castle: None, Sir. This matter was not raised by the Kenya Ministerial delegation during the recent talks.
    Mr. Harris: Does the right hon. Lady fully appreciate that the drought in Kenya this year will probably prove to have been the most serious in living memory and that the eventual effect on Kenya's economy must be very serious? When considering financial plans for next year is there any chance that the right hon. Lady might do something about this at a later date?
    Mrs. Castle: My Department is responsible for development aid and not for emergency or famine relief, which is a matter for the Commonwealth Relations Office. The Kenya Government did not raise the subject of famine specifically in the context of the talks we have recently had but, as the House will be aware, during those talks we were able to agree a substantial continuing aid to Kenya on the agricultural side.
    Mr. Paget: Is it not true that there is at the moment a definite famine in Kenya, and that people, particularly children, are facing starvation? Whichever Department is concerned, cannot something be done?
    Mrs. Castle: Of course, we are aware of this and we deplore it, and I understand that the Kenya Government have asked that R.A.F. aircraft stationed at Nairobi should be available if required for famine relief operations, but I must repeat that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

    Kenya (European Mixed Farms)
    Mr. Frederic Harrisasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will increase the present grant to the Government of Kenya for the purchase of small European mixed farms.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Harris: If, subsequently, political pressure in Kenya built up to cause the need to accelerate the acquisition of such farms, would the right hon. Lady be prepared in due time to reconsider the matter with her Government colleagues?
    Mrs. Castle: The Question refers specifically to the grant. I should point

    1209
    out that the aid which I have just negotiated with the Kenya Government is in the form of interest-free loans. We estimate that the fact that the money is interest-free makes it equivalent to a grant of 50 per cent., as compared with the former grant of 33⅓ per cent. As for the future, I have undertaken to review the position at the end of the four years for which we have currently negotiated aid.
    Mr. Fisher: I understand, of course, having tried, the difficulty of getting money from the Treasury and I appreciate the interest-free aspect, but would the Minister agree that, from the Kenya point of view, this is a somewhat disappointing settlement and that there could be real danger to race relations in Kenya if progress were too slow? Further, would the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a lot of this compensation money comes back to the United Kingdom in the end?
    Mrs. Castle: It is a question of balancing the different needs of Kenya, and it would be quite wrong to devote all aid to the transfer of European farms when, as the hon. Gentleman says, the money comes back here. I want to see that the money is invested in Kenya in agricultural development—land consolidation and general development, as well as just in land transfer. That is what we had very much in mind in negotiating our recent agreement with the Kenya Government, which provides for the continuing transfer of the European mixed farms at a rate of 100,000 acres a year, which we are satisfied, in the light of the Stamp Commission's Report, is sufficient to contain any political unrest whilst leaving some money for other development.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement about the continuation of the scheme for purchasing small European mixed farms in Kenya and the continuation of the scheme for buying out compassionate cases.
    Mrs. Castle: I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave on 23rd November.
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her recent decision to cut by four-fifths the resettlement grant to Kenya will mean that it will take some 13 years for
    1210
    those who wish to sell their farms to do so? Is she also aware that the Kenya National Farmers' Union delegation has described this action as a complete betrayal and has said that it is not wholly surprised at Rhodesia's action, in view of the failure of Her Majesty's Government to act honestly towards her subjects in Kenya?
    Mrs. Castle: Of course I am aware of the statement, but I think that the fears expressed have been exaggerated and I am confident that the reception of our proposals inside Kenya will be much better than the impression given by the hon. Gentleman.

    Kenya (British Farmers)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is aware that British Farmers in Kenya who have been accepted as compassionate cases are being offered sums that are out of line with the present value of their farms; and what action she is taking to secure that these cases are treated justly and compassionately.
    Mrs. Castle: I understand that some of the offers of purchase by the Kenya Government which are based on the future profitability of the farms have disappointed the owners. On the other hand, in one or two cases the offers have been higher than they expected. The offers are made, of course, on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. However, the Kenya Government have been willing to discuss the offers with a number of applicants at their request.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Lady make plain whether she accepts responsibility for the administration of this compassionate-case money? Is she aware that a farmer suffering from cancer was offered for his farm 45 per cent. of the price at which it had been valued by the Central Land Board? How can she justify that on grounds of compassion or justice?
    Mrs. Castle: The applications are made through our High Commission in Nairobi. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the offers made by the Kenya Government must, as in private transactions, be based on the Government's estimate of the return to be secured in order that they can repay the cost of the

    1211
    loan. Therefore, their estimate of the future profitability of the land must be one of the factors that are taken into account.
    Mr. Molloy: Can the right hon Friend say whether she is reviewing the method of valuation in these cases?
    Mrs. Castle: The present method of valuation is based on that approved for the O1 Kalou scheme in August, 1964, but the valuation system in farm compassionate cases is being reviewed by the joint working party of valuers which is to meet in Kenya shortly.
    Mr. Chataway: Will the Minister confirm that over and above the £18 million loan announced a week ago, money will be made available by Her Majesty's Government to meet all those compassionate cases that fit in with the existing criteria?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. As I made clear in my statement which I had placed in the Library of the House, we are dealing with compassionate cases outside the £18 million worth of aid that we are giving to the Kenya Government.

    Economic Aid (Publication of Statistics)
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the interest in the statistics on economic aid published as Appendix B of the White Paper on Overseas Development, showing the nature and size of British aid to developing countries, and their importance in planning future policy, if she will arrange for the regular publication of detailed and up-to-date figures.
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for a full statistical digest to be published annually. The next issue, which will be available early in 1966, will show the position up to the end of 1965 of both financial aid and technical assistance.
    Mr. Evans: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of these valuable statistics is complete justification for the establishment of the statistical department in the Ministry of Overseas Development and will she, in the years ahead, see that money for overseas aid to these territories is given to Ministries other than the Ministry of Defence?
    Mrs. Castle: I am not quite sure whether I understand the implications of the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but, on the first part, I think that the whole House will agree that the very detailed statistical tables given in the White Paper which I introduced in the House in August have given a more comprehensive picture of what is actually happening than we have ever had before and that this is an important basis for decision on policy. That is why we decided to issue annual statistics in a far more comprehensive form than has ever been given to the House before.

    India, Pakistan and Kashmir (Loans)
    Sir J. Smythasked the Minister of Overseas Development what grants or loans she has made to India, Pakistan and Kashmir over the past eight months, and what further aid she is contemplating.
    Mrs. Castle: Since March this year, two loans together amounting to £15 million have been made to India. No loans to Pakistan were made in this period. There is no separate British aid programme to Kashmir. A further loan of £4 million to India and a loan for a similar sum to Pakistan are expected to be signed shortly.
    Sir J. Smyth: Will the Minister try to find some way to assist Kashmir, which is a depressed police State, and rather a blot on the escutcheon of the British Commonwealth of Nations?
    Mrs. Castle: That, of course, is not a matter for my Department.

    India and Pakistan (Food Situation)
    Sir J. Smythasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps she is taking to enable India and Pakistan to avert the famine which they both face as a result of their recent hostilities.
    Mrs. Castle: I believe that the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in thinking the shortages of food grains reported to be likely in India would be to any significant extent due to the recent hostilities. I have seen no reports of any likelihood of shortages in Pakistan. Neither Government has sought any special assistance from us on this account, but I should naturally be very ready

    1213
    to consider requests that a greater proportion of the technical or capital assistance we give should be devoted to schemes of agricultural improvement.
    Sir J. Smyth: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the general opinion is that as a result of the bad monsoon and the war between India and Pakistan, there will be a very severe famine in India during the coming winter, and will she give her very earnest attention to trying to prevent such a catastrophe?
    Mrs. Castle: We are all deeply concerned about the food situation and, as I have said, I am glad to know that India's annual plan for 1966–67 puts greater emphasis on agriculture.

    Developing Countries (Private Investment)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will introduce arrangements to provide Government guarantees, up to an appropriate level and subject to suitable safeguards, in respect of direct investments by British industry in developing territories.
    Mrs. Castle: I am, of course, studying all possibilities of helping the developing countries, but the hon. Member will realise that in our present balance of payments position we must consider carefully the implications of measures to increase private investment overseas.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does it remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government that private investment in developing countries should play a significant part in the development of those countries? Will the right hon. Lady recognise that some guarantee against the political risks involved in such investment could well make a valuable contribution?
    Mrs. Castle: I agree that private investment has an important role to play in the economies of developing countries. How important varies from country to country and the degree of development reached. It is simply a matter of priorities and I consider the overriding priority is to provide aid which will give the infrastructure economic and political stability.

    University College, Salisbury, Rhodesia
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development what grants or loans are now being paid for the use of University College, Salisbury, Rhodesia.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Overseas Development what special steps she is taking to ensure that British financial aid continues to be made available to the University College of Rhodesia in Salisbury.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will continue to honour the commitment entered into by Her Majesty's Government to provide financial aid to the multiracial university college of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the financing of the University College in Salisbury, Rhodesia.
    Mrs. Castle: The financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government towards the recurrent costs of the college is at the rate of £250,000 per year for three years; we have now reached the second year of this arrangement. Since the University College is providing higher education for students of all races and operates under Royal Charter, Her Majesty's Government have decided to continue their assistance to the college so long as Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that conditions continue to exist under which the college is able to discharge this function.
    Mr. Wall: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Does she consider the present situation concerning the university as satisfactory?
    Mrs. Castle: I think we would all agree that the staff of the university as at present constituted is dedicated to the multi-racial principle.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the right hon. Lady was answering with this Question Questions Nos. 25, 26 and 30.
    Mrs. Castle: I apologise. I was answering those other Questions together with this Question.
    Mr. King: May I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the decisions taken? Is it not a fact that this House, however else divided on the question of Rhodesia, is wholly united from Left to Right in believing that the whole key to the situation lies in education? In doing what she said she would do, will she do everything possible beyond that to aid educational opportunity for the people?
    Mrs. Castle: Certainly we shall continue to aid the university, which is the only form of educational aid at present under discussion for Rhodesia.
    Mr. Dell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that academic freedom is currently being denied to this university college by the censoring of university publications and even internal documents? Should not the provision of aid be conditional on the restoration of academic freedom?
    Mrs. Castle: I have said that we shall watch the position very closely and if it becomes clear to Her Majesty's Government that the multi-racial function of the university is being undermined, we shall reconsider the allocation of aid.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the decision she has just announced will give great satisfaction to all of us who look upon this multi-racial university as an oasis of decency and sanity at present? Will she bear in mind that we consider that the work it is doing is now more important than it has ever been?
    Mrs. Castle: I would certainly agree with the last part of that question. I can only hope that the university will be allowed to continue to be the oasis to which the hon. Member referred.

    Government Aid and Private Investment
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Overseas Development what studies her Department has commissioned of the relative value to less-developed countries
    1216
    of governmental aid and private investment.
    Mrs. Castle: I have not commissioned any studies exactly addressed to the question posed by the hon. Member, since I believe that Government aid and private investment are complementary and not competitive.
    Mr. Onslow: While not accepting the line of argument advanced by the right hon. Lady, may I ask if she would agree that it would be more useful if she made representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get an increase in the capital available for British private investment overseas?
    Mrs. Castle: I refer the hon. Member to the Chancellor's own references to this matter in the House when he said that he would continue to watch the position in regard to private investment in developing countries.

    Multilateral Aid (British Contributions)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will state the annual British contributions to each of the international organisations for the disbursement of multilateral aid since the inception of each institution.
    Mrs. Castle: With permission, I will circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir R. Russell: Could the right hon. Lady say if this includes, for example, drawings from the International Bank on subscriptions from local banks? What rate of increase does she envisage in view of the emphasis in the White Paper on multilateral aid rather than bilateral aid?
    Mrs. Castle: The figures include reference to the World Bank. Perhaps the hon. Member will study the details.
    Following is the information:

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO MULTILATERAL AGENCIES*

    Financial Years

    £ million

    —

    Year of Inception

    1946–47

    1947–48

    1948–49

    1949–50

    1950–51

    1951–52

    1952–53

    1953–54

    1954–55

    1955–56

    1956–57

    1957–58

    1958–59

    1959–60

    1960–61

    1961–62

    1962–63

    1963–64

    1964–65 Provisional

    Total

    International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

    1946

    6·5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    6·5

    International Finance Corporation

    1956

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5·1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5·1

    International Development Association

    1960

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    9·0

    9·0

    9·0

    9·0

    9·0

    45·0

    U.N. Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and Special Fund

    1950

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0·5

    0·3

    0·4

    0·6

    0·8

    0·8

    0·7

    0·7

    0·8

    1·2

    2·9

    2·9

    2·9

    3·6

    3·6

    22·7

    U.N. Relief and Works Agency

    1948

    —

    —

    1·0

    0·1

    2·0

    2·5

    4·0

    1·8

    1·6

    2·0

    1·9

    2·0

    1·9

    1·9

    1·9

    1·9

    1·9

    1·0

    1·9

    31·3

    U.N. Childrens Fund

    1946

    —

    —

    0·1

    —

    0·1

    —

    0·1

    0·1

    0·2

    0·2

    0·2

    0·2

    0·2

    0·2

    0·3

    0·3

    0·3

    0·3

    0·3

    3·1

    U.N. Korean Reconstruction Agency

    1950

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0·1

    0·3

    1·2

    4·8

    3·2

    0·5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    10·1

    U.N. Assistance to the Congo

    1960

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1·1

    —

    —

    0·2

    0·2

    1·5

    World Food Programme

    1963

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0·6

    0·6

    1·2

    Indus Basin Development Fund

    1960

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0·3

    0·5

    4·1

    2·9

    3·2

    11·0

    6·5

    —

    1·1

    0·1

    2·7

    3·1

    5·7

    7·3

    5·8

    3·5

    7·9

    2·9

    2·9

    3·3

    15·5

    14·6

    18·2

    17·6

    18·8

    137·5

    * Excludes contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is not included in the programme of economie and which are solely related to developing countries.

    Department (Administrative Cost)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the estimated administrative cost of her Department in 1965–66; and what percentage increase this represents over the administrative cost of the Department of Technical Co-operation in the latest convenient year.
    Mrs. Castle: The estimated administrative cost for 1965–66 is £2,347,000. This is an 81 per cent. increase over the corresponding actual cost of the Department of Technical Co-operation for 1963–64, the last full financial year of its existence; the Ministry, of course, has a much wider field of activity than the Department.
    Sir R. Russell: Does this increase, which presumably is largely due to an increase in staff which the right hon. Lady justified when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) by saying that there have been increases in efficiency in disbursement of aid, mean that she can give some examples of those increases?
    Mrs. Castle: I am afraid that I would need more time than Mr. Speaker would allow to me to answer that question in detail. The White Paper presented to the House last summer gives a full range of the examples which the hon. Member wants. Part of the increase is, of course, due to increases in salaries and costs generally.
    Mr. Chataway: While accepting that this 81 per cent. increase is in part justified by the wider responsibilities which the right hon. Lady's Ministry has, may I ask if it is not the case that her staff has increased by 500 and the staff of Departments from which functions have been transferred has been reduced by only 50?
    Mrs. Castle: No. The number of reductions of staff of other Departments, which has already been given to the House, is much higher. If the hon. Member cares to approach the Ministers concerned he will find that the latest figures are much higher than that. I would point out to him that the Third Report of the Estimates Committee for
    1220
    1964–65 contained the comment that the size of the Department was not large compared with that of the Department of Technical Co-operation with its smaller responsibilities.

    Bilateral Financial Aid (Exports)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of bilateral aid is currently tied to United Kingdom goods and services; and what is the estimated figure for exports that this tied aid will generate in the current financial year.
    Mrs. Castle: Some 42 per cent. of our official bilateral financial aid disbursed in 1964 was wholly tied, and another 16 per cent. partly tied. A significant part of disbursements under Technical Assistance, pensions and compensation, will also have been spent in the United Kingdom.
    It is not possible to estimate the amount of exports generated by this aid in the current financial year as these exports will be spread over several years.
    Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is an encouraging reply in so far as the proportion she has just given indicates that quite a large amount of foreign aid must generate British exports? Will she bring her Answer to the attention of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and persuade him to give a much fairer crack of the whip to aid under the National Plan than he has done?
    Mrs. Castle: It is true that aid, not only by this country but by other countries, does generate development and, therefore, develops exports. No doubt my right hon. Friend will have noticed that.
    Mr. Freeson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of not tying too high a proportion of aid in view of the need for developing countries to pay for aid from local costs? Will she also bear in mind the need to keep open the door to future genuine internationalisation of development aid to poorer countries?
    Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree that it is important to pay attention to the local

    1221
    cost elements. We always make reasonable allowance in our aid for local cost elements—more generous than other countries. That is why our aid is so effective.

    Leeward and Windward Islands (Economic Survey)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Overseas Development what new arrangements she has made for joint study, with other countries, of the economic needs of the Leeward and Windward Islands.
    Mr. Oram: The United States Government, the Canadian Government, and Her Majesty's Government have agreed jointly to sponsor an economic survey of Barbados and islands belonging to the Leeward and Windward Groups. The purpose of the study will be to formulate plans for the achievement of economic viability by the territories concerned and to suggest priorities for the next five years. I hope that the survey will begin in January; it will probably take about four months.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend realise the pleasure that this announcement will give to those of us who have campaigned for this sort of consortium for a long time? Does he share our hope, which is possibly a little more important, that the joint study will carry the moral obligation to help with providing funds when studies are complete?
    Mr. Oram: I know my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this question, and I am glad that he welcomes the setting up of this mission. The survey will help the donors in the planning of their aid, and I therefore think that the hope expressed in the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question will be realised.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will the Minister in considering this matter bear in mind the many places of great historical significance in these islands, some of which are now rather in ruins, which are tourist attractions for the citizens of North America, who now come both by air and boat for their holidays? This would bring employment and money to the islands.
    Mr. Oram: I feel sure that these are considerations which will be in the minds of the members of the mission.

    Aid Programme
    Mr. Chatawayasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the British national income was supplied in aid, both private and official, in 1964; and what proportion is planned for 1970.
    Mrs. Castle: Official aid and private investment in developing countries amounted to 1·1 per cent. of our gross national product in 1964. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 16th November.
    Mr. Chataway: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the National Plan does in fact mean that the proportion of our gross national product that goes in aid will be smaller in 1970 than it is today? Will not she give the figure for 1970, which clearly must have been assumed for the National Plan? It is no justification to argue that because there is to be a review of aid before 1970 therefore the figure ought not to be given, because every figure is to be reviewed.
    Mrs. Castle: I have no doubt that the hon. Member hopes that our Government will do what his Government did, when after the crisis which they engendered in 1961 they cut back aid and reduced the percentage alarmingly. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have increased aid and we hope to be able to continue to do so, and that is why we have promised under the National Plan to keep the whole situation under review as our balance of payments position improves.
    Mr. Chatawayasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the current aid programme is estimated to place an additional burden upon the United Kingdom balance of payments.
    Mrs. Castle: It is difficult to give a precise answer, since this depends on the state of our economy and on the assumptions made about alternative uses of the resources involved, but the range of answers which might be given would all be below 50 per cent.
    Mr. Chataway: While I appreciate that there must be room for argument about this proportion, whether it is 50 per cent. or whether, as Mr. Krassowski of the Overseas Development Institute argues, it is somewhat nearer nought, is it not misleading for the National Plan to suggest, as it does, that all overseas aid is a net loss so far as the balance of payments is concerned?
    Mrs. Castle: I do not accept that the National Plan does imply that. It is a fact, though, that this form of expenditure contains an element of difficulty for the balance of payments, however one may assess the size of that element. This is one of the difficulties we have to face.

    Caribbean (Development Division)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement about the establishment of a development division in the Caribbean.
    Mr. Oram: The British Development Division in the Caribbean will be situated in Barbados. Mr. W. L. Bell, formerly a Permanent Secretary in the service of the Government of Uganda, has been appointed Head of the Division and will start work in my Ministry at the beginning of January. I hope that, with the appointment of other members of the staff, the Division will become operational in the spring of next year.
    Mr. Chapman: Once again may I offer congratulations to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the speed they are putting on in the Caribbean? Will this body co-ordinate plans from the Leeward and Windward Islands for submission to the International Development Association in an effort to get some money out of that body? What will be the relationship of this body to the joint international consortium which was mentioned in the Answer to Question No. 20?
    Mr. Oram: As to the function of this Development Division, I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer he received on 1st June, from which he will see that this Division will have satisfactory relationships with the two bodies referred to.

    Kenya (Aid)
    Mr. Philip Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of British aid to Kenya, including the amount promised by the four-year farm project.
    Mrs. Castle: The estimated total disbursement of financial aid to Kenya during the four-year period beginning in April, 1966, is £29 million, including the £18 million for land purchase and other development recently announced, and £11 million from existing commitments. This sum does not include technical assistance, or whatever may be made available for the purchase of farms on compassionate grounds.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past the money allocated to these purposes has not always been fully spent within the period for which it was allocated? Can she assure us that the money she now promises will be fully spent in the four years ahead?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. It is true that disbursements have not always matched commitments. In fact, they have lagged far behind and that is why we have an £11 million carry-over. In our negotiations with the Kenya Government I stressed to them that the offer which I was making was for sums to be disbursed and not committed on paper. It is the policy of my Ministry to secure actual disbursements and not merely paper commitments.

    Under-Developed Countries (Private Businesses)
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will take steps to assist the development of private businesses in under-developed countries by promoting an organisation similar to the American International Executive Service Corps, particulars of which have been sent to her.
    Mr. Oram: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that this organisation has been very useful to a number of under-developed countries? Would not he give some further

    1225
    consideration to making funds available also for this type of person?
    Mr. Oram: I accept the usefulness of the American scheme, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no age limit in the volunteer schemes at present existing and encouraged in this country and there is a full opportunity for the type of executives to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred to volunteer through existing machinery.

  TECHNOLOGY

    Fast-Breeder Reactor (Siting)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the siting of the fast breeder reactor.
    Mr. Bakerasked the Minister of Technology if he is yet able to state the location for the proposed fast breeder reactor.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on 23rd November.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to make a statement on this project? In view of the very serious blow being given to the Scottish economy by pit closures and the announcement yesterday on hydro-electric development, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is vitally important on social, economic and political grounds that a decision should be taken in favour of siting this reactor in the Scottish Highlands?
    Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend must appreciate that I am well aware of the complicated nature of the problems affecting the Scottish economy at present. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland answered the question about the hydro-electric schemes yesterday. I am not able to give a date, but we are dealing with this matter as expeditiously as we can and I hope to be in a position soon to put the facts before the House.
    Mr. Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman cognisant of the communications which I have had with the Atomic Energy
    1226
    Authority on this subject and will he bear in mind the desirability of siting the reactor on Rettie airfield, Banff?
    Mr. Cousins: I am aware that discussions have taken place, but it is not possible for me to say where it will be sited. I have already answered that I am not yet in a position to do so.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the technical requirements are met by the atomic energy establishment at Dounreay and that the decision to be taken will be wholly a political and economic one when he eventually takes it?
    Mr. Cousins: I know that that is not the position, other than to say that Dounreay fulfils the qualifications in the same way as many other sites do where claims are being made for the siting of the reactor, but we are not yet in a position to say where or when it will be sited.

    Computer Industry
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for giving assistance to the British computer industry.
    Mr. Cousins: The Government's initial programme for assisting the development of the computer industry was announced on 1st March. Since then the National Research Development Corporation has announced that it will be making substantial investments in development projects with computer firms. My Department has placed research and development contracts with the industry and with research organisations totalling £187,000. Contracts for about a further £300,000 are under consideration.
    Mr. Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that Government agencies and nationalised industries buy British computers instead of American?
    Mr. Cousins: I have been using that influence to the best of my ability for some time, but one has to recognise that it is influence that one tries to use and not a directive.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a European conference in London recently to study the question of

    1227
    the computer industry it was generally agreed that it was unlikely that there was a sufficient basis in Britain alone to make a viable British computer industry? Will my right hon. Friend consider this question along with other European countries?
    Mr. Cousins: This is quite a way from the original Question. We are giving the closest attention to joint efforts in this field, but we in Government circles feel that we can make a viable British computer industry.

    ARMS EXPENDITURE
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister what steps he will take to accord with the representations he received from Members of Parliament on 2nd August asking for drastic cuts in arms expenditure much earlier than were proposed by Her Majesty's Government in the summer.
    Mr. Parkasked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to secure a speedy and large reduction in arms expenditure.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My colleagues and I are vigorously pursuing the Defence Review, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Prime Minister agree that the moves so far do not meet the Parliamentary Labour Party resolution of that date? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will my right hon. Friend reduce the British forces in Germany, costing us £190 million a year, which are not needed and when the German Government are cutting their arms by £80 million a year?
    The Prime Minister: The review is not yet completed and we cannot yet announce what action will have to be taken to relate commitments to the available resources both in real and monetary terms.
    Mr. Park: Would the Prime Minister not accept that the very heavy strain on the economy which this level of armaments expenditure represents is proving a burden to the achievement of the Government's social programme and is intensifying our balance of payments difficulties? Will my right hon. Friend look again at the expenditure of £500 million a year on overseas bases to see whether
    1228
    this can be justified, either in terms of its burden on our domestic economy or by a realistic assessment of our peace-keeping operations?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear a number of times that we are looking at both the foreign exchange component in this expenditure and the general burden on our resources, but we are not yet in a position to announce what our answer to this will be. As far as costs are concerned, I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the total expenditure this year on defence is not more than two-thirds, and may be a little less, of the programme which all the arguments were about in 1951.
    Mr. Thorpe: While reinforcing the plea that the defence burden of about £2,000 million a year should be reduced as far as possible and as quickly as possible, may I ask the Prime Minister whether at the same time he will bear in mind the necessity of our remaining capable of meeting our obligations to our Commonwealth partners, not least the Republic of Zambia?
    The Prime Minister: That perhaps may come up on another Question, but so far as the wider issue is concerned we are very much alive to the need of meeting our obligations to our Commonwealth partners and to our allies. It is a question of cutting commitments to a point we can fulfil, and the commitments are highly competitive with one another.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (OIL EMBARGO)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what consultations with other Governments have taken place on the question of an embargo on oil shipments to Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Freesonasked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government will take to implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an oil embargo to be included in economic sanctions against the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: I have, as yet, nothing to add to the statement I made in the House on 23rd November.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Foreign Secretary on 22nd November emphasised the need for speedy counsel in this direction? Will he now reiterate Her Majesty's Government's support of, e United Nations Resolution of 20th November and will he give us some idea of the time-scale which he has in mind to implement an oil embargo, which would be extremely effective in bringing Mr. Smith to book?
    The Prime Minister: On 23rd November I ma de a very full statement about this and I made it clear that in our study of this and other problems arising out of the United Nations Resolution we could not hope to settle this kind of problem on a unilateral basis. It would be ineffective in terms of what my hon. Friend has in mind and, in fact, could inflict more damage than good, but we are pursuing this vigorously on a multilateral basis.

    STAGE AND TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS (CENSORSHIP)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the abolition of censorship of stage and television productions.
    The Prime Minister: The Government are considering how best the law relating to censorship of stage plays might be reviewed.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is disquiet in some circles not only about the activities of some busybodies but also about Government interference in certain programmes——
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wait for his applause but will get on with his supplementary question.
    Mr. Hamling: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is alarm not only about the activities of some busybodies but also about Government interference in programmes, particularly in relation to the programme "The War Game"?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have not interfered in any way with stage plays or with any of these programmes.
    1230
    As regards rumours about "The War Game", the Government have not interfered at all.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is the Prime Minister aware that, during the week in which a constituent of mine, a courageous prison officer, was killed in the execution of his duty, and before his funeral, the B.B.C. chose to put on in the programme "B.B.C. 3", an item sneering at prison officers in general and accusing them of taking part in bribery? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what protection he is able to offer to such public servants?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that particular programme. It has always been ruled, by all parties, that we do not interfere in programmes of the B.B.C. or the other television authorities. The particular tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one about which all of us would feel sympathy, but I do not think that it arises on this Question.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Prime Minister see that any correspondence between the broadcasting authorities and the Home Office in relation to the programme "The War Game" is published?
    The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of all the circumstances in this matter, and I have been into it very fully. The Government have informed the B.B.C. that we have no observations to make on whether it should be shown or not.
    Mr. Bellenger: I recognise the complexities involved in this question, but is my right hon. Friend aware that portions of television programmes are giving affront to many of our people? Will he, in virtue of his prominent position, express his disapproval of some of the obscenities which are being broadcast?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever our private feelings—some of us have seen some of these programmes—I do not think that it is right for Ministers to express officially disapproval or approval of individual programmes. There is proper machinery for handling these matters. But this Question relates to the whole problem of censorship, mainly, as I understood it, in relation to stage plays, which all of us recognise as a problem. We are considering how that problem should be dealt with.

    TRANSPORT CO-ORDINATION (LORD BEECHING)
    Sir R. Nugentasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which the Government decided not to employ Lord Beeching's services for the study of transport co-ordination carried out earlier this year.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister why he decided not to employ Lord Beeching to carry out a study of transport co-ordination.
    The Prime Minister: It has already been explained. I was very anxious that Dr. Beeching, as he then was, should do this study. But he had, in his evidence to the Geddes Committee, taken a strong pro-railway and anti-road line, and the Government considered that, unless he had attached to him assessors who could represent all points of view, there would be strong ground for criticism in this House and elsewhere. Unfortunately, Lord Beeching insisted on a one-man inquiry without assessors.
    Sir R. Nugent: But did not the Prime Minister, in the first place, get Lord Beeching to agree to do this study single-handed and afterwards impose conditions on him which caused him to withdraw? Is not this what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology meant by "sacking" him?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The statement made by my right hon. Friend made quite clear the circumstances in which that interchange occurred last week. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite are interested in this important question rather than their usual vendetta against my right hon. Friend, certainly the Government were very anxious that Lord Beeching, with his high qualifications, should do it, but I can just imagine the howl there would have been from hon. Members opposite, particularly those sensitive to road haulage interests, if Lord Beeching, after years of taking the rail point of view and after the evidence submitted last year, had gone into this inquiry alone without assessors representing the point of view of road haulage.
    Mr. Ridley: Is not the Prime Minister aware that he appeared to have changed
    1232
    the terms of reference after he first asked Lord Beeching to undertake this survey, and it further appeared that this was as a result of pressure from the Minister of Technology? Is not this a clear example of the undesirability of having a Cabinet Minister remaining a member of the union?
    The Prime Minister: It is about time the hon. Gentleman grew up and faced the facts which this serious problem presents. There was widespread criticism in the Press and elsewhere of the evidence from British Railways to the Geddes Committee, although many people felt that it was reasonable in the emphasis which it placed on the pro-railway side. There would certainly have been the most inordinate howl from road haulage interests—nothing to do with the Minister of Technology—and, I should have thought, from some hon. Members opposite unless one could have been sure that Lord Beeching had access to the views of all concerned. This was why the proposition was put to him. As regards his going back to I.C.I., this, of course, was arranged a long time ago. He was due to go back to I.C.I., but we asked him whether he would stay longer to do this inquiry.
    Sir M. Redmayne: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed that this is an important question. Can he say when his right hon. Friend proposes to provide an answer to it?
    The Prime Minister: If the point of the right hon. Gentleman's question is to ask when we shall make a statement on transport co-ordination, we are very hard at work on this, but—[Laughter.] All we got in the previous 13 years was disco-ordination. I was not aware that any right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that anything had been done to coordinate the transport services in those years. They carried out a pretty effective wrecking action in 1954.

    POSTMASTER-GENERAL (SPEECH)
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Postmaster-General at Aberdeen on 14th October on the future of the Post Office represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech the Postmaster-General referred to the handicap he felt in having to answer on every detail of Post Office work in the House of Commons? Is it his intention to relieve his right hon. Friend of those responsibilities?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not say that accountability to Parliament should not continue. He said that it created special difficulties for the Post Office, which is the only publicly-owned industry subject to detailed Parliamentary control. In fact, the words which he used were used previously by a very distinguished Conservative Postmaster-General.

    RHODESIA (VISITS BY BRITISH CITIZENS)
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Prime Minister what restrictions have been placed by Her Majesty's Government on British citizens visiting Southern Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: The travel allowance for. United Kingdom residents visiting Rhodesia is restricted to £250. The previous concession whereby a United Kingdom citizen could take shotguns and cartridges to Rhodesia without a licence has been withdrawn. There are, t present, no other restrictions.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will not the Prime Minister agree that it is still a good thing for private citizens to visit Rhodesia, whether wishing to see relations there, wanting to go on holiday or wanting to go there for business?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the arguments are very finely balanced. One of the things I have referred to in the House is the possibility of whether we should at the right moment have a Parliamentary delegation. I think that it would be very healthy indeed if we were able to have some contact with a number of shades of opinion in Rhodesia, including some of those which most need encouragement but are not getting all that much.

    FUEL INDUSTRIES
    Mr. Peytonasked the Prime Minister what advice or instructions he gave to the leaders of the fuel industries when he met them on 17th November; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued from 10, Downing Street on 17th November, 1965, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the paucity of that Answer? Does not he agree that he was wasting the time of these people, who are already under considerable pressure, and does not he agree further that the intervention of Prime Ministers in the affairs of nationalised industries makes the almost impossible task of these chairmen worse than it is? Is it not wholly wrong to indulge in what appears to have been a short-term exercise conducted for public relations reasons?
    The Prime Minister: There was great concern about the reasons for the power cuts, and one object of my meeting was to establish clearly what they were. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do a deal with me that neither of us will interfere in the day-to-day operations of the nationalised industries, I am prepared to consider it with him.

    NUCLEAR WARHEADS
    Mr. Ormeasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that for more than six years nuclear warheads have been mounted secretly on aircraft and missiles of West Germany and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter.
    The Prime Minister: No non-nuclear members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have nuclear warheads under national control. The forces of a number of non-nuclear members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are equipped with nuclear delivery vehicles. My information is that the warheads for these weapons are kept under strict United States custody and control at all times.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement, first published in the New York Times and subsequently in the British Press, has caused great concern, and will he give an assurance that in no circumstances will there be a German finger on the nuclear trigger?
    The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for what appears in the Press, whether it be the New York Times or any other newspaper. So far as the Question is concerned, the arrangements have always been known, I think, by this House, and certainly as far as these particular weapons are concerned there is no German finger on the trigger for the reason set out in my original Answer.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is over.

BILLS PRESENTED
  MISREPRESENTATION
  Bill to amend the law relating to innocent misrepresentations and to amend sections 11 and 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, presented by Sir E. Fletcher; supported by Mr. Jay and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  BUILDING CONTROL
  Bill to regulate building and constructional work, presented by Mr. Pannell; supported by Mr. Crossman, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Albu, the Attorney-General and Mr. Boyden; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. and right hon. Gentlemen leaving the Chamber please do so quietly.
  3.32 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is clearly a Bill of major importance. It implements the Government's proposals set out in the two White Papers, on the Development of Agriculture and the Marketing of Meat and Livestock, which were published in August. I believe that the Bill will be welcomed in general in all parts of the House, because it will aid and encourage the further development and modernisation of British farming, and will help it to play an even more vital rôle in a dynamic national economy.
  With this objective throughout, the Bill falls into a number of parts. Part I will improve the marketing of livestock and meat; Part II will help to modernise our farm structure; Part III will promote the better use, in a comprehensive manner, of our hill lands; Part IV will encourage wider co-operation in agriculture and horticulture; Part V will widen the credit facilities available to farmers, will enable further steps to be taken to improve animal health, and, last but by no means least, will improve the conditions of service for farm workers.
  I will not go into each Clause in detail. Obviously, this is a long Bill. We shall scrutinise it very carefully in Committee. But I will try to highlight some of the parts of the Bill and deal with those parts where there may be controversy.
  The Bill starts with the marketing of meat and livestock. Committee after Committee has said that reform and change were badly needed, but nothing has been done. The Verdon-Smith Committee produced a most comprehensive and fair analysis of the problems of the meat and livestock industry. This analysis has helped us greatly. Opinions may differ on whether its recommendations

  1237
  went far enough, but the Committee was in no doubt that reform was required.
  This Bill contains the action the Government propose to provide those reforms. The instrument for these reforms will be an independent statutory body, the Meat and Livestock Commission, with wide scope for action at every stage, from the production of animals on the farm to the selling of meat on the retail counter. There is scope here for benefit to every section of the industry as well as to the consumer.
  For the producer, there will be help to produce what the trade and the consumer want. He will be helped also towards better marketing, whether individually or through producer groups, and whether, too, by older methods or by contracts.
  Next, the Commission has a whole field of activities concerned with improving marketing and distribution. These range from markets and slaughterhouses to the classification of carcases. They provide for better intelligence about supply and demand, market prices, and all that is needed to secure a fair bargain between producer, distributor and consumer.
  Finally, the consumer is to be specially helped in a number of ways. I hope that hon. Members will approve of this approach. Clauses 7 and 8, in particular, provide for descriptive marking and proper display of prices, so that consumers may know exactly what they are buying and at what price.
  The important work that P.I.D.A. has been doing—and hon. Members on both sides will, I think, pay tribute to its work—will also be taken over by the Commission, and under Clause 21 the Authority will be dissolved. This transfer will be made with the least possible interruption to the progress of the work and the least possible disturbance to the staff engaged on it. The activity will broaden out to include equally important and necessary work on cattle and sheep.
  Similarly, under Clause 3, work of certification under the guarantee will be transferred to the Commission. It will be doing the job of classification, and it clearly makes sense that it should do the job of grading for the guarantee as well. This will inevitably involve transfer of our grading staff, but the Commission's terms of employment will not be less favourable to them than those they now have in the Civil Service.
  1238
  In addition to the activities of the Commission to which I have referred, I wish particularly to draw attention to the provisions of Clause 9. Here, I know, there has been considerable discussion, and there undoubtedly will be argument. This Clause allows the Commission—which must on this consult the statutory committees representing the interests concerned—to put forward development schemes for any section of the industry, after it has published their proposals and taken into account any representations made about them. Those schemes will become law only if they are approved by Ministers and by affirmative Resolution of both Houses. This power is wide, and I make no apology for that. My right hon. Friend and I think it right that this Commission should have this power to put forward proposals to tackle the problems of this great meat industry, as they exist or as they may emerge. The industry must be a flexible one, ready to adapt its structure as conditions change. We cannot now be dogmatic about what changes will be required over the years. I hope that hon. Members opposite accept this approach. I am not sure whether I saw one hon. Member shaking his head. It would be silly for any Government to be dogmatic about the future. Therefore, we must have these provisions in Clause 9. But it is also right that such powers should be accompanied by safeguards. These are fully provided in the Bill itself and in the Second Schedule.
  The House will note, that, despite the width of the powers under Clause 9, these do not allow for support buying. I will not disguise that I was at first inclined towards giving the Commission this power. But close study convinced me that the economic arguments were all the other way. The N.F.U. has made it clear that it expects the cost of support buying to be met wholly or mainly by the Exchequer. The cost of a support buying operation would be very considerable indeed and the savings to the Exchequer in lower deficiency payments would be, to say the least, problematical.
  The consumer, of course, would not benefit in any way and the total returns of producers would be unaffected by support buying, for their position is in any case protected by the guarantee. This is in contrast to the position in other countries which use support buying as a

  1239
  major means of subsidising the producer and which are, for that reason, prepared to meet the substantial loss entailed. For these reasons, I believe that it is right not to have support buying as one of the functions of the Commission.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Are we to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Minister's own powers, which are sought in Clause 19, cannot be used in order to give the Commission power to do this?
  Mr. Peart: Certainly. I believe that if such a decision is made after some experience or advice given by the Commission it should be given effect by the Minister through new legislation. I think that is the right course. I have given my arguments. In the main, they are fundamentally practical economic arguments. To have support buying by the Commission would be costly and, knowing the meat industry and the nature of the commodity, it could be extremely expensive.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how his economic argument compares with the scheme of Government support which forces up the price of grain from abroad in order to keep up the price here? Surely it would be more logical to have support buying on meat?
  Mr. Peart: The two cases are not the same. We do not try to force up the price of grain. In any case, that system was introduced through legislation supported by both sides of the House and it was not effectively opposed by the Liberals.
  As I have said, the two cases are not comparable. Many other countries have support buying, but they do not have the support system that we have under the 1947 and 1957 Acts. Our deficiency payment system is quite different from that of France, for example. For all these reasons, quite logically it would be silly to introduce this function as one to be exercised by the Commission, and I hope that the Liberals will see the sense of that approach.
  I should now like to say something about the Commission's finances. Under Clause 14 the cost of the work done by the Commission on behalf of the Govern-
  1240
  ment will be reimbursed by the Exchequer. We also provide for Exchequer contributions towards the initial cost of new projects on which the Commission may embark.
  In the main, however, the Commission will be financed by a levy on animals slaughtered. The Commission will put forward a levy scheme under Clause 12, after consultation with the committees representing all the interests concerned. Then the scheme must be approved by Ministers, and finally by an affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
  As for the amount involved, I have seen figures suggested which I must say I consider to be wholly misleading and designed only to scare. I think it likely that a levy on all fatstock comparable with the present P.I.D.A. levy on pigs would be adequate; and if the whole effect of this were passed on to the consumer, it would represent less than one farthing per lb. on average. And this assumes that there are no savings to be found. But the whole object of the Commission's work will be to improve efficiency in production and distribution. The result, of course, should be not to raise costs or prices but in the end to reduce them.
  Lastly, let me say something about the constitution of the Commission. It will be dealing with the problems of a wide ranging industry consisting of many different elements and must concert its policies to serve the best interests of producers, distributors and consumers. An organisation concerned with the overall problems of such an industry could not be drawn from, or be responsible to, one only of those interests. This organisation must think in terms of producers, distributors and consumers. In that sense it will, I believe, really serve the interests of the nation as a whole.
  The National Farmers' Union, at the end of last week, came out with the statement that the only solution is a fatstock marketing scheme with statutory powers, i.e. a producer marketing board. I cannot agree that this is the way to set about the task. I do not know what kind of control over home-produced stock the N.F.U. have in mind. Presumably each producer would be under the control of the producer board to the extent of being told when and where he could market his

  1241
  stock. This would involve a very large and costly organisation and the results it could achieve would probably be very small. Indeed, I can quote back the N.F.U.'s own words:
  "The cost of such an organisation might well be disproportionate to any benefits likely to arise from its operations."
  While I am sure it is right that ultimate decision:; must rest with the sort of independent body which the Commission will be, it is equally right that the Commission should have all possible help from the different interests concerned. This need will be met by the committees for which Clause 2 provides. They will represent producers, distributors and consumers. They will have to be consulted by the Commission on any matter affecting their interests, but they will have other important functions as well. They may initiate proposals to the Commission, suggesting lines of action it should follow. Equally, the Commission may entrust these committees with the carrying out of executive responsibilities.
  In short, we have provided here for a constructive partnership between the Commission and the various interests concerned, with those interests taking the fullest possible part in the working out of the Commission's policies and their execution. In devising this structure, my right hon. Friend and I have taken account of views put forward by those who represent these interests. The producers, in particular, should know that I have modified the Bill in several ways to meet their point of view, particularly in strengthening these committees. I do not think that one can go further than that. We have tried to make the committees bodies with certain responsibilities. They will not be just advisory. They will be able to initiate and will also have powers of execution.
  With the changes now embodied in the Bill, I submit that now we have the right kind of machinery for carrying through the wide range of functions with which the Commission will be charged. They will be functions of great potential benefit not only to producers and distributors but also to the consumer, on whose purchases and satisfaction everyone engaged in this industry depends.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the ques-
  1242
  tion of the Commission in relation to its committees, can he state why the chairmen and members of the committees are to be members of the Commission and subject to the qualifications which members of the Commission must have—in other words, that they must not be connected with the industry?
  Mr. Peart: I have looked at this matter very carefully. As the production committees must have a link with the Commission, I think that it is right that a member of the Commission, the higher body, should sit on the production committee as its chairman. As I have said, the committees will initiate ideas and, through their chairmen, will be able to pass those ideas to the higher organisation, and so there will be a to and fro approach which will make for the better working of the Commission. I know that there are arguments about having a separate chairman, but I believe that it is essential to keep that link.
  I now come to the second major purpose of the Bill, the development of our agriculture. Some people say that the industry is quite capable of adapting itself and that the problem is being exaggerated. I do not agree. I think that there are problems and that the Government should provide inducements to help the industry to solve these problems. This is what we are doing in the Bill.
  One of the key factors is undoubtably the small farm. Three-quarters of our farms in this country provide work for less than two adults per farm. The majority are run part time, sometimes for pleasure, by people with other incomes. There is nothing wrong with this. It is part of our way of life and we must accept it. But they must not expect a full-time livelihood from a part-time farm. Indeed, one of the remedies for some of them may be to organise their farming so that they can do another job and supplement their income in this way.
  But there are still more than 100,000 full time small farms. In the past quarter of a century farming techniques have been revolutionised. Farms that were full-time a generation ago are now part-time. We have to ask ourselves what will be the condition of these 100,000 small farms in a generation from now. What will be the effect meanwhile in frustration of effort, in wasted human

  1243
  talent, and in low living standards, if nothing is done to help them? I do not believe that we should allow these men to be driven to the wall by the cold squeeze of economics without lifting a finger to help them.
  There are four ways in which we are helping these men to help themselves. First, the small farmer can, on his existing holding, intensify his farm business and, by increasing its size, reach a satisfactory commercial standard. This will be easier for those already near the borderline of a satisfactory commercial business. This is why at the last Annual Review, with the agreement of both sides of the House, we remodelled the small farmers scheme and raised its upper limits. This is why under Clause 59 we are introducing a farm record scheme to help and encourage farmers—particularly the small farmers—to increase their business efficiency.
  But there will still be many small farmers who find it difficult to enlarge their business sufficiently on the basis solely of their own holding. Many will be able to make themselves more viable by co-operating with other farmers, thus securing some of the benefits of scale and of specialisation in both production and marketing. This is the second place where the Government intend to help. Under Clause 55, we ask for power to make a scheme for grants to encourage a wide range of co-operative activities. The grants will be designed to encourage the promotion, development and organisation of co-operation both in marketing and, for the first time, in production, which, I believe, holds great potentialities.
  We also propose, under Clause 52, to set up a Central Council both to promote and develop co-operation, and to assist in the administration of the proposed new comprehensive schemes of grants.
  But co-operation can, of course, never be a complete remedy for a serious shortage of land. The third way in which small farmers can help themselves to get a full return for their skill is to get more land. But this needs capital and here again we are to help.
  In Part II of the Bill we are making the first serious attempt in this country to tackle the problem of too many farms
  1244
  too small for adequate use of the occupier's skill. We are to pay, under Clause 25, 50 per cent. grants towards virtually all the costs of an amalgamation apart from the cost of the land. In addition, under Clause 27, we will be able to make or guarantee loans to help with the purchase of the extra land as well as with the applicant's share of the cost of equipment.
  The White Paper set a target of 600 standard man-days for a commercial unit under our amalgamation proposals. I know that there has been argument about this in the farming Press, but this means full employment for the farmer and the equivalent of one other man—and therefore is within the capacity of many family farms. Some suggest that this target may be too high. I am convinced that it would be wrong to take a figure that would be out of date in a few years. But, of course, there will be many cases, particularly in some parts of the country, where it is just not practicable to reach such a commercial size in one step. Therefore, under Clause 25 we take powers to assist an intermediate stage of amalgamation, as long as nothing is done to prejudice a later amalgamation to full commercial size.
  There may, however, be many small farmers—for example, those who are getting on in years—who wish to give up their uncommercial holdings and release land for amalgamation into a larger unit. In this fourth way the Government will help by taking ample powers under Clause 26 to pay lump sums or annuities to those who wish to retire or resettle provided their land goes for amalgamation. Nothing in these proposals will in any way force small farmers to take this assistance—this is not a compulsory scheme. They can stay on. But, if they wish to get out, it is only reasonable to help them. Some may not be able to find a private owner who is ready and willing to buy their land for amalgamation. We are, therefore, proposing that the State should be able to buy land, where this is offered to it for amalgamation and is suitable for that purpose. Clause 28 makes it clear that the powers already in existence under the Agriculture Act, 1947, can be used for this purpose.
  Although the White Paper suggested certain sums for the lump sums or annuities, the Bill does not specify them.

  1245
  We have always made it clear that we want the, views of all those concerned as to whether these sums were adequate. Perhaps hon. Members during debates on the Bill will put forward their views on this point, and we shall continue to consider the views of those outside the House who arc concerned. We shall then decide what sums to put in the scheme which will be put to this House for approval.
  I am sure that the House will agree that in these four ways we are making a very genuine attempt by a variety of methods to help the small farmer. They have the right to be helped—and to be helped constructively—to overcome their difficulties.
  But what of the bigger farmers already operating a business on a commercial scale? They produce by far the greatest part of the food we grow here at home.
  To secure the objectives of the National Economic Development Plan, these farmers must be helped to increase their productivity still further. We shall, of course, go on helping them with management and technological advice through the various advisory services. For example, Clause 60 of this Bill gives power to introduce livestock health schemes and thus a more positive approach to animal health. A number of the schemes that I have already described will also benefit the larger as well as the smaller farmer. For example, larger farmers who wish to amalgamate uncommercial units with their own land will be eligible for the amalgamation grants. Larger farmers can also benefit by our schemes to encourage farm recording and agricultural and horticultural co-operation.
  Another proposal which will help the larger as well as the smaller farmer is the decision to continue and extend the Farm Improvement Scheme. The money allocated by Parliament for the present scheme is now almost fully committed. We think it would be wrong to allow the scheme, universally acknowledged as very successful, to lapse. Clause 29, therefore, provides another £80 million for its continuation and extension. The extension will increase the range of equipment eligible for grant. But to keep the annual outlay at about the same level, the rate of grant will be reduced from one-third to one-quarter.
  1246
  We are also, for the first time, providing better facilities for agricultural credit for all farmers, big and small. Under Clause 58 we are seeking powers to underwrite guarantees given on loans made by banks to farmers and growers. In this way short and medium-term credit facilities will be extended to the tune of many millions of pounds. In addition, under Clause 57 we are substantially increasing the amount of Government advances to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation, so as to generate over £100 million extra long-term credit. All these are very important additional facilities to help the industry improve productivity.
  Then there is the hill farmer. I have always believed in the potentialities of the hills and have wanted to do all that I reasonably could to help the hill farmer to overcome his special problems, and I have often been accused of having a bias towards upland development. I think it is right to have a concentration of effort here. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Sir Kenneth Pickthorn) derides this. I would have thought I should have had his approval.
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton) rose——
  Mr. Peart: Part III of the Bill——
  Sir K. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman must give way to me.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must take his seat.
  Sir K. Pickthorn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to know why I was picked out, for no reason at all. I am the last person to brawl or to be disorderly, but I think that when a Minister picks out one of his exiguous audience for insult, merely on the grounds that he does not like the expression on his face, the least he can do is to give the person picked out the chance to say what he thinks of the Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a courtesy rather than a point of order. I cannot rule on this. [HON. MEMBERS "Give way."]
  Mr. Peart: I have given way quite a lot. Why should I give way to a Member who has quite a reputation for cynicism in this House?

  1247
  Part III of the Bill takes an entirely fresh look at the problems of the hills. Since the war a good deal of public money has been put into hill farms—£30 million for rehabilitating existing farms and £4 million for the improvement of country roads. But more needs to be done. Our proposals fall into two distinct parts.
  The first deals with the general problems of the hills. We are, under Clause 37, fulfilling our announced intention of renewing the power to pay hill cow and sheep subsidies, this time on a continuing basis. This and the remodelling of the hill sheep subsidy, which we did at the last Annual Review will, I hope, give confidence and stability to the hill farmer. We are also proposing to change the rules so as to encourage farmers to carry out worthwhile improvements without the fear of improving themselves out of the subsidy.
  I know that there is concern about the position of livestock farmers on land outside the statutory definition of hill land, but which is subject to difficulties, in some ways similar, though less severe. I accept that this is an important question. My right hon. Friend and I are still examining, with the National Farmers' Unions, various suggestions they have made, and we hope to reach some final conclusions at the next Annual Review.
  We also want to help hill farmers to get more out of their land—so as to carry the breeding stock essential to the livestock industry in this country. Clause 35 therefore provides grants for hill land improvements, which the White Paper said would be at the rate of 50 per cent. Power is also taken to give supplements on existing schemes. There is, I know, a very general feeling, which I share, that field and hill drainage is a key operation in improving the potentialities of hill land. We intend, therefore, to propose a supplement of 10 per cent. on field drainage projects on hill farms over and above the normal rate of 50 per cent. We also intend to propose that these grants for hill land improvements, including these supplements, should be paid on all eligible hill farms within the areas determined under the statutory definition, irrespective of the particular form of enterprise carried out.
  1248
  These are our proposals for the hills in general. But in some parts of the hills and uplands the problems are so intractable that something more than inducements to private enterprise is needed. In such areas we propose to set up rural development boards. Their responsibility will be to promote in their areas the co-ordinated development of agriculture and forestry, together with such complementary uses as tourism. All the many bodies that have reviewed this problem over the past 20 years urged a new organisation with the necessary powers. We are proposing, not pious hopes, but action.
  These boards will be composed predominantly of persons with experience and knowledge of agriculture and forestry. Many of them will be drawn from the areas concerned. Details of their constitution is given in Part II of Schedule 5. Under Clauses 39 to 50 the Ministers answerable for agriculture and forestry in the different countries of the United Kingdom are jointly responsible for the appointment of the boards and for giving any directions to them. The financial arrangements are necessarily centralised through one Department in England and Wales—my own—but, of course, I shall be co-operating closely with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On the question of tourism, does that mean that they will have some form of special control over national parks or ancient monuments?
  Mr. Peart: Not precisely. It relates mainly to people who wish to holiday in the area which we have made a development area. Camping is an example. It also deals with farmers who have facilities for tourists.
  Mr. John Farr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could he tell me if representatives of sporting bodies will be included on these boards?
  Mr. Peart: I will consider that. In the main, I hope that the boards will represent mainly agricultural and forestry interests. After all, the boards' main function is to develop the areas from a land point of view. I will note that, but

  1249
  in the main I would like them to be people from the sections that I have mentioned and, in particular, people who know the areas which concern those boards.
  The boards will work in close association with local farming and forestry interests, with the local authorities, the county agricultural executive committees and other local public bodies. So clearly those interests will be considered. They will look at the area as a whole and draw up a programme of rural development for the general benefit of the area. They will work mainly by advice and persuasion, with the aid of financial assistance, under Clause 41 of the Bill, which has been deliberately drawn in wide terms, to help public and private effort to fulfil the programme.
  The boards, however, must have minimum powers to prevent their programme from being frustrated unreasonably. I hope again that I have the agreement of hon. Members on that. The White Paper contemplated that the boards should have a power of what was then called "pre-emption". That is dealt with in Clause 43 of the Bill, and hon. Members will see that, as a result of the consultations that we have had with the various bodies concerned, we have made considerable modifications to our original ideas. In essence, the power now given to the hoards is to control the sale of agricultural land in their areas so as to ensure that such land is not sold for purposes contrary to the rural development programmes. Where a board is unwilling to give consent, the owner can offer the land for sale at the open market price to the board. But, if the owner wishes, he can withdraw from an offer to sell at any time even after a determination by the Lands Tribunal on price. Moreover, there are a number of important exemptions from the need to get the board's consent, such as transfers to close relatives.
  A second power of control relates to private forestry. A board must coordinate its development programme with the Forestry Commission. It must also be able to make sure that private afforestation schemes do not cut across its programme. That is dealt with in Clause 46 by a licensing procedure. There are ample safeguards for the individual,
  1250
  and a number of exemptions for certain kinds of tree planting.
  Finally, under Clause 45 a board is given powers to promote within its area local reorganisation schemes—it may be in a single parish—to deal with the pattern of agricultural and forestry ownership. These must have the agreement of most of those interested in the land in the area. In other words, where a scheme has been drawn up for the benefit of a local community and most of that community wishes to see it implemented, I do not think it right for the scheme to be frustrated by a small number of objectors. There is full provision for the publication of proposals and a public inquiry, if necessary.
  Mr. John M. Temple: The Minister mentioned rural development boards. Has he any idea how many rural development boards there will be throughout the country? I notice from paragraph 63 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the cost is estimated to be £500,000 per board.
  Mr. Peart: I have in mind two places, but I have not finally made a decision. I want to be practical about it and go slowly. I do not want to rush in with too many. In my own mind, I have thought of two suitable areas, but I have not made a final decision. I will be very careful about it.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: What size will they be?
  Mr. Peart: Here I must take the advice of the farming interests concerned. There are hill areas which may be suitable, and it may be that many hon. Members can pick out different parts of the country in both England and Wales. I would rather not be pressed yet to make a decision on that, though. I have in mind certain areas which need special treatment. When I make a decision, I will announce it, but I must take the advice of all agricultural interests concerned about areas which may be suitable.
  Mr. John Brewis: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why the Forestry Commission is not coming under the rural development boards and how they are to co-ordinate forestry planning?
  Mr. Peart: The programme has to be agreed. I am not the forestry Minister, and I will consult with my colleagues on that. We need a balanced development plan in any particular area where both forestry and agriculture may be affected.
  The provisions for these boards give an exciting new opportunity for dealing with some of the most difficult problem areas in the hills and uplands. Our approach is constructive and original. Many of the duties and powers that we are proposing have been given to similar bodies in Sweden and in France and are being used successfully there. We shall have to see how these proposals work out in practice here, and the Government would not propose to create more than one or two such boards in England and Wales in the first instance. As I have said, we must be practical.
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is careful liaison between the National Parks Commission and these rural development boards? In quite a lot of what he has been saying there will be a conflict of interest.
  Mr. Peart: I believe that any public bodies affected by a development programme when an area is chosen must be consulted and their views taken into account. That will be done.
  In Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has recently been established. My right hon. Friend is empowered under the Bill to confer on the Board any of the functions and powers of a rural development board he may think necessary. If these bodies achieve the results that we expect, they will give a new sense of purpose to some of the remoter areas. I have tried to clear away some of the misunderstandings that there have been, and I believe that the House will give me its full support for what we have in mind.
  I have now covered all the main proposals in the Bill for the development of agriculture. But no plan will succeed unless we give the best conditions that we can to the farm worker. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have on many occasions paid tribute, as I have myself, to their work and skill. Now we propose to do something practical to improve their conditions. Clause 61 em-
  1252
  powers the agricultural wages boards to establish minimum rates of payment when a farm worker is off sick or injured. That will remedy a defect that has appeared in the original 1948 Act, and I think that no one will dispute its desirability.
  The proposals that I have outlined have a wide scope and will have a far-reaching effect. I believe that their objectives will commend themselves to all parts of the House. They are designed to bring lasting benefit to all who care for and work on the land, as well as all concerned in the great meat industry, whether producers, distributors or consumers.
  I would only say finally that I have seen a number of commentaries and papers from many responsible people calling this the most outstanding piece of agricultural legislation since the 1947 Agriculture Act. I consider it a great honour that it falls to me to present it to the House.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: I always like on these occasions to be able to congratulate a Minister on the presentation of a Bill. The introduction of a Bill is always an important matter. I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the lucidity with which he has spoken, and I think that we have listened with interest to what he has had to say. At times, however, it was a little difficult to follow him, because he was jumping about like a cat on hot bricks from one end of the Bill to another. While we on this side have studied this Bill and were able to follow him, there was some wonderment on the faces of hon. Members behind him. However, we shall try to elucidate the position for them a little more clearly as we go through the Bill today.
  In his closing words, the right hon. Gentleman spoke bravely about this great new venture, but I am afraid that I must bring him down to earth fairly sharply and tell him bluntly that the Bill does not represent a new policy for agriculture. It is a collection of odds and ends and nothing more. It has a few good points in it—that I do not deny—it has some not nearly so good, and it has some which are thoroughly bad. The Minister would have been better advised to have called it the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which would have brought it down to its correct size.

  1253
  My first general criticism is of the way in which this legislation has been brought forward, The White Papers were presented at the beginning of August and Parliament has had no opportunity of debating them. They were submitted and we have had the Recess in which to consider them, but this is the worst possible time in which to try to have consultations with farmers, or indeed, with industry generally. Of course, I absolve the Minister in as much as he was not to know that we would have one of the worst harvests on record, but, as Minister of Agriculture, he could reasonably be expected to know that a harvest usually occurs at this time of the year and that therefore there are normally few meetings of N.F.U. committees in August and September. It was by doing this and then bringing in the Bill for Second Reading so early in the new Session, having allowed so little time, that he has aroused a great deal of irritation. I have plenty of evidence which I could quote. I have all sorts of representations, including a letter which reached me just as I was coming into the Chamber——
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Very convenient.
  Mr. Godber:—from a member of the N.F.U. Council. I had no idea it was coming. In it, he makes exactly this point:
  "The Bill is being unfairly rushed through. We as farmers are not being allowed time."
  This is the sort of representation which has been made time and again. If the Minister is not aware of this, he must be very ignorant of feelings among farmers——
  Mr. Peart: I believe that there has been ample time for discussion. On many of the major issues, like meat marketing, we have had plenty of talk and discussion. The time has come for action.
  Mr. Godber: That may be the Minister's view, and he is entitled to it, but I am entitled to remind the House of the view of those outside. Theirs is a view which should be given and for which there is ample evidence. The Minister has rushed this, and he has been unwise to do 30. This applies not only to farmers but to the other trade organisations affected by the Bill.
  1254
  The Minister cannot claim that anything in the Bill is desperately pressing, so I do not understand why he has behaved in this way. I trust that he will now allow adequate time before starting on Committee stage of the Bill, because many Amendments will certainly have to be tabled. We shall also look for plenty of time in Committee.
  My second general criticism is about the general approach of the Bill. It is primarily an enabling Bill—legislation by Regulation. I admit freely that my party when in Government indulged in legislation by Regulation from time to time, so there is no change of principle here. However, there is a substantial change of degree. I refer the House to the sweeping powers conferred, for instance, by Clause 9—about which we heard very little from the Minister—and by the Clauses dealing with the rural development boards. Furthermore, it is very difficult, when considering enabling legislation, to get a clear or a precise picture of what uses the Government proposes to make of the powers for which they are asking.
  It is true that certain examples were given in the White Paper and we heard a certain number more from the Minister this evening, but not very many—and certainly not as many as we had hoped. In fairness, I would say that one saving grace is that the right hon. Gentleman has, in the main, relied in the Bill upon affirmative Regulations and not on negative ones. I think that that provided for under Clause 8 is a negative one, but in the main these are affirmative. For this small saving grace we are grateful.
  Nevertheless, in several cases, neither affirmative nor negative Regulations will be necessary once the parent Orders have gone through—particularly the Meat Commission development schemes and the rural development boards. Under Clause 9(7,a), once the Commission is empowered under a scheme it can delegate these powers to others, and there appears to be no restriction of any sort on whom these powers will be delegated to. This is legislation by remote control, not just by Regulation, and is something which we shall study very carefully in Committee.
  I would make a general point about the financial effect of the Bill. There

  1255
  is a large number of different financial provisions of which, I suppose, the extension of the farm improvement scheme is the largest and the farm structure proposals the second largest. We are told that the latter proposals are outside the Price Review calculations, but I should like to be told something about the various financial provisions as a whole. We want to see the picture complete. Which of these financial provisions fall within the Price Review and which fall outside?
  What is the estimated annual addition to Governmental spending on agriculture within the Price Review calculations and what is the additional estimated increase outside those calculations? In addition, various levies are raised under the Bill. Can we be given some idea of what, in total, they are likely to amount to? May we be told whether the charges of these levies as they impose on farmers will count as increased costs for Price Review purposes? Perhaps we may be told something about these points at the end of the debate.
  I have said that the Bill does not represent a new policy, and indeed it does not. There is a section on livestock and meat marketing, one on farm structure and improvements, one on hill land and rural development boards, one on cooperation and a very mixed portion at the end, some of which covers some very worthwhile matters like the keeping of business records and the rate of sick pay for agricultural workers. There are good things and poor in the Bill, but there is no coherent thread running through the Measure as a whole. There is nothing to tell us clearly what is the Minister's and Government's general approach to agriculture at present.
  I suppose the Minister would say that that is to be found in the agricultural section of the National Plan. In that case, I invite him to arrange for the House to have a debate on the agricultural proposals in that Plan. We should like that very much indeed. There are many question marks surrounding these proposals——
  Mr. Pearl: If the right hon. Member wants such a debate so strongly, why not use his influence to arrange for a Supply Day on the subject?
  Mr. Godber: If the Government have a policy on this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am proposing to answer: hon. Members should not be so impatient. If the Government have a policy of which they are proud, it is normal for the Government to find time for their own Measures. If they are not proud of it, we take note of that fact—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must behave as well as the back benchers do.
  Mr. Godber: I am sorry if I am tempting the Minister into this behaviour, but I think that we have elucidated that point—that the Government are not very proud of those proposals. However, we shall look forward at some stage to hearing more from them about it: there are so many points to be answered, for instance, the farming community are waiting to be told how the Minister defines the "major part" of our food requirements up to 1970, which is to be provided by British farmers. Is it going to be 99 per cent.? Is it going to be 51 per cent.? What is it going to be? I hope that the Government will give us more details about this.
  We must ask how these proposals further the aims of the National Plan. Generally speaking, I would say that it is questionable as to the extent to which increased production or efficiency will flow from the operation of the Bill. We shall have cuts in farm improvement schemes. We shall have the Meat Commission, in a form in which we shall discuss in great detail in Committee. We shall have Government control of large tracts of agricultural land, both hill and vale. I suggest that all this will hardly encourage initiative, and will certainly not encourage individual enterprise on the part of the farming community.
  I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Part I deals with the establishment of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and follows in many respects the recommendations of the Verdon-Smith Report. The Minister would have been wiser to avoid the word "Commission" in the name of the body. I noticed that he was a little chary in one or two remarks that he made in his opening speech. Perhaps he remembered some of his earlier speeches about a Meat Commission. But he has been honest

  1257
  enough to tell us that he has changed his mind, and when anyone tells us that we are ready to listen to him. We shall hope to change his mind a great deal more before the Bill goes through the House.
  Clause 2 deals with the three main committees to be set up. I am glad that the Minister has included provision for executive as well as advisory duties for these bodies. This is a useful proposal. It is clear from the First Schedule that the chairmen of these committees will be members of the Commission, but I do not see it stated anywhere whether it will be possible for members of the Commission other than the chairmen of committees, to have membership of committees as well as being on the Commission. I do not know whether it is the intention to limit this provision merely to chairmen.
  One of my hon. Friends took up this point about the chairmanship of committees earlier. It is true that the chairmen, as members of the Commission, shall have "no substantial financial interest". Those are the words in the Bill. The other members presumably may have such financial interest. It is not laid down as to their position as members of the committees. I wonder what the intention is. I presume that it is to have the chairmen as links between the Commission and the various committees.
  We are told that the production and distribution committees will be large bodies, consisting of a chairman plus at least 18 members. It will be necessary for many different interests to be represented on the Distribution Committee, and I am sure that the Minister has already come up against the problem of sharing out. All those Members who have been connected with administration know the difficulty of getting a fair balance. Perhaps we may be told more in Committee as to the break-down of this committee. We should like to know, in order to satisfy ourselves whether the various interests will be represented in a reasonable balance, bearing in mind their interests in the different aspects of this matter. I do not ask for an answer tonight, but this is a point on which we should like some further elucidation at the appropriate time.
  Clauses 5 and 6 are of considerable interest, and we shall hope to be told—
  1258
  again in Committee—a lot more about the way in which these provisions will be implemented. We shall want to know about the practicability of the requirement which appears in Clause 6 for marking carcases in such a way that the mark will not be defaced or removed before the carcase or the part-carcase reaches the retailer. That is the difficulty; carcases may be split up before reaching some of the retailers. There can be a real technical difficulty here, and some thought should be given to the matter.
  Clauses 7 and 8 deal with the retail side, and should prove of real help to both the retail trade and, even more, the housewife. In particular, I welcome Clause 8(2,b), which refers to a requirement for
  "information to he given, in the case of meat exposed for sale, both by showing the prices of particular pieces of meat and also by showing the weight of particular pieces of meat."
  This is a very useful provision. Nevertheless, I must enter a caveat in relation to everything concerning meat. Difficulty is caused because meat and bone vary greatly in their proportions in a joint. The degree of safeguard achieved by providing that the prices shall be shown may be somewhat misleading if a housewife does not herself judge the proportions of meat and bone in a joint. The extent to which housewives will be safeguarded in this matter may be overstressed.
  The Minister ought not to be surprised to know that I look upon Clause 9 as a most obnoxious one. I ask him what its purpose is. He said very little about it in his speech. I thought that he hurried over his description of this part of the Bill. Why are these sweeping powers required? In subsection (2) we are given three classifications. It would seem that these could restrict the production of farms and prevent farmers from switching to livestock production. It applies also to other sections of the meat trade.
  Subsection (6) talks of imposing quotas upon producers, and in subsections (15) and (16) the Minister seems himself to be somewhat scared of the powers that he is given, because he provides various safeguards, including the question of going to the High Court. This seems clearly to show that he is worried about the proposals that he has inserted in the Bill. He must tell the House much more

  1259
  about what he proposes to do with these powers before we shall be prepared to grant them.
  I deplore particularly the idea of giving such sweeping powers without having any idea of what is involved and without being able effectively to control the position once the Clause becomes law. It is true that schemes will be subject to the affirmative procedure. As the House knows, however, there is no chance of amending a scheme under this procedure; it must either be accepted or rejected in totality. These are powers which Parliament will always grant to the Executive in emergencies, but Parliament ought not to be called upon to pass a Clause in this form. I hope that the Minister will spell out more precisely what powers he wants, and the purposes for which he wants them. We can then decide on the real issue. This demand for a blank cheque is quite unjustified. The Minister has not justified it this afternoon.
  In addition to affecting farmers, these powers may extend to the closing-down of slaughterhouses and even processing plants. Compensation for such closures will be raised from the industry itself. If these powers are invoked and there is a closing down, compensation is paid by means of a levy. There will be a separate levy, and it will be provided for by the industry and not by the Government. That being so, we must be given much more information about this, and we shall return to this point in much more detail in Committee.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate a little on his fears concerning Clause 9? He has mentioned the slaughterhouses, which are at present covered by an Act of Parliament. I should like to know why he fears the effects of this clause.
  Mr. Godber: The hon. Member and I sat for many months in Committee on the Slaughterhouses Bill. These matters have been debated at great length and I do not propose to go into the speeches which have been made. My fears at the moment are fears of the unknown, which are the greatest fears of all. The Minister has not put into the Bill what he wants to do, and we want to know what he does propose to
  1260
  do. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) should be asking his right hon. Friend these questions and not me. Let us discover from the Minister what the powers are for. If they are justified the House will give them to him. but not otherwise.
  Clause 12 deals with the levy and the financial activities of the Commission. The intention appears to be that the levy shall apply only to home-produced meat. It is true that many of the activities of the Commission relate to production in this country, but Clauses 7 and 8 apply to all meat. Is it not fair, therefore, that imported meat should bear some levy as well? I am not suggesting a rate similar to that for home-produced meat, but I take the view that some contribution should come from this source.
  In that respect, the Verdon-Smith Committee was explicit. In paragraph 851 of its Report, the Committee stated:
  "For home production, a levy, varying with the type of animal, should be charged on every animal slaughtered.
  For imports, a comparable levy should be charged at the ports."
  Nothing could be more specific than that. I am asking, not even for a comparable levy, but for a levy on imported meat. It is strange that this has not been provided for.
  On Clause 15, it would again be helpful to have an idea of the levy which is involved. We should know more about this whole question of levies throughout the whole of Part I of the Bill. The totality of these levies could be very great.
  The Minister tried to help us in one respect today when he attempted to give a figure about the effect of the levy on the carcase. This, he told us, would work out at per pound. I should like to know whether he was talking about the point of retail sale or of the carcase, because in cutting up the carcase there is a substantial loss. If it is to be ¼d. at the first point, it will be substantially more by the time that it reaches retail circles.
  Mr. Peart: It is at the point of retail.
  Mr. Godber: So that is the final figure. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That clears up at least one point, but there are the other points concerning the

  1261
  levy about which we should like to know more.
  In Clause 19(1) a sweeping power is being given to the Minister. I should like to ask this specific question. Is it, as I hope and trust that it is, limited by the provisions of Part I of Schedule 1, which spells out the powers of the Commission? Does Part I of Schedule 1 bite on Clause 19(1)? This is something which would help to reassure us concerning these very wide powers which are being provided. From what I have said in regard to Part I of the Bill, it will be clear that we shall want to know a great deal more about many of these matters.
  Having complained about a good deal of what is in Part I, I now, for a change, complain about something which is not in Part I of the Bill but which should be there. I refer to the lack of provision for the contract selling of fatstock. Paragraphs 748 and 749 of the Verdon-Smith Report dealt with this subject and perhaps I may quote a little from the latter. Its opening words state:
  "We consider that the growth in contracts at the first-hand level is having some beneficial effects on fatstock marketing".
  It states in paragraph (b):
  "Reductions in both sellers' and buyers' costs should result from contracts, since regular arrangements lead to economies in the cost of selling and buying, some risks are lessened, transport arrangements can be regularly coordinated, and losses, wastage and delays can be reduced. Contracts therefore offer some important marketing advantages."
  That is what the Verdon-Smith Committee said, yet we find nothing about it in the Bill. I do not suggest that the Commission itself should enter into contracts but it should be in a position to take positive action to stimulate contract selling. The nearest that I can find to this in the Bill is in paragraph 8 of Part I of Schedule 1, which concerns itself purely with advice. There could be something to be said for setting up something comparable, for instance, to the Cereal Marketing Authority for organising contracts in advance. This would have been a practical way in which to help orderly marketing. It is a great pity that opportunity has not been taken to do something of this sort.
  Part II of the Bill, dealing with farm structure, marks an interesting new development. It has been widely discussed
  1262
  since the proposals first emerged in the White Paper. [Interruption.] The Joint Parliamentary Secretary makes an interesting point. There has been time for discussion, but not for the detailed consultation which was necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good the Treasury Bench simply echoing "No" in that childish way, because they know perfectly well that this protest has been made from all sections, not merely from the farming community, but from other sections also.
  Therefore, while I say that this matter has been widely discussed, it has not been discussed in the form of consultation. In spite, however, of the degree of discussion which has taken place, not even the Minister would claim that it has met with enthusiastic response. There is no doubt that the whole question of farm size and structure has been exercising the minds of those concerned with agriculture, both in this country and elsewhere, for some years.
  Modern farming techniques often require larger units for economic production. Indeed, during the last 12 years there has been a reduction of 50,000 in the number of farms of less than 50 acres in Britain, and, of course, there has been a rise in some of the larger farms. [Interruption.] I hear somebody say "Good". I agree; that is right.
  We on this side made some small provision—I do not pretend that it was other than small—to assist amalgamation in our 1957 Act. I mention this only to show that at that time we were thinking similarly that amalagamation should be encouraged. I confirm that we on this side are still in favour of amalgamation as one part of the various changes that have to come about in agriculture. We regard this as one part and co-operation as another part. I was in agreement with something that the Minister said on this aspect this afternoon. I shall not go far along that road with him, but I thought it only fair to say this.
  The amalgamation must, however, be voluntary and there must be no element of coercion in any form. That, I understand, is what Clause 25 provides for. I do not, therefore, criticise that Clause as such. When I turn, however, to Schedule 4, which contains the provisions affecting this aspect, I have some criticisms to make.

  1263
  Schedule 4 specifies a 60-year period to be covered by this provision. Without more adequate safeguard for the individual than I see at present, I regard this period as far too long. Particularly do I say this when I look at the penal sanctions—penal is the word used in the Bill—which are provided for at the foot of page 86 of the Bill. We shall certainly look for drastic revision of this.
  I should like to give the House an example of my fears in this regard. Let us suppose that a unit that has been amalgamated lies alongside a main road. The owner of the amalgamated unit might be asked, for instance, as he could well be, by an oil company to sell off half an acre for a filling station. This would in no way invalidate it as an agricultural unit, yet it would be in breach of the provisions of the Schedule. Unless the owner has the written consent of the Minister, he would be subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 if he sold off even half an acre.
  It could be argued that in such a case the Minister's consent would be forthcoming. Such consent would not be given immediately, however—it always takes time—and the oil company might prefer to go across the road to a neighbouring large farmer who was not subject to these provisions. The chance of a lucrative sale, which could have benefited the first farmer and helped him to put up new farm buildings, could be lost. That is merely one instance. Many other examples could be given.
  It is certainly right that amalgamations which have attracted the grant of public money should not readily be subjected to frivolous fragmentation, but these penal provisions go too far and could well defeat the purpose of the Bill. The Minister must face the fact that they could well frighten off people from taking advantage of his scheme. If they fear that they are to have this penal provision hanging around their necks for a long period, it could stop people from taking advantage of these provisions.
  Clause 26 covers grants to farmers who give up their units. As the Minister said, there are no figures in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman gave us his own figures in the White Paper originally and he has invited us now to give other figures ourselves. In considering whether the
  1264
  figures which he originally gave in the White Paper are adequate, one has to ask what precisely is their purpose. Is it to bring about a more rapid giving up of holdings by those with small units, or merely to cushion and to give some element of support in old age to those who are giving up anyway? We have to be clear about which of these is correct.
  Under the White Paper's proposals, a man with a 50-acre farm who is over 65, or 55 if he has opted for the annuity, would get a pension of just under £3 a week. If this is a supplement to his savings and retirement pension, it may just make the difference to make his retirement more tolerable. Therefore, if it is the second alternative which I gave, namely, of cushioning and giving some element of support, it is probably worthwhile. However, if the Minister wants to bring about a substantial speeding up of amalgamations among those who are not yet thinking in terms of retirement or of moving into something else, I venture to doubt whether the rates which he proposes will achieve any significant result.
  We are told that the annual cost is expected to rise to £15 million to £17 million a year. As an act of social policy, it may be fully justified, but if it is to be judged as an act of agricultural policy I doubt whether it will provide very much greater impetus to the pace at which small farms are, even now, being given up. We do not oppose it in principle, but we shall watch with keen interest the extent to which it is made use of and the extent to which it accelerates the present decline in the number of small farms.
  We are told that the cost of this provision is outside the aggregate of Price Review moneys. That is important, because it is a substantial sum. But I am bound to ask: if this is so, what quid pro quo is the Treasury calling for from Agricultural Ministers for this generosity? [Interruption.] The Minister may well look round hurriedly to see whether there is a Treasury Minister on the Bench. Perhaps we shall not get an answer today. Presumably we shall have to wait until the Price Review for the answer to that question.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Price Review is, presumably, to be just before the next election, I doubt

  1265
  very much whether we shall get the answer then.
  Mr. Godber: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so pessimistic. I hoped that we would have a General Election long before then. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall be very interested to see how this works out.
  We shall certainly want to question the powers in Clause 28 which enable the Minister to buy land for amalgamation and other purposes. This could turn out to be a very wasteful and expensive project indeed. We on this side doubt very much the wisdom or the need for this provision, and we think that the Government should have second thoughts about it. It will be our objective to seek to eliminate or drastically to curtail this power when we come to it.
  Turning to the farm improvement scheme, I say straight away that we deplore the cut in rate from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. We condemn this. If I may interject a personal note, I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry when the scheme went through the House, and I have always been proud of having been associated with it. The scheme has proved itself to be such an excellent scheme. I very much regret that an attempt should be made to scale it down in this way. The Minister says that the amount is the same, but I beg leave to doubt whether this is so. We are told that it is estimated that it will still be worth £11 million a year in grants and that this is in line with the recent rate.
  However, the Minister was kind enough to let us have a Press hand-out on the farm improvement scheme—it is dated 17th November—when the Bill came out. There are some very interesting figures at the end of it, which are given in cumulative totals. [Interruption.] Give the Minister a copy so that he can follow all this. I would particularly refer to the last two columns. One is in respect of grant commitment and the other in respect of grant aid. The grant commitment amounts will fall for payment some time later.
  Therefore, dealing with the figures in the column headed "Grant Paid", when one deducts the figures, it gives a rise in the rate of payment under the scheme o'er the last four years of £9,172,000,
  1266
  £10,317,000, £10,260,000, and £11,491,000. This shows a steady growth year by year and it has reached almost £11½ million in the year ending March last. Underneath it says:
  "Approvals are at present running at about £37 million a year"
  in terms of a one-third grant rate—that is, £12⅓ million in the present year, another substantial jump of nearly £1 million during the current year. It goes on to say, to emphasise the point even more:
  "It is estimated that at mid-November, 1965, the face value of approvals and applications under consideration is equivalent to some £87 million in terms of grant at the one-third rate."
  That was only in November. Presumably, when we reach March, this will throw up a figure substantially more than £37 million, which would be one-third of the figure which will appear in totality in place of that £87 million. The total impression is a grant rising with each succeeding year, and we shall see well over £12 million in the present year with those already in the pipeline and it will have risen even more. The Minister says that, under the revised scheme, the figure will be running at about £11 million, but I do not consider that this is a full replacement of what is being taken away.
  This is a most important point, particularly because the figures show that the need for the farm improvement scheme on the old basis is as great as ever, otherwise there would not be a rising curve. If this were a falling curve, it would be a different picture and we might sympathise with the line which the Minister is taking. But it is nonsense to say that there is justification for immediate amendment of the scheme. Although some farmers may benefit from widening its scope, others may be deterred from applying for its benefits, and they are those who have taken the longest time in coming round to it and who need it most. Therefore, this is a retrograde and regressive step which the Minister is taking.
  The other side of that same Press notice refers to the operative dates. It says:
  "Applications made after today"—
  that is 17th November—
  "can only be considered under the new Scheme and cannot be approved or grant-aided until the Bill becomes law. But in appropriate cases the Ministry will be prepared to agree to a start of work at the applicant's own risk".

  1267
  Why "at the applicant's own risk"? Is it because of the propriety of Parliamentary approval, or is it something more significant and ominous? If, as a result of the step which the Minister has taken, he has caused this upset in the scheme, then I query the wisdom of putting in those words, making things more difficult for farmers who apply for the benefits of the scheme. As I have said, the arguments for extending its scope may be real, but they do not justify the cut in the rate, and we shall oppose it most hotly at the appropriate time.
  Clause 34 contains two very important definitions which were the subject of comment particularly by the N.F.U. in its circular on the Bill. The union calls attention to the need
  "within the overall structure of agriculture for the family farmer to continue to play a vital role."
  It considers very important the definition of a commercial unit which could exclude a certain number of family farms. I had hoped that the Minister would have said more about this this afternoon, and I hope we shall hear more about it, because it is a very important point. I do not object to the definition of the two types of unit, but we want an assurance that the introduction of this new concept is not going to mean the exclusion of those in the intermediate unit stage from various provisions and supports to which we as well as the N.F.U. think they are entitled.
  Part 3 of the Bill, which contains proposals for hill land, centres very largely around the setting up of rural development boards which, as set out in the Bill, we view with considerable dislike indeed. We on this side of the House are in favour of help for the upland areas, but I must tell the Minister that we are highly suspicious of some of the very sweeping powers that are proposed in this part of the Bill. I would not disagree with some of the functions of these boards as set out in Clause 40(1), but I am very dubious indeed as regards the powers it is proposed to give the boards as a whole. Clause 43(1), for instance, contains a very sweeping provision which could delay the sale of land for months, and might cause hardship in many cases.
  It is, however, the power in Clause 45(7) for the compulsory acquisition of land which particularly alarms me. We
  1268
  are opposed to this power. We shall want to know a lot more about how it will be used, and what will happen to land that is so acquired. Will the board continue to own it? Will the board be responsible for farming the land, or will it resell it to somebody else, perhaps a neighbour of the previous owner? It may be argued that this will be a reserve power, which will seldom be used, but it will be a very real power, and Parliament should be very grudging in giving power of this kind. We see the reconstitution of the old farming problems of the Land Commission which we inherited from the previous Labour Government. All these dangers arise in relation to these powers.
  Clause 46, on the control of afforestation, is also very far-reaching. I presume that the Forestry Commission has been fully consulted on this, but what about the private forestry owners? Have their views been ascertained as well?
  Those are points about which I think we need to know a great deal more. I do not propose to go in detail into this part of the Bill because I have dwelt at length on some other parts of it, and I do not wish to speak for too long, but this should not be taken to mean that we are not deeply suspicious of some of the powers in these Clauses, and in particular the ones which I have noted.
  In general, we welcome the powers in Part IV of the Bill for the extension of co-operative activities. We note with interest the proposal to set up a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, but what will happen to AMDEC? I am told that half its functions will be taken over. What will happen in regard to the rest? This seems to be an untidy situation, and I hope that we shall be told a good deal more about this aspect of the matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who has done so much work in this field, will, I hope, have an opportunity of speaking in this debate, because, as chairman of this body, he has great knowledge of the subject. I hope that we shall hear more about what is going to be the position of AMDEC. If its powers are going to be emasculated, or its duties taken away, this would seem to be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a body which has done a great deal of good work.

  1269
  Coming to a later part of the Bill, we have the proposals for finance, and I listened carefully to what the Minister said in regard to the facilities referred to in Clause 58. I do not take such a rosy view of them as the Minister does, because the provisions in Clause 58 do not give cheap credit. All that they do is to underwrite the liability of a commercial bank which lends at current interest rates, so the right hon. Gentleman should be more concerned with what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor is doing about interest rates, which is what is having a real effect on farmers' credit at the present time. This is what matters to farmers, rather than making these provisions which may have been right in the special conditions of horticulture, but it does not necessarily mean that they should be carried over into agriculture which has the safeguards of the Price Review behind it.
  I would give a general welcome to the various other miscellaneous provisions in Part V of the Bill, and in particular I endorse Clause 59 with the assistance that it gives for keeping farm business records. I hope that this Clause will proceed to the Statute Book and will be made the fullest use of.
  There is one strange thing about this Clause. When one looks at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, one sees that paragraph 67 on page xi says:
  "Grant payments for farm business records under Clause 59 are forecast at £750,000 annually when the scheme is fully operative and the administrative cost at £100,000 annually."
  That is an extraordinarily high administrative cost in relation to the expenditure. It is £1 for every £7 10s. in grant. I think that we should be told why the administrative costs of this aspect are so much higher than administrative costs generally in regard to grant provisions. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this point when he replies. We want to support this proposal, because we think it is right, but it seems that the administrative costs are unusually high.
  The only other Clause to which I propose to refer is Clause 61. I was glad to hear what the Minister said about it, and I endorse his remarks. I think that farmers generally are generous in their treatment of employees who fall
  1270
  sick, and I am sure they will not resent this statutory provision. I hope that both sides of the House will welcome this as a sound measure. Presumably when this provision is brought in it will rank as an added cost for Price Review purposes, and I think we should know where we stand in regard to this sort of thing.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said—which I fully support—about this change in the farm improvement grant being limited only to one quarter, may I ask whether he is aware that those words occur in the Money Resolution, which, in the normal way, we would discuss after the Second Reading debate? I understand that there may be some special arrangement later this evening, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would consider asking the Government not to ask the House to consider the Money Resolution this evening, so that Amendments can be put down and discussed?
  Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that it is desired to make an important statement later this evening on some other matter.
  Mr. Peart: Not that I know of.
  Mr. Godber: The Minister claims no knowledge of it, but the information has reached me via unusual channels and it may reach him through the usual channels in due course. I think that there is a desire to make a very important statement at Ten o'clock this evening. I think that what my hon. Friend has said is right and reasonable. I hope that the Money Resolution will be put down for discussion on another day. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this urgently so as not to inconvenience other aspects of our discussion.
  Mr. Peart: I shall consider it.
  Mr. Godber: All in all, this Bill compares unfavourably even with the curate's egg. It has a few good parts but many bad ones. It is a complicated Bill. It is bound to take a long time in Committee, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is going to be necessary. Because of that, it is unfortunate that the changes in the farm improvements scheme have been included in the

  1271
  Bill. Had they appeared in a separate Bill, we could have dealt with them expeditiously. We could have restored the rate of grant to 33⅓ per cent. and put the Measure on the Statute Book straightaway, but, as it is, there is bound to be substantial delay in the payment for farm improvement scheme projects, and in agreeing new proposals due to the time before the Bill can reach the Statute Book. For that the Minister, and the Minister alone, must accept responsibility. He has chosen to include this in a very complicated Measure. He must have realised at the time what he was doing, and therefore the responsibility for the delay must be laid at his door, and at no one else's.
  With its few good points, and many bad ones, the Bill does not point any clear way to the future of agriculture in this country. It may add certain grants, but it reduces others. It provides for levies, for restrictions on farmers' freedom, and on their ability to exercise their own judgment. We shall seek to amend the Bill and to improve it, and it is sadly in need of improvement. My judgment of the Minister on his showing at this stage is that he has failed to live up to the promises he made when in Opposition, and during the last Election, and, further, his lack of policy and direction whilst in office is harmful to a great industry which deserves better.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Bert Hazell: First, I should like to congratulate the Minister on presenting the Bill today. It is a major Measure. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, it is a combination of Measures. From the first page to the last the Bill offers a very wide scope which must be of great benefit in the long run to the industry in which we are all so greatly interested.
  Before dealing with specific items within the Bill, there are one or two brief general observations which I should like to make. Agriculture in this country has a remarkable record of achievement. No one can deny that. I am sure that that view has often been expressed in the House. In the past 20 years or so the output from British farms has been amazing. However one measures output, it must compare very favourably
  1272
  indeed with the agricultural output of any other agricultural nation, and it must also compare very favourably with the increased output of industry in general. I should like, therefore, to offer congratulations to all concerned.
  As all of us know who are interested in the subject, agriculture is not run on factory lines. We cannot predetermine what our output will eventually be. We must rely very largely upon weather conditions, apart from the application of science to the industry. Even this year we have had some bitter disappointments. There was early promise of an abundant harvest, but while I believe that it will be found that output is above average, nevertheless a good deal of loss has been sustained owing to weather conditions which no one could predict. If one looks at the fields at the moment one is concerned about the harvesting of some of the root crops in view of the unusually severe weather conditions which we have had so early in the sugar beet harvesting season. All praise must be given to those who are seeking to harvest the sugar beet crop in fields which are either covered with snow or severely flooded. We must also give full praise to those who are toiling in the snow drifts to protect the sheep on the hillsides and over the vast areas of the hill country.
  In my opinion this combination of measures marks the greatest piece of legislation on agriculture presented to the House since the 1947 Act. Agriculture has a proud record of achievement not only directly as an industry but because of its impact indirectly on industry in general. The prosperity of agriculture and the security which the 1947 and 1957 Acts bestowed have enabled considerable investment to be made in agriculture. Coupled with this measure of prosperity and security, a reducing manpower force has encouraged an ever-expanding engineering industry to develop, and this industry has played a great part in our exports because agricultural engineering equipment and machinery represent important exports which enable us to pay for the imports of raw materials and food which we require.
  The Government have always shown their desire to encourage our agriculture still further. Whatever may be said—and this charge has been made from

  1273
  time to time—about the Labour Party being largely an industrial party, the fact remains that even when the Labour Party formed a minority administration, the interests of agriculture were clearly borne in mind. In presenting the Bill my right hon. Friend is following well in the footsteps of his predecessor the Minister in the 1945–51 Government. I am sure all hon. Members cordially welcome these bold plans which are placed before us.
  Part I of the Bill deals with the marketing of meat and livestock. This fulfils a promise which we made during the General Election campaign when we said that we should introduce at the earliest opportunity effective marketing arrangements for the main agricultural crops. Last Session we passed the Cereals Marketing Act. This is followed by Part I of the Bill. Since the late 1920s, and right up to the Verdon-Smith Report, various people have looked at the problem of meat marketing. It falls to the Government and my right hon. Friend to present to the House positive measures to deal with this problem. The Bill does not limit its responsibilities to marketing but covers the wide field of production, distribution and consumer interest.
  I am delighted to note in Part I that there is to be a two-way flow of information to those responsible under the Bill—from the committees to the Commission and from the Commission to the committees. I am sure that this two-way flow will be of inestimable value in working out the details of the measures which will follow from the discussions which will take place.
  I must, however, make one reservation or express some minor disappointment to the Minister in that, in Clause 9—to which the right hon. Member for Grantham paid a great deal of attention—he did not take the opportunity of reserving the right to deal with imports should the problem arise in future. No doubt my right hon. Friend feels that at present it would be unwise for him to include measures of this nature within the Bill, but it might have been a good thing if he had sought to secure reserve powers within the ambit of Clause 9. I know that he will be advised on matters of supplies, because provision is made for this within the Bill. Advice will be given by the Commission. But if
  1274
  he were advised in due course by the Commission to take such action it would mean, as I understand the Bill, that he would have to come to the House with a new Measure, and this could cause considerable delay. By presenting the Bill in five Parts presumably the Minister feels that he will have far more time at his disposal to get all five through the House. To have to come to the House with another Measure to deal with this problem might mean that he would be faced with difficulties of Parliamentary time. This is one reason why I should like to see included in the Bill the reserve powers to which I referred.
  I am greatly interested in Part II of the Measure. Before I was privileged to be elected to represent my constituency in the House I worked for many years in the County of Yorkshire. I am, therefore, fully conversant with the problems which face smallholders, a great many of whom are in the West Riding around the industrial belt of the Pennines.
  I spoke of the high level of efficiency which already exists in the agricultural industry compared with other agricultural countries, but one recognises that, however efficient our industry may be, there is always room for improvement. My right hon. Friend gave a number of statistics to indicate the size of some holdings. Hon. Members may like to be reminded that there are more than 96,000 holdings with, on average, only 11 acres each, too small even for inclusion in the small farmers scheme. There are another 53,500 holdings with an average acreage of 31 and more than 71,000 holdings of 68 acres on average.
  It is true that some of these small units are run on a part-time basis, but I have knowledge of smallholdings in my constituency comprised of only 11 or 12 acres which provide full-time employment for the men and their families. Acreages do not of themselves necessarily determine viable units. One must take into account many other factors, primarily the quality of the land, the type of holding and the ability of the individual to manage it.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that any scheme concerning farm structure was a voluntary matter. I hope that the emphasis on voluntary amalgamation will be spelt out loud and clear,

  1275
  because there are many men in occupation of small units who are extremely concerned about the future, while others who are seeking to become occupiers of smallholdings as a means of advancing their way of life are also apprehensive about their future possibilities.
  The fear has been expressed that once the Bill becomes law some large-scale farmers or landowners might seek to exercise pressure on those who occupy small units. Therefore, the fact that we are considering voluntary amalgamations cannot be emphasised too strongly, if only to reassure existing smallholders and prospective small farmers that they need not fear absorption by large farmers or landowners.
  Despite the vast number of small units throughout the country, amalgamation when properly applied on a purely voluntary basis must be a good thing in this age of mechanisation. The Bill will not do anything new in this direction, although it will, without doubt, accelerate the process of amalgamation. I say that because in recent years almost 3,000 small units have gone out of existence. The Bill will provide financial encouragement to those who wish to give up their small units and, as I say, it will probably accelerate the process of amalgamation for which the Government are hoping.
  While I have some remarks to make about local authority-owned small units, I appreciate that the Wise Committee is considering this matter and that we must await its Report to see what pattern is proposed. This is an important aspect because such is the extent of smallholdings controlled by local authorities that in the County of Norfolk alone there are more than 400 applications for such holdings. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Government to do anything which would deny people the opportunity to achieve their ambition to become smallholders on local authority land. We must realise that some of the most efficient farmers started in a small way. Many of them acquired small units from local authorities and, as a result of their initiative, enterprise and knowledge of the industry, were ultimately able to secure viable larger units.
  Mr. Godber: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument,
  1276
  but when he says that he is sure that his right hon. Friend will not contemplate changes, is he saying that with knowledge or in an interrogatory sense?
  Mr. Hazen: As I explained, we must await the Report of the Wise Committee. No one is in a position to determine the recommendations which will come from its deliberations. I can only express my hope that full encouragement will be given to those wishing to acquire smallholdings from local authorities when the Report is ultimately to hand.
  The aspects of the Bill which deal with co-operation are to be welcomed because for many years we have been stressing the value of co-operation among farmers. One of the greatest problems confronting the small farmer today is that in many instances he is over-capitalised; that he cannot utilise his equipment to its full capacity. Thus, the sharing of equipment as well as sharing in the buying of supplies is essential, and co-operation of this sort must be good for both the small farmer and the economy of the nation. The steps envisaged for encouraging cooperation are greatly to be welcomed, and I hope that small farmers will take full advantage of the opportunities that will ultimately be available to them.
  I hope that farmers co-operating in the sale and purchase of supplies and the utilisation of mechanical equipment will not lose sight of the need to co-operate in the use of labour. In recent years there has been a continual movement of labour from the land to our major industries, and the National Plan itself envisages a continuation of that drift. Between 30th September, 1964, and 30th September, 1965, no fewer than 20,600 workers left agriculture, a rate of movement similar to that which has gone on for the past 10 or 12 years. I have no doubt that this drift will continue for a few more years yet, and as that will leave us with a very small labour force it will be necessary, if that force is to be used to the best advantage, for a measure of cooperation to be applied in this direction. Experiments are already taking place. In the areas surrounding the industrial cities, agricultural manpower is already at a low ebb, and if that movement goes much further the co-operative use of labour will become an absolute necessity.

  1277
  With agricultural manpower continuing to run down, the small force remaining will have to be highly trained. I therefore hope that, in the knowledge that this development is bound to grow, the industry will do everything possible to create an industrial training board, so that those left in agriculture may be highly skilled to apply themselves to the changing techniques that will come about. Along with adequate training through the industrial training board there will have to be built up a wages structure that will convince the agricultural worker that his future arid his earnings can, and will, compare with the future and earnings available in industry in general. Unless that is done, agriculture's desire to increase production and productivity will be hampered by lack of sufficient men to handle the machinery and equipment.
  I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Grantham welcome Clause 61, which amends the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948. Having been engaged in wage negotiations at national level for over 20 years, I know that when the 1948 Act was passed the then Minister was quite certain that it enabled the Agricultural Wages Board to negotiate a basis for the payment of wages during sickness. The employer and the trade union representatives on the Wages Board had almost reached agreement when it was found that such an agreement could not be legally enforced under the Act.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the best farmers do make contributions to their sick workers—that is generally recognised and appreciated by their employees—but among so many farmers there must be some black sheep. This Amendment of the 1948 Act will, therefore, be generally welcomed, but the basis of sick pay and its duration will have to be determined by the employer and trade union representatives on the Board once this Measure is enacted. But I am sure that given the power, the Board will reach conclusions that will be of tremendous benefit to agricultural workers.
  In this brief discussion we cannot take full account of all that this Measure will be able to do. Clause 9 has been rightly referred to, but other Clauses are very wide-reaching, and we shall probably be able to grasp the Bill's implications more fully in Committee. I hope that my right
  1278
  hon. Friend will not overlook the need for worker representation. I welcome the Bill. I know that my own trade union is giving it full support. When it becomes law, it will be another step on the path of progress, and will give further encouragement to the industry as a whole. I wish the Bill every success. It shows that the Government are vitally concerned about agriculture and its prosperity.
  5.38 p.m.
  Sir Richard Nugent: I can find nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) with which I do not agree. If it is true that his party is primarily urban and industrial, I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be a very effective voice speaking on the side of agriculture.
  As so many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate I shall limit my remarks to Clause 4—or Part IV, rather; "Clause 4" may have too much of a political connotation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) I welcome this Part, which deals with co-operative activities. We have at present no fewer than six different co-operative marketing schemes, and the necessity far bringing them together into one comprehensive whole is very real. The proposal to set up a Central Council which will be comprehensive, and will bring all these schemes together, including co-operation for production, is completely right, and will give valuable new impetus to the whole co-operative development.
  The need for extension of production has been established by the Agricultural Marketing Development Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), a former Minister of Agriculture, produced the scheme and a very admirable one it was, as a sort of private venture in this field. It was a scheme only for co-operation in marketing but, because of the imagination of the Minister of Agriculture, we were allowed to stretch it to the sphere of production. It is impossible to make improvements in agricultural marketing unless improvements are made in production as well. The Bill is rightly drafted in this respect and I welcome its provisions.
  The new Central Council will have a great opportunity before it, because it

  1279
  will bring together the major interests in agriculture and horticulture and some independent leaders in public life from outside. This will give a chance of a new start to be made in co-operation in agriculture by which I hope we can achieve harmony 'and forget some of the frictions which handicapped the industry in the past. We have been rather slow in getting co-operation in agricultural marketing going in this country, much slower than many of our competitors in Western Europe and in the New World. The time is long overdue to give even greater impetus to it.
  The pace which the big farmer is setting in the whole farming world today is tremendous. Our big farmers are as efficient, if not more efficient, than any farmers in the world. They are tremendously efficient. The result is that unit costs are very low and they are highly competitive. They set a tremendous pace which is hard for the small and medium-sized farmer to follow because of the handicaps in unit costs. The best chance of the small and medium-sized farmer to compete with the big man is to combine in co-operative schemes for production and marketing.
  The kind of schemes which I have seen in recent years show that this can be done. I think of a typical scheme of a number of small and medium-sized potato growers in the eastern counties who came together for production, processing and marketing. One buys all the potatoes and plants them and they all join together for harvesting. They bring the potatoes together in a central store where they are centrally graded, packed and marketed from the whole group. They are sold under a brand name for which they have acquired a good reputation. Very rapidly they get a better market and better price for the potatoes as they are directly related to consumers and they benefit all round.
  This is a prototype of what we should like to see. I have seen it in relation to all kinds of commodities. In many of them it goes only part of the way, for instance in pig weaning and calf rearing schemes where the animals are sold to fatteners and not always followed through so that the producer does not have direct contact with the consumer. It is
  1280
  important that he should have the final relationship.
  There are several advantages in cooperative marketing. There is more efficient production and the schemes can reduce costs by sharing machinery and by phasing production and obtaining a continuous flow. By bringing produce together there can be more efficient handling and preparation for the market. The ultimate value is a big enough volume of products to get a direct relationship either with the big retailers, the supermarkets, or the big wholesalers, who in turn are directly related to the market so that the individual producer will be directly related to consumer taste.
  This is the vital point, to get producers used to the disciplines of the market. No Government, however strict they may be, are ever so strict as the consumer, the housewife, but the rewards are considerable for the producers who study this aspect and relate their production to it. This means not only grading and preparing produce in better form, but in the production using different methods of management and breeding so as to breed the right kind of animal, the right kind of bird, or plant to suit consumer taste.
  I have in mind a scheme of a group of broiler producers who get a premium of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. over the average market price because they are selling the kind of bird which has a flavour to it, which is quite a rarity today. It is bred, produced, managed and processed in a fashion which puts it on the counter in a condition in which the housewife is prepared to pay more for it than for others. These are the rewards which producers can get if they make full use of co-operative marketing schemes. This we should encourage.
  In the White Paper behind the Bill there is reference to the need for a contractual relationship between the individual producer and the society, group or company with which he is connected. This is basically right in principle, but it must be applied with flexibility. The White Paper speaks of the need for producers to be bound by contractual relationship to their societies. If that were insisted upon in the statutory scheme it

  1281
  would rule out all the existing co-operative societies we now have with very big trading schemes.
  AMDEC has grant-aided many existing co-operative schemes for commercial marketing groups and they have found no difficulty in getting the necessary discipline into the schemes by confining the contractual relationship to a particular product but not for all the members of the society concerned. That is not possible. I urge the need for flexibility in applying this principle. It is right to apply it, but it must be flexible so that we do not rule out the great contribution which these large old-established societies can make. The large societies are rather anxious about this. They are concerned with trading in requisites for their members. They look rather askance at the Bill and ask, "What has it for us?". It has a great deal for them in promoting marketing and production schemes for their members. The Minister should see that it is fairly put over to them that they have a part to play. The draft scheme, when it comes into operation, should be flexible enough to see that they play that part.
  I come to the concern of AMDEC with promotion of co-operatives which is to be transferred to the Central Council. It is right that it should be combined in the Central Council, and to absorb AMDEC completely into the new Central Council would be an advantage in reducing the number of bodies working in this field. There would be an advantage in terms of staff because we want to bring all staff in, and the experience of the N.F.U. and so on, under the Central Council. If AMDEC continues in a truncated form it will still be doing much administrative work in this scheme and I am afraid that may lead to a great deal of confusion. I doubt whether what would be left would be a really viable unit and I ask the Minister to look again at this problem.
  One final point about the Minister's general policy on encouraging co-operative development is the relationship with the producer marketing boards. The two producer marketing boards—the Egg Marketing Board and the Wool Marketing Board—are causing a great deal of anxiety at present, for different reasons.
  1282
  The Wool Marketing Board has announced its intention of generally developing its trading activities, which will go directly into the sphere now being filled by agricultural co-operatives, trading in requisites of all kinds. It is perfectly within the Board's scheme that it should do this, but each marketing board has a statutory responsibility to encourage cooperation. Clearly, if the Board develops in this fashion it will cut right across the existing co-operatives.
  The Egg Marketing Board has caused a different kind of problem by announcing a new scheme for a contract system. We all welcome the contract system. I think that it is a good system. However, the Board has announced its intention of making all payments for eggs centrally from the Board to producers and cutting out the packing stations. There are several hundred co-operative packing stations. They are very worried about the effect this will have upon them. They fear that their very existence is threatened by this, that it will basically disturb the loyalty of their members. They also feel that it will not cut costs, because they will have to continue to keep storage records. After all, they have to collect and handle the eggs. They will still have to keep all the records. Therefore, it does not seem that the new scheme will effect any economy in recording and accounting costs, but it will cause immense damage to producer packing stations.
  Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider the activities of both these Marketing Boards. What is needed is a balance. Of course it is right for producer marketing boards to develop their activities, but they have an obligation to encourage and assist the development of agricultural and horticultural co-operatives generally. As these Boards are now proceeding, their developments endanger the Minister's policy of the general development of cooperatives. I know that the Minister has a statutory position to protect here, but I hope he will take note of the great anxiety there is about this. I hope that in due course he will be able to clarify the position. With those few words, I welcome this Part of the Bill, because I feel it will be of great benefit in the farming world.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. David Ensor: On St. Andrew's night it is appropriate to welcome two Scottish Members who in due course will be winding up this debate. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the statement of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that the ayes were not behind us on this side of the House.
  I shall spend a little time discussing the general situation with regard to agriculture. I commend the Bill to the House as a great piece of legislation, the greatest piece of agricultural legislation since 1947. It will be of great assistance, not only to the farming community as a whole, but to the population in general and to the housewife in particular.
  The farming community has always been different. There are problems. Those of us who have farmed and who have practical experience know that what suits the grain farmers of the Eastern Counties obviously does not suit the feeders of the West Country. This is an inescapable fact. It must be remembered that my right hon. Friend is not only Minister of Agriculture. He is also Minister of Food. As such, he has a dual responsibility to the people—not only to the farmers, but to those who buy their products. This is often overlooked.
  Of course, the farming community is different. We need only recall the events of last February, when there were some very astonishing performances by farmers, by members of the National Farmers' Union, and by many others, who said that the Minister was a monster. It was even suggested that he should be violently assaulted. It was said that agriculture would be ruined and that there was no future for it. A lot of silly little notices in blue, purple, red, pink, and darker blue, appeared by the side of roads throughout the countryside. I strongly suspect that they were illegal, if I remember my law aright.
  Be that as it may, it can never be suggested and it has never been suggested, except by Mr. Neville Chamberlain 35 years ago, and he did not know much about it, that we could ever produce all the food we need. It is a physical impossibility. In spite of all the moans and groans of last February, it is interesting to note that, although my right hon.
  1284
  Friend gave only ld. on milk, production has increased. I can tell the House what would have happened if my right hon. Friend had increased the Id. to 2d., 2½d. or 3d. It would have been the same story of four or five years ago, when milk was poured down the drain.
  It was all rather unpleasant. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite said rather unpleasant things six to eight months ago—that agriculture would be ruined, that milk farmers would be out of business, and so on. Nobody has ever thought to give my right hon. Friend the credit for what he did about keeping steady the cost of living of agricultural products. What they wanted was to throw stones at him, to shoot him, to run him over by trucks, and heaven knows what. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) may laugh, but that is what they said. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is to wind up for the Opposition tonight. Perhaps he will tell us what the Conservatives would have done in the circumstances with regard to beef, milk and marketing generally.
  One of the troubles which has beset agriculture for more years than I care to remember has been the disorder in marketing. One of the things which my right hon. Friend did—here let us give credit to right hon. and hon. Members opposite—was to take up what they had suggested with regard to cereal marketing. It was a sound idea. It was an attempt to put cereal marketing on a sound basis. By the Bill the Government are trying to do something with regard to other products, and this can only be of ultimate benefit to everybody concerned. Of course, there are difficulties in marketing. There always have been, but one of the problems in agriculture has been principally the marketing of meat. I include in that beef, mutton and pork. It has always been a problem and always will be unless we have controlled marketing in the sense that is provided in the Bill.
  I have a slight knowledge of this matter, because I have seen in operation a system where marketing runs riot and one has high prices for the producer one week and low prices for him the next, but the price to the consumer never varies. This is a fact and it is one of

  1285
  our troubles. We have always had this situation, because between the producer on the farm and the consumer there are far too many middlemen who for years have battened on both the farmer and the housewife. This has been the case with meat and poultry. The Bill will do a great deal to get rid of this unpleasant situation. It is bound to do so, provided that we bring in a system of orderly marketing combined with co-operation.
  In 60 years Denmark, a small country devoted totally to agriculture, has by its energy and its system of co-operation made itself into one of the greatest agricultural countries that the world has ever seen. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me in saying that. This is the kind of system that we need in this country, but we shall never get it if we allow ourselves to get into a state of marketing chaos. We want co-operation, and I speak now only of one aspect of the Bill.
  On 27th October the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said in another place that in his view there was a possibility that as a result of the setting up of a Meat and Livestock Commission the price of meat might go up by one farthing a pound to the consumer. I hesitate always to impute anything but the purest of motives to hon. Members opposite, but I suggest to them that they may have forgotten what Lord Champion went on to say, which was that although possibly in the first instance the price of meat might go up by that amount, spread over the entire operation and over a long period there would probably be in the end a reduction in the price of meat. I am sure that the Minister will agree.
  I now come to something which I find slightly distasteful. On 22nd December last, when I was a new Member of the House, I spoke in the debate on the Second Reading of the Cereals Marketing Bill when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffths) decided, after I had spoken, to make a personal attack upon me to the effect that I knew nothing about agriculture, knew less about cereal marketing and less about anything else. I find this distasteful and unfortunate.
  I felt that today I should deal with these allegations, if possible. I therefore wrote to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds but I see that he is not here.
  1286
  I told him that I intended to mention him by name. In the circumstances I feel that it would not be the right thing to deal with the allegations that he made against me because I would wish to say what I wanted to say to his face. As he is not here I do not propose to do so.
  This is a good Bill. It is a Bill in the tradition of Lord Williams and in the tradition of putting agriculture on its feet. The House should congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing it forward. It is a long Bill, which no doubt will take us a long time to discuss, but I am sure that it will do nothing but good to the farmers, to the housewives, and to the people in the country generally.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: I hope that it will put the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) in a better mood if I say that I am sure that he knows much more about meat marketing than I do. I cannot, though, share his displeasure that there has been an increase in milk production. There is plenty of room for more milk in the making of cheese and butter and I hope that the Minister will see that more is produced.
  I will not follow the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe in his remarks on meat marketing, but I would say, first, that I am very disappointed that the Minister has reduced the grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. There is a tremendous need for modern buildings in the country and I believe that we shall find it necessary to replace farm buildings much more often than has been done in the past. Many of these buildings are 100 years old. We shall have to look at the likelihood that farm buildings will need replacing every 20 years or so. I therefore deprecate this cut.
  I cannot but feel that cuts like this, and the cut in the Territorial Army, are being made to increase aid for housing, but if housing is so important why cannot improvements to workers' houses be included in approved expenditure under the Farm Improvement Scheme? We can include housing for cows and calves and pigs, but we can never obtain a grant to build housing for farmworkers. The result is that everybody is doing up old houses in an uneconomic way in order to obtain a grant rather than building

  1287
  new houses. If the Minister says that this is a matter for the Minister of Housing, I would point out that it is possible under the Hill Farming Scheme to obtain assistance to do up houses for workers. I know there is also provision in the Housing Act for subsidies for the housing of agricultural workers, but this has been disappointing. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that very few houses in Scotland are built with assistance from this subsidy.
  I come now to the question of amalgamations. In Galloway there are not very many really small farms. There are farms of between 50 to 70 acres which are what one might call family farms. Many years ago, I read a very good book called "The Farming Ladder", by Frank Henderson, in which he showed that farms of this size could be very productive and, in fact, more productive per acre than the much larger farms. In my experience, the farm of this sort of size is doing quite well, being run by the family. The shoe is beginning to pinch, however, on the farm of about 120 to 150 acres, while those of the next larger size, 300 acres or so, are perfectly all right.
  Will it he possible to amalgamate two farms of 120 to 150 acres to make a really good unit in economic terms? The farmer with about 120 acres is finding difficulty. In dairy areas he has to employ a dairyman who must be paid a high wage. In arable areas he cannot have the benefit of the range of machinery which the bigger farm can have. Will it be possible to obtain grants to amalgamate farms of 120 to 150 acres? In economic terms, such amalgamations could well be a good development.
  I hope that the Minister will leave a good number of the family farms of 50 to 70 acres. One of the reasons why we have had such good relations between farmers and workers in agriculture is that a worker who has worked hard and saved has had a chance of climbing the farming ladder and getting one of these small farms. In my experience, many of them have done well in that way. Nowadays, with the tremendous requirement for capital to start in a big farm, if we do away with too many of the smaller farms we shall make the farming ladder look
  1288
  more like the sort of ladder one sometimes used to see in a stockyard, with two or three rungs knocked out of it, so that the worker will not be able to climb up at all.
  Now the rural development boards. In the hill areas there are problems. There are rivalries between farming and recreation, between farming and tourism, between farming and natural beauty, and several other rivalries besides, but none of these represents any problem at all compared with the contest between sheep and trees. It is much too simple to say, as the Minister did in his White Paper, that farming and forestry are complementary. They can at times be complementary, but generally they are in collision. It is far too simple to say, also, that the good land should be left to the farmer and the bad land go to the forester. Trees are a crop like anything else, and, naturally, trees prefer to have good land rather than bad.
  A great deal depends on the economic circumstances of hill farming. Before the war, sheep farming was very much down and the Forestry Commission was able to purchase land in forests like Kielder and Glentrool which ought never to have been planted at all. When, after the war, the Commission continued with the inexorable planting of good sheep farms, a great deal of bitterness was caused in the hill country. Once land has been cleared and planted as forest land, it is most unlikely—the task is very difficult—that it will ever go back to farming again.
  After the war, because of this bitterness, it became very difficult for the Forestry Commission to obtain land, but the situation has of late turned the other way again, now that sheep farming is again not doing very well. The price of mutton has hardly gone up at all in the last 10 years. As a result, the Forestry Commission is now buying farms and planting land which really ought not to be planted at all.
  The important need is to get the economic position of sheep farming right, with a better price for mutton and some longterm assurance that these hill farmers will be needed. Second, the Forestry Commission must give up its system of planting whole farms and be encouraged to plant much more by way of small blocks

  1289
  of trees, working, perhaps, for a farmer and planting shelter belts or for a landowner and planting on an agency basis. In this way, a better sense of land use in the hill areas could be developed. I go so far as to say that tenant farmers in hill areas should be allowed to plant trees themselves and have a statutory right for compensation on their waygoing for trees which have been planted.
  I am not at all happy that the Forestry Commission should be allowed to plant trees without having to obtain permission from the rural development board. If this control is to be put on the private forester, there seems little reason, in the light of the past history, why the Forestry Commission also should not come under the same control.
  I can give only a lukewarm welcome to the rural development boards. There is a problem in the hill areas which can be solved only by getting the economic relationship between sheep and trees right. I should like to see a committee like the Mackenzie Committee, which sat on the economics of hydro-electric power as against conventional generation, to consider the economics of hill farming and forestry and decide what is the best use for many of these areas. It seems to me that the appointment of the rural development boards is no more than recognition by the Government that there is a problem here and the passing of the buck to yet another committee.
  Apart from those points, I think that the Bill contains quite a few good things, and I give it a qualified welcome.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Conlon: I give a general welcome to the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on the presentation of this the first comprehensive Measure on agriculture submitted to the House since 1947. Considering that my right hon. Friend took office a mere 11 months ago, it is to his credit that this comprehensive Bill has been prepared in such a short time. I say this in spite of the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who complained that the Bill had been prepared hurriedly. In my view, such a Bill ought to have been presented a long time ago, but the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member was concerned only
  1290
  to call for reports on various sections of agriculture and then to do very little about those reports when they came along.
  I shall devote my remarks to a section of the industry which has not been mentioned in the debate and which does not receive a great deal of attention in the Bill itself. I do not complain about this too much. It may well be said that our system of slaughtering—this is the subject I shall discuss—was dealt with in an Act passed in 1958 and, moreover, the Meat and Livestock Commission will itself have overall powers to supervise and co-ordinate the work of slaughterhouses. I quite appreciate that, for these reasons, it may well be thought right that the Bill should not give much attention to our slaughtering system.
  I believe that I ought to draw to the attention of the House what I consider to be the unsatisfactory arrangements for slaughtering. I ought to make it perfectly clear before I begin that my view is that there must be a greater concentration of slaughtering. The present arrangements for the slaughter of animals fall far behind standards required in other countries. Indeed, they are not up to the standards now required in most food processing industries. Since the 1958 Act some notable improvements have been made. The regulations made under that Act have required certain minimum standards to apply. But I emphasise that these are minimum standards. In my view, they do not go far enough.
  Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the approved code of sanitary regulations applicable to meat imported by the O.E.C.D. countries requires slaughterhouse premises, equipment and operation of a much higher standard than is specified in the regulations under the 1958 Act. Even slaughterhouses built since 1958 and operated to the full standards laid down in the regulations under the 1958 Act do not in many cases comply with the requirements for the export of meat to other European countries. As a result, only a very small number of British slaughterhouses are approved to conduct an export trade.
  I believe that the principal reason for this situation and the general unsatisfactory standards of slaughtering in this country in the past and at present is the unsatisfactory method for the operation

  1291
  and practice of slaughtering in units which are not large enough to enable maximum use to be made of modern equipment and processes. In a slaughterhouse with a large throughput full use can be made of mechanical equipment throughout the various slaughtering and dressing processes. The use of this type of equipment can achieve economies in operation by increasing the output per man, although I agree that the provision of this equipment will entail additional capital costs in the construction of slaughterhouses. Nevertheless, I believe that labour saving is just one of the many advantages.
  In addition, the use of mechanical aids can mean that a better carcase can be produced. The suspension of carcases throughout the dressing operations not only achieves a very high standard of hygiene but also permits a better bleeding of the animal, which produces meat of an improved eating and keeping quality.
  A further advantage to be achieved by some measure of concentration of slaughtering is the facilitation of grading procedure. If the carcase classification system envisaged in the Bill is adopted, this would similarly operate more easily and more consistently if a smaller number of slaughterhouses was in use. It is significant of the conservative attitude that many members of the meat trade have that an important factor in the proper conditioning of carcase meat after slaughter—I am referring now to rapid chilling, which is common practice throughout Europe and America—is still not in general use in this country, even though experiments have shown that bacterial growth and contamination of the carcase are greatly reduced by the process. Such a system can be economically used only when the throughput is large enough to justify the very high capital costs entailed in the installation of the equipment. This is another reason why concentration of slaughtering is necessary.
  Allied to the high hygiene standards which a large abattoir of this kind would present is the vital question of meat inspection. Past practices in this country have left a great deal to be desired. Although the meat inspection service has been proud of its record—I am not casting
  1292
  any aspersions against the meat inspection service because it is doing a very fine job under most difficult conditions—and has claimed in the past that it operates a 100 per cent. meat inspection service, I suggest that with the proliferation of slaughterhouses that we have had in this country that has not been possible. A policy of 100 per cent. meat inspection has now been adopted and this is obviously essential to the public good.
  The 1963 meat inspection regulations specify in exact detail what is now required and, indeed, they constitute a new bible for the meat inspector. But they do not make clear how the meat inspector can achieve the high standard required if he is to perform meat inspection in two or more separate slaughterhouses when the slaughtering is done at the same time. Full compliance with the requirements of 100 per cent. meat inspection becomes possible only if some degree of concentration of slaughterhouses is brought about, and this is another argument why we should rationalise and concentrate the slaughtering industry.
  I want to indicate what the problem is and to show by figures just how far the Minister, the Government and the nation will have to go if they are to bring about a complete transformation of the slaughtering industry. For 25 or 30 years there has been a general tendency towards concentration. The tendency was accelerated by the controls imposed during the war, and at the end of the war the slaughtering was being done by agents for the Government in a very small number of slaughterhouses. Prior to the war there were about 12,000 private slaughterhouses in England and Wales and a further 120 public slaughterhouses provided by local authorities.
  On decontrol of the meat industry in 1954, there were only 477 slaughterhouses in use, including 190 owned by local authorities. It was at this time that the Government called for a report from the Inter-departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses. This related to England and Wales and excluded Scotland. The Committee was asked to prepare a plan recommending in what localities, subject to a policy of moderate concentration, slaughterhouses, other that those in bacon factories, should be sited for the slaughter of cattle, sheep and pigs.

  1293
  Thus, the then Government were thinking of some policy of concentration. But the results since seem to deny the intention implied in the terms of reference given to the Committee. With the Government in 1953 tnd 1954 thinking in terms of concentrating slaughtering, one expected this to be a decent base line from which rationalisation of the industry could take place because only a small number of slaughterhouses were in operation at the time.
  But what happened? Instead of there being a rationalisation and concentration of the industry, by 1962 the number of slaughterhouses in England and Wales had risen from 477 to 3,059. It is now estimated that when the full effects of the 1958 Regulations are felt, the number will be reduced to about 2,200—still too many, in my view. I am trying to make the case that there should be greater concentration of facilities for slaughtering, and I want to indicate what I believe are the advantages that can be derived from such a system.
  First, I believe that there would be improved supervision of hygiene; secondly, meat inspection could be carried out more readily and consistently; thirdly, better carcase meat would be produced if full use were made of modern equipment and techniques; fourth, there would be increased efficiency from the use of laboursaving equipment; fifth, there would be a greater degree of supervision of the treatment of animals; sixth, the grading of meat and carcase classifications as envisaged in the Bill would be carried out more easily.
  I do not complain that the Bill does not specifically deal with this matter because I am sure that my right hon. Friend would refer me to Clause 9, which will enable the Commission to make recommendations to him
  "… for the rationalisation or concentration of a section …"
  of the livestock industry, including
  "… a reduction in the number of undertakings engaged."
  The proposal to confer such powers under Clause 9 is welcome in so far as the Commission will be able to consider and make recommendations on rationalisation of the slaughtering industry. It is to be hoped that the Commission will give serious consideration
  1294
  to the advantages to be achieved by effecting some measure of concentration for the slaughtering industry. Clause 9(2) says:
  "A development scheme may make provision for the rationalisation or concentration …"
  Clause 9(5,b) says:
  "… may be made by way of an experimental or pilot scheme restricted to a specified area or specified undertakings or specified persons."
  In this case, I can readily think that there are opportunities—or, at least, one golden opportunity—for such a pilot scheme or experiment along the lines I have indicated. In the final report of the Inter-departmental Committee, published in July, 1955, the country was broken up into regions which it was felt should be provided with reasonable slaughterhouse facilities. Region No. 101, according to appendix 6, is based on the Manchester area. In that area there are two county boroughs—Manchester and Salford—eight boroughs, seven urban districts and one rural district, with a total population of 1,311,500.
  Here is a golden opportunity to attempt a pilot scheme for experiment along the lines that I have suggested, because that region, in the near future—certainly in the next few months—will have a very large factory abattoir coming into operation. It is to be equipped for the receiving of animals, for their bedding and resting, for slaughtering on the line system, for conditioning rooms which provide for rapid chilling, and for the marketing of the meat for sale to the retailer. If the Minister or the Commission think of choosing an area for such an experiment, I suggest the Manchester area in the near future.
  If full advantage is to be taken of the benefits made possible by the rationalisation of the slaughtering industry, including some degree of controlled concentration, some central action may be required and the Bill will, I hope, provide the necesary opportunities for this.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) spoke very good sense about many of the problems of slaughtering. No one in this House can be happy about

  1295
  either the transport or the slaughtering of cattle. But the corollary of his demand for centralisation of slaughtering is to increase the distance that cattle must be transported. I believe that the answer is in a balance, but undoubtedly this will be a matter to be looked at by the new Meat and Livestock Commission. I have my own views about the value of the Meat and Livestock Commission, because I always think that it is a little doubtful whether it is wise to select the ignorant to advise and give information to the experts about problems which until now the experts have been unable to solve. That is the key to this advisory commission. Everyone on the Commission is to know nothing about it before joining it. That is its weakness.
  Ministers have a habit of appointing retired generals to solve all the difficult problems in civilian life. I never thought that it worked very well with P.I.D.A., which we are now burying in the Commission. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether some of the people joining the Commission ought not to have some knowledge of the matters which they are to discuss. I always found that the general view of the pig industry was that P.I.D.A. was a very expensive advisory authority and I fear that the Meat Commission will also be a very expensive advisory authority. The Minister told us that its cost would be about 10s. to 15s. a head for every beast slaughtered, a higher estimate than that recently made in the farming Press. I hope that the Commission will justify its heavy costs and that in the appropriate Price Review the Minister will take account of the fact that farmers will have that greater burden on their costs of production.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is a ragbag of gimmicks. Some of them are good, but about others we are rather doubtful. However, the Bill is definitely retrograde in Clause 29. The system of farm improvements, which was introduced by the last Government, was highly successful, but had one weakness. The criticism often levelled at it was that it helped the rich farmer on the fertile land far more than the struggling upland farmer.
  I will try to draw the present pattern of British agriculture. The hill farmer, with his 50 per cent. grant for his farm
  1296
  improvement scheme and with hill cattle, hill farming and winter keep schemes, has been fairly reasonably helped by successive British Governments. I have always felt that the greatest credit should go to Lord Williams for having initiated the hill farming scheme which was a landmark in British agriculture and in this improvement successive Governments cooperated. The farmer on the rich fertile land has gained by the whole of the 1957 Act with long-term guarantees and sells a high proportion of what he produces and therefore gets all the benefit of guaranteed price and deficiency payment schemes. He is also the man with the larger capital.
  In between there is the upland farmer, the man mainly engaged in livestock rearing and sometimes producing a little milk, but not selling much of the produce of his arable land but requiring it for feeding his livestock. He gets no grant or deficiency payment for his milk and is ineligible for any other form of help which successive Governments have given, except the farm improvements scheme.
  Under the Bill, the help he gets for his improvements to make himself more economic is to be cut from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. I know that the Government will say that they are extending the range of improvements, but for whose benefit will that be? The major change in the schedule of improvements is for plant and machinery. That will not be for the benefit of the upland farmer, although it will be of immeasurable benefit to the rich farmer on fertile land who wants a corn drier and expensive dairy equipment. But it will be of no use to the small man in the range I am discussing, with some 70 to 150 acres of difficult land. Yet he requires help. The evidence of that is plain in the National Farmers' Union accounts scheme of last year when this group of farmers engaged in livestock rearing were found to have an average profit of £11 a week. That is a criticism of the agricultural policies of both parties for some time and we have to put it right.
  The Minister is making it more difficult, but even if such a farmer wanted expensive plant or machinery, with the present financial stringency he would not be able to bear his 75 per cent. share of the cost. I ask the Minister to review

  1297
  this part of his scheme. I know that it can be said that a committee is studying this matter, but the upland farmer has waited too long and while the committee is sitting it is wrong to put the clock back.
  Unfortunately, the Financial Resolution has been so tightly drafted that it will be difficult to deal with this problem in Committee. That is why I want to address all of my speech to it today. The right way to deal with the matter is to have a variable rate for improvements. If they are to make the necessary increase in productivity, not only for themselves and their own financial future, but to meet the needs of the country, most of these upland farmers will want to convert buildings to the umbrella type and probably also Dutch barns, which are of particular value to them. Improvements of this type are essential to the smaller farmers in difficult areas, and if they were given a higher rate of grant, certainly 33⅓ per cent. and I would prefer about 40 per cent., they would be able to make these improvements and their rate of grant would be between what is given to farmers in the hill farming areas and what is given to those in the rich lowland areas. It is reasonable that the grant should be only 25 per cent. for plant and machinery, but I would like there to be a greater amount for diversification.
  There is one other factor which 1 should like the Minister to consider. The First Secretary's National Plan shows that by 1970 we shall require, in 1964 values, another £78 million worth of meat and meat products. If that is not to be produced at home, it will have to be imported and that will make our balance of payment problems very much greater. We must therefore tackle the problem of getting more meat by encouraging the raw materials for the industry to be grown in the upland areas, particularly in the upland areas because it is more economic to grow raw materials for the meat industry, store cattle, store pigs and store sheep, up there than it is on the rich fertile lands where charges are very much higher. Therefore, there is a strong case for having a differential calf subsidy and for giving a much higher rate of subsidy for calves raised in hill farming and upland areas.
  That would mean that the farmers would have a greater incentive to turn
  1298
  from milk production to livestock rearing. When they get their monthly cheques for their milk production, it is difficult to persuade upland or hill farmers to turn over from milk production to livestock rearing. If it were possible to inject into a farmer's finances a regular payment by means of giving a much higher calf subsidy, I believe that this would be a means of getting the store cattle that we require. I therefore ask the Minister to think again about what he is doing in the way of farm improvements.
  We all, on both sides, have the same aims. We wish to see British agriculture growing a far greater proportion of the food that we require. We know that meat production will be a baffling problem for all the Western European countries in the next decade. Do not let us make it more difficult by the provisions of this Bill.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: In view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) towards the conclusion of his speech, may I say at the outset that although I share a name that is highly honoured in every part of the agriculture industry, I make no pretence at being an expert in either agriculture or butchery.
  However, as I ploughed through—if that is the right word—the Bill and as far as I have any competence to pass judgment, it seemed to me to be a pretty good Bill. I was encouraged in that judgment by such reviews and papers as I read about the Bill written by people more competent than myself. I was the more encouraged when I saw the niggardly praise that was given to the Bill by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), because it has been my experience in the House of Commons that on matters of which I know something right hon. and hon. Members opposite have usually been wrong.
  If I may hasten to the matters on which I may claim to have some little competence to speak, I will restrict what I have to say to Parts IV and V of the Bill and speak of them from the point of view of the co-operatives, the agricultural co-operatives in particular, on whose behalf I invite the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

  1299
  The Bill, they all agree, is a turning point in the Government's policy towards agriculture. My right hon. Friend has, I believe, received general good will and congratulations from all kinds of agricultural co-operatives for the interest and confidence that the Bill shows in agricultural co-operation. It is, how-eever, a pity that in doing this my right hon. Friend has nevertheless been guilty of some discourtesy to the co-operative movement, and it is right that I should say so.
  My right hon. Friend will say that he has consulted the co-operative representatives. I have, however, authority to say that that is not how they understand the way in which the Minister has dealt with them. Certainly, they have been told what my right hon. Friend proposes to do, but that is not the same thing as consultation. There is a sense of grievance—I must put it thus strongly—from both the Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives and from A.C.C.A. concerning the way in which my right hon. Friend has obtained the information and sought the guidance that he has sought and obtained concerning the Bill.
  Mr. Peart: I should hate to appear to be discourteous. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend can produce evidence of that. I believe the position to be the reverse. Whoever has advised my hon. and learned Friend about my approach is wrong.
  Mr. Williams: My right hon. Friend will already have had from the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association some cyclostyled comments, dated 22nd November, concerning Part IV of the Bill. Those comments contain a further memorandum relating to the Government's original White Paper on the development of agriculture. Those documents state that the Minister has, by the Bill and in the White Paper, turned away from or rejected
  "what has with much difficulty and very great sacrifice been accomplished in the past".
  The comments on Part IV of the Bill set out matters on which the co-operatives made substantial representation to the Minister with regard to the description of co-operatives, the people who were to take part on the council that was to be set up, and on the general function
  1300
  of the council in relation to co-operatives and the limitations that are laid upon them.
  The simple fact is that although those representations have been made, they have in general been ignored by the Minister, and the Bill has presented itself in this form, although my right hon. Friend must know that these are matters that cause great anxiety to the co-operatives.
  Mr. Peart: Consultations took place. Representations were made. I listened to the arguments. I have carefully considered the views. No Minister must be bound by any organisation that makes representations. It may well be that the body concerned disagrees with my decision, but that is a different matter; that is not discourtesy on my part.
  Mr. Williams: I am sorry to be in conflict in this way with my right hon. Friend, but it is just as well that he should know the views of those for whom I speak. Their complaint is that they were told by the Minister what he would do after he had received advice and had come to conclusions from persons who, in their judgment—and, indeed, in mine—were less competent to give him advice on co-operatives than others who had advised him.
  My right hon. Friend may say that that is consultation. It is not consultation, but instruction. The feeling of the co-operative movement is that what my right hon. Friend has done is to receive his advice from all sources except those who have spent their lives in the movement. He has come to conclusions in respect of co-operatives and their activities in Part IV of the Bill. Having done that, and not until then, he has told those who could have given him much help concerning this Part of the Bill, and whose advice would have enabled him to produce a better Bill, what he proposes to do. My right hon. Friend can call that what he likes, but neither those for whom I speak nor myself call it consultation.
  Let me deal with the things in particular of which complaint is made. The functions of the Council which is set up under the Bill are set out in Clause 52(2) with very considerable care, and, as the Minister knows, this is itself a

  1301
  matter of suspicion and anxiety. They include
  "co-operation and mutual assistance in production, storage, preparation for market, marketing, transport, the provision of buildings, equipment and services for farmers and other producers, research and other incidental activities.…"
  But the Minister has refused, and, as I understand it, continues to refuse, to put in the word which the agricultural co-operatives are desperately anxious to have included in the Bill, and that is "supply". The A.C.C.A. has set up cooperatives of all kinds, but it has to provide supply and marketing services to assist its members.
  It would seem to me that the Minister would be wise to encourage this aspect of agricultural co-operatives. The A.C.C.A. has told the Minister that, in its view, his unwillingness to include supply activities, which is part of cooperatives' general activities, will be a serious weakening of its position which in turn will temporarily at least weaken the supply societies which look to the A.C.C.A. for help and guidance. In due course I shall seek to have the Clause amended in Committee to include that word.
  The fear of the agricultural co-operatives—and again it is as well that their fear should be publicly ventilated so that it can be discussed—is that long before the agricultural co-operatives had any opportunity to express their mind to the Minister he had been persuaded by other interests to preclude them from organising, promoting and encouraging agricultural supply societies.
  The second matter in the Bill which it appears to me proper to draw to the Minister's attention and which unfortunately weakens it, in our considered opinion, is the constitution of the Council which is laid down in Clause 52(4). The Minister has been told by the Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives that, in its view, a wholly nominated Council would be preferable to the one that he has chosen. Of the 14 members of the Council, only a small minority will be nominated by co-operative associations. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that he disapproved of the tendency of Ministers to appoint ignorant people to boards. Dare I join with him and say
  1302
  that I disapprove of that, perhaps even more strongly.
  The Clause lays down no qualification for any of the members of the Council save for four of them and these four are people who, according to Mr. Knapp, in his report, at page 153, are in direct competition with co-operatives, namely, the N.F.U.
  Mr. Knapp says:
  "The N.F.U. is committed to the support of the A.C.T. which is in direct competition with co-operatives and although the N.F.U. is organically related to the A.C.C.A. and helps to finance it, it would be very difficult to say that the N.F.U. gives the A.C.C.A. its unqualified support".
  It is difficult to see what possible justification there is for allowing the N.F.U. to nominate four members of the Council when its commercial interests conflict with those of the co-operatives. It is wrong to leave out, save in minority number, the co-operatives and for the Minister to appoint six members in respect of none of whom are any criteria laid down.
  Mr. Godber: The hon. and learned Member has referred to the numbers of people on the Council. I do not think the House has been given any numbers. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us more about this?
  Mr. Williams: It is in Clause 52(4). The right hon. Gentleman should read the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman finished his speech?
  Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker. I gave way to allow the right hon. Member for Grantham to interrupt.
  Mr. Godber: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Williams: Since I have been in conflict with the Minister, I should say that I do not accuse him for one moment of failing in his duty to nominate people who, in his judgment, have the right qualifications for membership of the Council. But, although he is active and vigorous, he is, like the rest of us, mortal; even Governments are mortal.
  If I wished to be controversial, which I do not, I would say that this failure by the Government to lay down in the Bill qualifications of the kind, for instance,

  1303
  which the Secretary for Technical Cooperation, as he then was, laid down for members of a committee on colonial co-operatives, leaves a blank cheque to a successor whom, heaven forbid, he may have from the other side of the House utterly to destroy the agricultural cooperative movement in this context. Again, I have to give my right hon. Friend notice that I, or someone else, will seek to fill that lacuna in the Bill at a more appropriate time.
  I find it extraordinary that the Minister should have been so badly advised as to have put in Clause 58(8) words which, in law, are most undesirable and, to some degree, ambiguous. The Bill defines a co-operative association as
  "any body which is or is deemed to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts (Northern Ireland) 1893 to 1963."
  I have no doubt that the Minister's draftsman, when he put these words in the Bill, must have been tired, and went to Section 4 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, for the wording. But the meaning is different from the meaning in that Section of that Act. That Section of the 1965 Act refers specifically to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and sets out a number of societies which were then in existence—that is in existence before the 1893 Act—and which were deemed to be societies by reason of fulfilling the qualifications laid down in that Act. Once that Act was passed, it was definitive, and in my submission it is unnecessary, and indeed open to misconstruction, to have these words added to the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member is not going to argue this in detail. This seems to be a Committee point.
  Mr. Williams: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to do no more than give the Minister notice; for these are not just Committee points, but points of substance. A bona fide co-operative ought to be clearly defined as to its essential characteristics, and in this respect the Minister has been guilty of causing confusion and difficulty where none need exist. I leave that point lest I incur your wrath further, Mr. Speaker, but I
  1304
  shall raise it again if I have an opportunity of doing so.
  I fear that I have been hard on the Minister, but only because the co-operative societies, the agricultural co-operative societies particularly, are concerned lest, by default, a Bill of which generally they approve should do them injury from which, under another Administration, it would be difficult to recover, and which it would be impossible for them then to counter.
  In general, I commend the Bill to the House. I ask my right hon. Friend carefully to consider the criticisms that I have made, and I do so in the hope that when we discuss this matter again he will be able to meet us, having been persuaded by my arguments.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. George Forrest: I am both for and against the Bill. I have heard more talk against it than for it. As a Northern Ireland Member, to a great extent I am for it.
  I admired the Minister during the days when he was sitting on these benches. He was then the shadow Minister of Agriculture, and I thought that he modelled himself on Lord Williams, but since he has become the Minister he has disappointed me to a considerable extent. When the right hon. Gentleman was in Northern Ireland he was well received, and in two or three minutes I should like to express my views both for and against the Bill. The Minister knows that in Northern Ireland small farmers are in the majority, and if this Measure becomes law a number of them will be called on to give up their farms.
  The situation in Northern Ireland is entirely different from what it is here. Most of the farmers there are owner-occupiers. A number of farmers have inherited their land from their fathers, and they hold on to it as such. My constituency is the largest in Northern Ireland, and possibly the fourth largest in this House, and if this Bill goes through we will end up with only 500 farmers.
  I present myself to the House as an auctioneer. Very often when a farmer decides to sell his farm he calls on an auctioneer who can sometimes get him more money for his farm than he expects. Under these proposals, however, the

  1305
  auctioneer will be left out completely, because the sale has to be an agreed one. There has to be agreement for the takeover of the smaller farm. Unless I have got the situation wrong, this amounts to a take-over.
  On average, land in my constituency costs £200 per acre, taking the rough with the smooth. The farmer who owns 30 acres will therefore receive £6,000 for his property. No one will buy a farm in Northern Ireland, particularly an outlying farm, unless he gets full possession of the farmhouse. The farmer who has received £6,000 for his property will have to find other accommodation for his wife and children, and, being a farmer, he will not want to live in the city centre. He will build himself a house in the suburbs, which will mean he will take up good land for living purposes.
  It is very difficult for the small farmer in Northern Ireland to belong to a cooperative. The weather is against us. I know that the Minister is not responsible for that, even though many of us would like to blame him for it. This year has been the worst for the farmer for 20 years.
  Mr. Winterbottom: They always say that.
  Mr. Forrest: I do not know what sort of farm you have.
  Mr. Speaker: May I tell the hon. Member that I do not have a farm at all. He must address the Chair.
  Mr. Forrest: You are a very lucky man, Mr. Speaker. May I add that I have not one either, but I have had quite a number of farms on my books, and you will be pleased to know that they have all been tidied up and most of the commission has been paid. In Northern Ireland we work in a peculiar way, in that we expect to pay the commission after the purchase, or on the completion date. The auctioneer is going to be left out of things completely. We are going to get a drift away from the land, which will undermine the entire set-up there.
  I ask the Minister to consider this carefully, because if the people of Northern Ireland were to agree to these proposals five out of six farmers would be wiped out. It will be difficult to get employment in Northern Ireland where the un-
  1306
  employment rate is at present 5·5 per cent.—the lowest on record. If we wipe out all the small farmers—bearing in mind that that involves the employment of the farmer, his wife and possibly his son—the unemployment position will be even worse. I should very much like to get a much more satisfactory explanation from the Minister of what is to happen to the small farmers of Northern Ireland.
  7.21 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: The speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) reminds me of the great pleasure which I had when one of my duties as the junior Minister in the Home Office was to learn something about Ulster farming. I found it extremely complicated. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member over-simplified the situation; for instance, he did not mention con-acre. I trust that that still continues. It is one of the most complicated legal land-holding systems known to man. I am sure that the Minister will take it into consideration in any discussions which he has with the Government of Northern Ireland. But the basic point surely is that the scheme is voluntary, and there is no question of the hon. Member's constituents being forced out of farming. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reassure him on that point.
  Mr. Forrest: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that con-acre is still in operation and that the farmer can get between £10 and £20 per acre per year for his land. That is one of the reasons why the small farmers will be slow to move.
  Sir G. de Freitas: May I leave that point and return to the Bill?
  I should like to put on record that I was not here at the beginning of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams). Those were the only four minutes of the debate which I have missed. I did not hear my hon. and learned Friend's premises in his discussion on co-operation, and I am not sure that I necessarily agreed with his conclusions. As I did not hear his premises, I could not follow his argument fully.
  Before I deal with Part IV of the Bill, I wish to congratulate the Minister on having brought forward the Bill so early in the Session. It shows the importance

  1307
  which the Government attach to agriculture. I also thank the Minister for coming to my constituency in July to the opening of a new cattle market. In spite of the great industries in my constituency, such as steel and footwear, we are a farming county. The Borough of Kettering recognises this and has built this very expensive new market for the use of the farming community. In Kettering we recognise that a prosperous agriculture is as important to the five large towns as it is to the farmers and to the people living in the scores of villages around the towns. The farmers in my constituency play an important and full part in the huge national meat industry which is producing nearly £600 million of food a year. If the Meat Commission does its job, I believe that it will benefit not only the housewife and, in the long run, the butcher, but also the farmer.
  There are one or two points to which I want the Commission to pay particular attention. I want the Commission to give the farmer guidance as to whether he is producing the right animals, and I want the Commission to give guidance about whether he is selling these animals at the right time. It is fantastic that this vast industry has so little guidance given to it on these crucial matters.
  Secondly, the Commission must insist on more research, especially on what has been achieved abroad. It is a good sign, and greatly to the credit of the industry, that through co-operation the Charollais were brought into this country from France, and we shall see the result of that in time. It is very much to the industry's credit. We may be the greatest exporters of pedigree livestock, but we have everything to gain from looking around the world and, if we see anything better, bringing it into this country. We cannot afford to be self-satisfied and narrow-minded.
  To anyone interested in agricultural co-operation, the two most important documents of the past year were the Knapp Report in July and this Bill. They are closely connected. The Knapp Report generally praised agricultural co-operation, but it pointed out the anomalous rôle of the N.F.U. on the A.C.C.A. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington were here,
  1308
  because the fact is that the N.F.U. will be leaving the A.C.C.A. That is natural, because the N.F.U. will be represented at the heart of the organisation which will be set up. The big changes which one foresees in the organisation will have the result that the N.F.U. will be returned to the very heart of co-operation under Clause 52(5,a).
  To anyone who studied the Knapp Report, at first sight this might appear alarming, because, in the words of the Knapp Report, many of the N.F.U. leaders are interested in
  "activities or organisations that are frankly critical of co-operatives".
  But it is not as bad as it looks. We must recognise this, because it must not be assumed that members of the N.F.U. as a whole are critical of co-operation. I am a member of the N.F.U. and I am certainly not critical of co-operation. In fact, in the country many N.F.U. office holders are also office holders in cooperatives. But I think that it is right to make it clear that it will be healthier if the N.F.U. as an organisation leaves the co-operatives to the A.C.C.A. We can argue whether the N.F.U. is over-represented at the centre, but the N.F.U. should leave the cooperatives to the A.C.C.A.
  What about the future of the A.C.C.A.? Presumably the N.F.U. will leave and will take its grant with it. The Government grant will go. That will mean that the A.C.C.A. will be deprived of about one-third of its income. Possibly its title will again be shortened to A.C.A. The situation will be that in the next year, before the new Central Council gets under way, the A.C.A. will have the tremendous problem of carrying on although deprived of one-third of its budget.
  The Government have been very careful to stress their intention that the Central Council should work through existing organisations. It would be foolish of them not to do so, because all the experience exists in these organisations such as the A.C.C.A. But the next 12 months will be very difficult. The danger is that the A.C.C.A., weakened financially and with uncertainty about its future structure, may begin to run down because of this uncertainty and lack of funds. When in about 12 months' time the new Council

  1309
  wants to take advantage of the experience of the A.C.C.A., the people with the experience may no longer be there, and many of the services such as rabbit clearance, machinery syndicates and livestock grading, will have been stopped. Will the Minister work closely with the A.C.C.A. during the next 12 months so that, in the interests of agricultural cooperation as a whole, its good work is preserved?
  I did not hear the discussion between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington and my right hon. Friend, but I am distressed to find that already it looks as though the A.C.C.A. is not being consulted as much as it should be consulted. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) referred to the Egg Marketing Board. I do not know what consultation there has been in this matter, but I know that the way in which the Egg Marketing Board is carrying out its duties at present is killing the co-operative egg packing stations stone dead. I am no longer concerned with the production of eggs and I am no longer a director of a producer-owned co-operative egg packing station. However, having had some experience in this sphere, I know how an egg station works. I am aware of the way in which the Egg Marketing Board is operating the new centralised payments system and that it is bound to finish the co-operative egg packing stations, with all their services to producers.
  There may be a good reason for ending this co-operative system. If there is, the case should be argued as such. It is wrong that we should be here making polite noises about encouraging co-operation at a time when some of the largest co-operative organisations in the country are being killed by the Egg Marketing Board.
  I believe that, in the long run, the Bill will greatly help to foster co-operation, but I am worried about the conditions under which the grants will be made, for they could so easily lead to the fragmentation of the larger co-operatives because it looks, from what is stated in the White Paper, as if new organisations will be encouraged to hive off from the larger ones and then present themselves as new, young and poor—and thus eligible for grant. If the scheme insists on a con-
  1310
  stitutional relationship rather than on a contractual one I fear that this may happen; and only the small, single-purpose society will benefit from it.
  I do not understand why in this matter the Government should be more royalist than the king. Of course the co-operative movement always wants to see more loyalty among its members, but we have never suggested that it should be written in as a clause in the constitution. We do not want it that way. The arguments were widely canvassed in the Departmental Working Party's Report in January of this year, and I will not repeat them, since my right hon. Friend is only too well aware of them. The co-operatives themselves have not asked for compulsion. Indeed, they have good reason for not doing so.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will reassure us that, in drawing up the all-important Statutory Instrument, he and my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to the arguments of the bodies which represent the co-operatives, who fear the fragmentation of the cooperatives.
  I add my voice to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Guildford; why not give the new Council the flexible powers of AMDEC, which can pick and choose in the national interest? It rather looks as if the new Council will have no such powers and that it will support only one type of co-operative. AMDEC, on the other hand, has had great success with its wide powers, which enable it to pick and choose in the national interest.
  I have one further point to make on the question of co-operation. In 1967 there will be the 100th anniversary of the first British agricultural co-operative. I ask the Minister to lay plans to celebrate this event by inviting fellow cooperators on the Continent to visit us. I ask this, first, because it is right, if we have any sense of history, that there should be some occasion to mark this anniversary and, secondly, because it will enable us to meet our Continental colleagues who are engaged in co-operation. Within the next few years we may have a great deal to do with them and, in any case, we have a great deal to learn from them, particularly from the Dutch cooperatives.

  1311
  Four or five years ago I spent a few days in Holland and studied their auction system—the falling price system. I had gone to Holland because I had read of the great economies—the saving in time, staff and money—which the falling price system brought about. I also had the comparable figures for Rotterdam Market and Brentford Market. Rotterdam Market, about half the size of Brentford, had about 40 to 50 manual workers while Brentford employed between 350 and 400 workers. At Rotterdam there were three clocks and six clock operators while at Brentford there were 150 salesmen.
  Having been impressed by the falling price system, I was delighted to read some time later—it is now a few years ago; I was away abroad at the time—that an experiment was conducted with this system in Cheltenham and run by a producer co-operative. Alas, the experiment failed and I understand that the clock has been dismantled. I hope that the Minister will try to persuade some other body to experiment with such an auction system, for if it succeeds the advantages are enormous.
  We must be prepared to learn by our mistakes. After all, the Dutch have had 80 years in which to learn in this sphere. Eighty years ago a clever Dutchman tried to get round a Napoleonic tax on auctions and started the system of the falling price because it was found that, under Dutch law, auctions were defined as sales, as a result of prices being raised until one bidder remained. To avoid the tax, this speedy system of the falling price was built up. I understand that in Cheltenham, the only place where this experiment was carried out, the market was modelled on the most modern of the Continental auctions. Alas, the whole structure of our industry was not developed enough to take advantage of it.
  Sir Frederick Brundrett often refers to the problems created in our national life by the "N.I.H." factor—the "Not Invented Here" factor—the built-in difficulty of so many people, whether generals or farmers, to overcome their reluctance to ideas from abroad. In this case the co-operatives did overcome the N.I.H. factor and the Dutch clock auction system was tried. Unfortunately, the scheme failed. As I said, we must
  1312
  be prepared to learn from the past and I hope that this experiment will be tried again. It is not enough to adopt a technical device. It is essential that we adopt the system as well.
  In giving a Second Reading to the Bill we are recognising that our greatest industry cannot be left to itself. I have seen many Measures concerning agriculture. I like this one very much indeed, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having introduced it.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: We welcome the Bill because it speaks of expansion. We are glad to know that the Government have come to accept what the industry has always stressed—that, notwithstanding the increase in production over the years, we can still make a further substantial contribution to the nation's balance of payments problem.
  The straitjacket imposed by the Tories, by their standard quantities, and the failure of the Government at the last Price Review to promote the expansion which hon. Gentlemen opposite promised at the General Election severely taxed the confidence of the industry in its own future. That is another reason why we welcome this new approach.
  On reading the National Plan and White Paper one comes across what would seem to be somewhat contradictory statements. For instance, in one place the National Plan speaks of increased production to meet the growth in demand while, in another, it speaks of an annual rate of expansion in net output roughly comparable to that achieved over the past few years. Perhaps the Minister will explain the seeming discrepancy between these two targets.
  That the industry can provide the £200 million expansion called for by the Government there can be no doubt. One thing that is clear from past experience and must be stressed now is that there will not be equal room for expansion both for foreign and home producers. More home-grown cereals must mean less imported maize while more home-produced milk must mean less imported cheese and butter.
  Part I of the Bill deals with the setting up of the Meat and Livestock Commission and is designed to create greater efficiency

  1313
  in the industry and to protect the interests of the consumer. This is good in itself, but we do not by any means accept it as an alternative to a fatstock marketing scheme with statutory powers, as advocated by the National Farmers' Union over the years. Although the proposed method is useful, the Commission is expressly prohibited from support buying, or trading in support of the market. Our quarrel with this proposal is that it does not go far enough.
  Part II of the Bill deals with farm structure and farm improvements. Amalgamation sounds very well in theory, but it will be difficult to implement in practical terms in many areas. In the Highlands of Scotland it will be a very slow job indeed. In my opinion, and that of my party, the incentives offered to an ageing tenant or the tenant of a small unit are not likely to produce the response which the Bill envisages. This will be particularly true where the unit is already well equipped. Besides, it is still freely admitted now, as it has been in the past, that from the social and economic points of view the small farmer has a very important rôle to play in the industry.
  We should also be very careful that we do not destroy the farming ladder, to which reference has been made by several speakers. I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Haze11) say that at the present time there are 400 applications for smallholdings in his county. What is most important is that the Bill should ensure that no unit can be taken over by, or added to, an already large unit. I have no doubt that if it came to open competition many large farmers would be ready to outbid the small man.
  Part III deals with hill and upland areas. We are pleased to hear that additional items will qualify for grant, but we view with dismay the proposal to reduce the grants from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. This is most untimely. In the former scheme, many occupiers found great difficulty in raising the 66⅔ per cent. required of them to complete their schemes. The figure of 25 per cent. for item 10 of Schedule 3—reclamation of waste land—is totally inadequate. If we are to get increased production from our hills, it can be done only by large-scale reclamations, and for that purpose
  1314
  loans and grants of up to 80 per cent. at least would be required.
  We welcome the proposed rural development boards, as they have been part of the Liberal Party's policy for some time. Nevertheless, they would appear to be more relevant to England and Wales than to Scotland, where we now have our own Highland Development Board. One of the first duties of those boards must be to reconcile the interests of agriculture and forestry, in relation to both the Forestry Commission and the private landowner. In both sectors, good agricultural land has been planted because there is no proper cooperation between the two interests. We regret that they are not empowered by the Bill to lend money for rural industries, which can maintain the fabric of rural life. It is no good having a lot of large prosperous farms if no one else lives in the countryside. We find that the larger the unit the fewer people it employs, and this leads to depopulation.
  Part IV deals with co-operative activities, and here the interest shown by the Government in co-operation will be widely welcomed. The Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Cooperation will be watched with great interest. Time does not permit an analysis of the new board's functions, but it is important to stress the excellent services provided by co-operatives in the past, and particularly at the present time. Those societies have been singularly fortunate in their officials, as I know from experience of working in close contact with them over a number of years It would be virtually impossible to find a group more dedicated to their work and having more of the confidence of the people they serve than their district officers, fieldsmen and clerical staff——
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could the hon. Gentleman be reminded not to read his speech which, I believe, is quite out of order?
  Mr. Mackenzie: I do not want to waste too much time——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): Order. The Chair will pull up the hon. Member if there is any need to do so.
  Mr. Mackenzie: Therefore, while welcoming the board, we hope that it will

  1315
  not cut across the functions of such well-established bodies as the Scottish Agricultural Organisational Society and the Welsh Agricultural Organisational Society. Since so much voluntary effort is put into the work of those societies it would be a pity if they got the impression that they were to be replaced by a State agency.
  We welcome the improved credit facilities and the provisions relating to sick pay for agricultural workers.
  The Bill contains a large number of useful measures, but, at the same time, it should not be taken as absolving the Government from the need to raise prices at the next Price Review. Since we expect so much expansion from the hills, I should like to quote the price of sheep as an example. I would respectfully remind the Minister that the price of clean sheep in Scotland for the four weeks ended 26th September, 1965, was 26·5 pence per lb., and the comparable figure for 1955 was 25·4 pence per lb.—a net increase of 1·1 pence per lb. Far be it from me to suggest that agricultural workers are being overpaid, but when we bear in mind that in the same 10-year period there have been 11 wage increases, and that other overhead costs have risen proportionately, I think that the case for a substantial increase is clear and convincing.
  I congratulate the Minister on all the detail and the thought that he has put into the Bill, which extends to 96 pages. I hope that it will be greatly improved in Committee, where a good deal of time must be spent on it. I welcome the Bill, and hope that it will have a speedy passage to the Statute Book.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Looking at the Bill as a whole, I find more in it to support than to criticise. Indeed, it contains so much of a beneficent nature that I would willingly go into the Division Lobby in support of it, but some parts of it I must criticise.
  I regret that I was unable to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I was very fortunate, however, to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) with whom I have battled on the question of slaughterhouses during the passing of the
  1316
  Conservative Slaughterhouses Act, and battled for a considerable and very fruitful time. I want to take up something that he said. There are two other speeches I shall mention. The first was a speech made by one of my hon. Friends who spoke about moderate concentration of slaughterhouses and referred to the new abattoir in Briscoe Lane, Manchester. Nearly every point that he made had been made in my speech in this Chamber on the question of meat marketing. Incidentally, he made a good speech.
  The other speech to which I refer was that of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He made a first-class contribution to the debate raising the point about the institution of the new Commission, the cost of the Commission and the cost which will have to be borne by farmers and which will eventually come into the cost of meat. It was a worth-while contribution to the debate and I approve of everything he said. If he were here at the moment I hope that he would also approve of taking the implications of his speech to their logical conclusion in terms of meat marketing in this country.
  When we were in Opposition all our argument was for the establishment of a meat marketing board. The National Farmers' Union and we agreed that there should be a meat marketing board. All that we differed about was the kind of board it should be. Now that we are in power we have not brought forward a meat marketing board. We have brought forward a Meat Commission, which is a kind of public relations officer to sell to the country the type of meat which is produced. That is all it has to do. The Meat Commission will not fulfil the needs of the country in dealing with the marketing of meat as effectively and efficiently as a meat marketing board would fulfil them.
  The Clauses in the earlier part of the Bill will be pretty useless. I do not know much about agriculture and I am accepting in faith, almost with blind confidence, Clauses which deal with hill farming and financial provincial provisions. I am dealing only with that which I know something about, the marketing of meat. If we are to institute a levy on farmers for meat produced in this country and eliminate in terms of that levy imports of

  1317
  foreign meat, we shall do an injustice to the farmers. We shall give an advantage to that section in meat distribution who
  "toil not neither do they spin"
  —those who merely deal with the distribution of both foreign and home-produced food.
  If a levy has to be imposed and we are to have a Commission in preference to a board the levy should be imposed on foreign meat, if not equally, at any rate in some measured formula, to meet the situation. The Commission will compile and operate classifications. There has been too much jiggery-pokery in distribution of meat which could not be classified at all. The time has come when that meat should be classified, but why confine classification to meat passing between the producer and wholesaler and leave the retailer with no obligation to deal with classification? What about the woman who goes into a shop to buy meat? Has she not a right to know what she is buying equally as the wholesaler has a right to know what he is buying from the producer?
  The Commission will have power only to examine that meat and to report back to the Minister. It will have power to examine what is done about meat cuts. We will have the Meat Commission with a sub-committee of butchers. If there are 12 butchers on that sub-committee dealing with classification of meat cuts put into distributive retail establishments, we shall have 12 different clasifications of every piece of meat that is sold. I have never known a meeting of 12 butchers who could all agree on one classification for retail distribution.
  It is also said that they are to price meat, but the meat which goes into a retail establishment is something less than 60 per cent. of meat for sale in districts varying from mile to mile in terms of demand. In one district a retailer can sell fillet or rump steak but cannot sell scrag-end while in the next a retailer can sell scrag-end but cannot sell fillets. The butcher controls his prices accordingly. How are we to deal with that? Are we to say that everyone has to charge the same for fillet steak? There are places where I can buy fillet for 9s. a lb. retail and other places where I can buy the same kind from the same bullock or heifer for 6s. a lb. Retailers in that district have difficulty in getting rid of it.
  1318
  We are asking the Commission virtually to do the impossible. We ought to have gone the whole hog and done what we promised to do, to create a meat marketing board to deal with the whole distribution and wholesaling of meat, including fatstock price; and deficiency payments. If we had done that we would have something far less complicated than this business in the first nine Clauses of this Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Grantham, in answer to a question put by me, implied that he was frightened that Clause 9 might allow the Minister to introduce a concentration of slaughterhouses. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's fears are well founded. I hope that Clause 9 will allow there to be a concentration of slaughterhouses. However, slaughterhouses are controlled by the Slaughterhouses Act, which was introduced by the Tory Government. I remember that, because the right hon. Member for Grantham and myself fought rather bitterly over some of its Clauses.
  However, that Act is not referred to in the Bill. There is no provision in Clause 9 for that Act to be repealed. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need be afraid. I do not believe that there will be a concentration of slaughterhouses as a result of this Bill. I say this most regretfully. If we are to fulfil the original purpose of the Agriculture Acts, namely, to subsidise farming so that efficient meat production is reflected in cheaper meat retail distributive prices, we ought to be bending all our efforts to doing that at present. The Bill should be doing that. To do that, there must be a concentration of slaughterhouses.
  During the war slaughterhouses were concentrated into about 400. Then came the new Act of Parliament. Today there are about 3,000 slaughterhouses. Those who promoted the Slaughterhouses Act are responsible for meat coming into the shops which has been subject to no inspection. It has been slaughtered under conditions which should be examined by all the Members of Parliament who were responsible for that Act, to their eternal shame. Any Member who saw those conditions could not but argue for the concentration of slaughterhouses, which is necessary in the interests of the community's health.

  1319
  It is necessary for another purpose. If our agriculture is to develop in the way referred to by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, namely, by developing the cattle population on the hills so as to get the arable land fit for the best agricultural production, what will those cattle be bred for? Will they be bred to export them to France or to use here? Is the peak period of kill to be extended from about five months? If so, to what period? If it were extended from five months to twelve months, the production of cattle could be made the most profitable part of the farmer's heritage.
  However, if that is done, the problem of slaughterhouses must be faced. There must be, not a moderate concentration, but such a concentration as to create modern abattoirs with the power to freeze and deep-freeze, with the power to can, and with the power to preserve, so that we do not have to import. Such a system would contribute to solving our balance of payments problems.
  This issue has not been faced in this piddling little Bill. No effort has been made to make agriculture what it should be—one of our major industries.
  8.5 p.m.
  Sir Henry Studholme: I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) will not think it churlish of me if I do not refer to his remarks about slaughterhouses and meat. That is quite clearly a subject on which he feels keenly. What I want to talk about for a few minutes concerns Part III.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) put the Bill in its right perspective when he said that it was a very mixed bag. Some parts of it should be useful and beneficial. There are parts of it about which I am extremely doubtful, and they will have to be most carefully examined in Committee. I particularly dislike the wide powers given to the Minister and to the rural development boards. I view them with apprehension.
  Part III deals with hill land. There is quite a lot of hill land in my constituency. I am very glad that it is proposed under Part III to extend the period of payments
  1320
  for hill cattle and sheep and for winter keep from three years to five years. This will be welcomed by many of my constituents in the Dartmoor area. I am glad that the White Paper foreshadows a land improvement scheme providing for grants of 50 per cent. of the cost of certain improvements, that the restoration of fencing will be included, and that the Minister is examining the question of help for field drainage.
  I was very sorry on reading the White Paper and the Bill to discover that neither contained any reference to marginal land. I was glad to hear the Minister say today that he has this question in mind. If that were not included, it would be a very serious omission. In my constituency—and, indeed, all over the West Country—there is a lot of marginal land. Marginal land is not confined to any region or to any altitude. There can be quite good land which is marginal because it happens to be steep and difficult to get at. Moderate land can be marginal because it happens to be windswept and perhaps has a very heavy rainfall. Then there is the sort of land which we have around Holsworthy in my constituency which is on culm soil, often sodden and rushy. It costs a great deal to drain and to keep drained.
  I am sure the Minister will agree that the best use should be made of our marginal land. This is land which is not good enough to grow crops for sale, except crops for fodder for the stock which it supports. Nor is it good enough to produce milk to any material extent. It does not qualify for the hill cattle or the hill sheep subsidies, nor for the Winter Keep Scheme. The best use to which it can be put is for rearing store cattle and sheep.
  There are very good reasons why this land ought to be grant aided. The world is short of meat. We have a balance of payments problem. The obvious thing to do, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, is to step-up home production of meat. There is no better way of doing this than by increasing the number of store cattle and sheep. Further, as every year more and more of our farm land is swallowed up for other purposes, it is more than ever important that we should make the best use of our remaining acres.

  1321
  The Devon branch of the N.F.U. is very keen on this question of marginal land, and so is our branch of the Country Landowners' Association. I have gone carefully into those questions because it is important in our part of the country. I should like to refer to what the Devon branch of the C.L.A. says, because I entirely agree. They consider that the best possible help would be to increase drainage grants to 75 per cent. and farm improvement grants to 50 per cent. of the total cost. They suggest that these should be limited to buildings and facilities required for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep and cattle and that they should also include the restoration of fencing, as in the case of hill land to which the White Paper refers, and that grants should be subject to the "prudent landlord "Clause.
  I hope that when the Minister goes into the question of marginal land he will consider these suggestions sympathetically. It will not be more difficult to select which farms should be suitable for marginal land grant along these lines than it is to decide which farms should be eligible for hill subsidy. I know farms which were disqualified for hill farm subsidy because they were not technically hill farms within the meaning of the Act but which were as deserving of help as hill farms. I should like to see such farms considered under a marginal land scheme.
  May I repeat the arguments in favour of grant aid for marginal land? I think that they are unanswerable. First, there is the worldwide shortage of meat. Then there is the fact that difficult marginal land which does not qualify for hill subsidy is being left out in the cold, and this is unfair. There is also the fact that in this small Island with its growing population our supply of farm land is dwindling every year and therefore we cannot afford not to utilise any of it to the best advantage. Finally, the advantage which an increase in store cattle and meat production would bring to our balance of payments situation is obvious. I hope that the Minister will give constructive help after he has deliberated on this subject.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this important debate. Whilst
  1322
  it is my firm intention to speak briefly, nevertheless I wish to speak wholly in favour of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging Bill. It reflects to a large extent the industry and zeal of the Minister in his application to his duties during his first year of office.
  It has not been by any means an easy year for my right hon. Friend. One readily recalls the storms of protests earlier this year when he introduced his Price Review and the criticisms with which his proposals were then met in certain quarters. I recall that there were even threats against the person of my right hon. Friend because of the forthright manner in which he presented those proposals.
  Why were these protests made? What was my right hon. Friend trying to do? These are somewhat rhetorical questions. In the quiet moments of this debate let us remember that he was trying to be fair to the producers and distributors of food and at the same time attempting to protect the housewife. My right hon. Friend did a very good job at that time. Pressures were attempted to be brought to bear by the party opposite, particularly to induce my right hon. Friend to increase the price of milk by 1½d. a pint, without any thought of the effect on the housewife or the possible impact on the prices and incomes policy.
  My right hon. Friend, to his eternal credit, steadfastly refused to accede to those proposals and demands. We recall forecasts and threats of the slaughter of dairy herds, leading to a drastic decline in milk output. These simply have not materialised. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's approach to this matter is completely vindicated in the fact that, according to my information, this has been a record year for milk production.
  There were references earlier in the debate, and latterly by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), to slaughterhouses. I express a little concern at the fact that the Bill has not made the kind of provisions I should have liked to have seen. Like many members and ex-members of local authorities it is too easy for me to recall the intensive discussions and debates which have taken place in my local authority council chamber on this vexed subject since the introduction of the

  1323
  regulations in 1955. I remember protests and complaints by the dozen from people who lived, and still live, in close proximity to a slaughterhouse, which, to say the least of it, was an offence against human dignity and where killing took place on Sundays and intensive hours of overtime were worked to get the beasts slaughtered ready for the Monday market. I join with my hon. Friends in wishing that greater provision were made for more abattoirs to be provided to lessen the impact on residents in such localities.
  My attention is further attracted to Part I of the Bill and the words in Clause 6(3,a), that an order under that Clause
  "may impose duties and restrictions on any persons, and in particular on persons having the control and management of slaughterhouses, for the purposes of enabling the Commission to operate the system."
  I should like my hight hon. Friend to give us a little more information about the full import of those words. Is the Commission intended to superimpose itself entirely over the responsibilities of local authority public health inspectors in the matter of meat inspection, in particular? Some doubt may be expressed in local authority circles about the meaning of these provisions. Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to abrogate completely the responsibilities of local authorities in this respect?
  As for the transport of meat, I would refer to the innumerable complaints from local people about the crowding of relatively small vans with meat carcases, which is not conducive to good public health. The Minister by means of the Bill will be considerably improving the marketing of meat, which is very welcome. He will also be providing assistance for the small people who find it difficult to wrest a living from the land. He will be helping agricultural co-operation.
  As a lifelong trade unionist, I give a special and wholehearted welcome to the statutory provision, for the first time, of a sick pay scheme for workers in agriculture. Despite some criticisms—people are entitled to make them—my right hon. Friend can be proud that he is thus making social history for workers in agriculture.
  In addition to the firm proposals for the modernising of meat marketing and
  1324
  of agriculture generally, the Bill, by its plans for amalagamation, should create more viable units. It should ensure more production. It should, therefore, have an effect in saving imports. It should assist our balance of payments situation and materially strengthen the economy.
  I warmly commend the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on his enterprise. I am sure that the Bill will be similarly widely and warmly welcomed in the country.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. Loveys: I am sure that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) will excuse me if I do not follow him in all his arguments. He jumped about quite a bit. He made a spirited and brave attempt to support his Minister's Annual Price Review, and, goodness knows, it needs support. He touched on the subject of slaughterhouses, which has surely had more than its fair share in the debate, as they are not, I think, actually mentioned in the Bill at all. But the hon. Gentleman posed some interesting and pertinent questions about the Meat and Livestock Commission, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them at the end of the debate.
  One of the greatest achievements of any Tory back bencher is to be called at all on an agricultural debate of this kind. I sympathise with those of my hon. Friends who may be less fortunate, but, if it be any satisfaction to them at all—I am sure that it will not be—I can tell them that I have been here seven years and although I have tried every time, this is the first occasion when I have managed to take part in a major agriculture debate.
  In a moment or two, I shall welcome the Bill in one or two of its details, but, before so doing, I must express great disappointment at the overall approach. At this time, it ought surely to have been much more a statement of intent about the future of agriculture. Just before the last election, we had two statements from the party opposite which injected some hope into the industry. One came from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister. He made quite clear that one of his party's aims, when in office, would be to bring all farm incomes,

  1325
  of both farmers and farm workers, nearer the industrial level. We have not heard anything about that since the present Government came into office. The second statement laid great stress on the importance of the industry as an import saver. One expected to hear something today about the unfavourable balance of trade which is hitting our home agriculture so hard, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to substantiate these fine ideals.
  Soon after the election, we had the National Plan, which gave a vague assurance about encouraging the natural growth which a healthy industry must maintain. But, again, there is nothing in the Bill to make this vague assurance more definite. To my mind, agriculture today is very much in need of definite assurances to remove the doubts and fears which are so prevalent in the industry and which were so forcibly projected at the time of the last Price Review. There is no reason why such assurances should not have been given at this time. After all, the 1947 Bill, which I willingly join in commending, contained definite long-term assurances.
  In my view, the most acceptable part of the Bill is the encouragement of co-operative enterprise. We have talked about co-operation for many years, but we have not really made much progress in it. Perhaps the reason is that farmers are naturally reluctant to help themselves. I am sure, therefore, that the establishment of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation should give a lead in this matter. It certainly seems likely to be a useful addition to AMDEC and other activities in co-operation set on foot by the previous Administration.
  I think it a pity that the Wise Committee, to which reference was made earlier, has not yet reported. I think that it will have a lot to say in its findings about co-operation, with particular reference to statutory smallholdings. This is an obvious field for co-operation. Statutory smallholdings are very convenient for this purpose. I suggest that, after the Wise Committee has reported, it might be a good idea to have a pilot scheme of special co-operation in statutory smallholdings. I have for many years been a member of a county council smallholdings committee, and I have always been appalled at the lack of co-operation
  1326
  among smallholders. In my constituency, there are several county council smallholders. One has to admire their independence, but one doubts the wisdom of it. In my constituency also, adjoining the smallholdings, there is a land settlement association which is run on co-operative lines. Although the tenants of this association are very reluctant to admit it, the proof of the advantages of co-operation lies in the accounts of the efficient members of the land settlement association. They manage to do better than the independent smallholders, whom one admires, and who struggle very hard, but who have great difficulties. I am sure that their units could be made more viable through co-operation.
  Again on the subject of smallholdings and co-operation, it is ironical that, as was said earlier in the debate, there is a list as long as one's arm of people wanting smallholdings even though they may not be very profitable. This is the sort of thing which we must break down by introducing more co-operation.
  I suppose that Part II, dealing with farm structure and farm improvements, is the most far-reaching and most important part of the Bill. It is a great disappointment, therefore, that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the White Paper when it was published and, apparently, there has been very little, if any, discussion with the N.F.U. on this vital Part.
  On the question of farm structure, there is no doubt that the non-viable unit is one of the most acute problems in the industry. Attempts to prop up these units with grants and other aids entail the risk of maintaining them in perpetuity with people just managing to keep then heads above water. Therefore, I welcome the proposals for aids towards amalgamation and aid to assist the retirement of some small farmers to help in this direction.
  The Bill is absolutely silent, unfortunately, about the amount of inducement to be offered, although the White Paper produced some figures which were considered by the industry at the time to be very inadequate. I would, however, sound a warning on this part of the Bill and say that one must tread carefully and encourage evolution rather than force revolution, not forgetting that amalgamations are already going ahead at a

  1327
  steady rate. We have, I understand, about 50,000 fewer farm units today than we had 12 years ago. Too much State intervention in the form of the buying and selling of units seems to be undesirable and might well reduce the natural flow.
  Also undesirable to me is the proposal to freeze newly amalgamated units. One can understand the reason for this, but I should have thought that somehow a much simpler method could have been arrived at to prevent newly amalgamated units again becoming non-viable units. I should have thought that some agreement between the parties concerned could be arrived at so that all the land was not automatically frozen completely for 60 years and not allowed to be developed in any way.
  With regard to farm improvements, I think that the cut in grants from one third to one quarter is a most retrograde step. I feel that it will curtail much needed improvements in the industry. I know there are many people like me in this respect. I have had some improvements carried out at my farm which I should never have undertaken if the grant had been at the rate of only one quarter. I realise that the extension of the scheme to cover fixed equipment and other items is intended to take up the Exchequer support that will be released by the reduction in the rate of the ordinary improvement grant. The overall figure itself is, I understand, to be about £11 million, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, is actually a slight reduction, because the present figure is about £12,250,000 a year. The figure of £11 million could, anyway, be only a wild guess, because one cannot tell how much of the improvement grants will be reduced and how many people will take up the extension of grants for fixed equipment and other items. Time will tell. I feel that there will be a greater reduction in the improvement grants than is expected.
  However, one must welcome the extension of the items qualifying for assistance under the Third Schedule. Although this must be administered very carefully, it must not be allowed to become incompatible with the other part of the Bill aiding co-operative ventures. This is very
  1328
  important. By this I mean that support should not be given to over-capitalisation of individual units. We must be very careful about this. I hope that those concerned will take great care that units are not allowed to be over-capitalised. There is so much opportunity for items such as grass driers, grain driers and other fixed equipment to be bought for farms when a similar sum or a slightly larger sum could be spent on units capable of dealing with several separate enterprises.
  The proposals for livestock and meat marketing follow very much the Verdon-Smith recommendations, which met with a large amount of approval by the industry. There is no doubt that this is probably the most chaotic section of the agriculture industry. One has only to go into a market and see the extraordinary variety of fatstock offered, and only to visit farms to see the extraordinary number of methods of production used. The Commission will have a great deal of work to do.
  However, I cannot help feeling that one of the main problems—I mean this not lightheartedly but fairly seriously—is that many housewives have so little knowledge of what constitutes a really good joint of meat. While housewives are content merely to go into shops and ask for a joint of beef or of lamb or of pork, many of the production difficulties will remain. Something could well be achieved by the Commission in this direction.
  I am disappointed that the Commission will contain no members with an interest in livestock. Apparently the experts are to be on the various committees. I believe that there is danger of these committees engaging in a considerable excess of spending. The Bill contains no detail of what the levy will be. Indeed, it mentions no cost at all. Very little information is given about the duties of the Commission, and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would probe this and many other details in Committee. I agree with the N.F.U.'s suggestion that there should at least be a ceiling on the amount that the Commission can spend.
  I welcome the Bill as a whole but I regret that the opportunity has not been taken to give much more encouragement to the agricultural industry concerning long-term intentions.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for not being present during their speeches, but I was engaged in committee and could not be in the Chamber.
  The Bill is very extensive. The more one reads it, the further it seems to go. I was not surprised to hear right hon. and hon. Members say that it would be probed further in Committee. I think that the Committee stage will be somewhat prolonged. It will not do the Bill any harm to be probed and in some cases perhaps to be amended.
  My right hon. Friend has been courageous in bringing forward a Measure of this character and in dealing with the production and distribution of meat. This matter has troubled Parliament and the industry for a long time, and if some order can be brought into the production, distribution and sale of meat the Bill will have done a good job.
  Speaking as a farmer, I would like to see meat sold and paid for on the hook. There is far too much guesswork in the auction sales, and although we know that the judges are experts it is far more satisfactory to the farmer to have his animals slaughtered and then judged on the hook, when the quality can be seen, the proper price paid for quality, and the proper weight given.
  There is every satisfaction to be gained from the work of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation which over the last few years has implemented such a policy. The farmer knows that he is getting correct weight, quality and price. If my right hon. Friend had consulted the Corporation's salesmen and judges, he would have been able to provide something of advantage for the farmer who sells, the salesman who buys and the housewife who consumes the animals.
  I disagree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) who called this a piddling little Bill. He cannot have read it, or he has read only that part which interested him. If his ideas were implemented, the housewife would have her meat bill increased by a terrible amount. I do not think that he knew what he was talking
  1330
  about. He is not the only hon. Member to fall into that category.
  I will leave the subject of the Meat Commission and deal with farm structure. For many years I have advocated just what my right hon. Friend is now proposing. Last year, 2,800 small farms went out of existence. They were amalgamated with other farms. Amalgamation has been going on for many years. The economic position of farming has brought it about and, whether it is speeded up by the Bill or not, the process will inevitably go on.
  However, there are dangers in amalgamation by legislation and these will have to be guarded against. Some years ago, a report on farm buildings showed that 70 per cent. were utterly out of date. Like the roads, the farm buildings of this country were made for a different age and they need to be brought up to date. This has been done to some extent through the milk and dairies legislation and various farm improvement schemes, but the process should be accelerated.
  When there are amalgamations, great care must be taken to see that the farm buildings set up at the centre of the amalgamations are not too elaborate and costly, first, because in agriculture one can soon become over-capitalised and farm buildings are one of the items in which that can very easily occur. It has to be remembered that the farmer has not only to erect new buildings, but to buy his stock, and the greater the amalgamation, the more stock he needs to buy. With a bigger farm, because of amalgamation, he requires more machinery. It is all costly. In the amalgamation and development of these holdings, great care must be taken by the boards to ensure that they do not from the start over-capitalise the farmers or the farms. This requires great examination before the work is undertaken.
  I cannot altogether agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) when he says that we should bring in more experts in these matters. If there is one person in agriculture who frightens the life out of me, it is the expert. Agriculture is a diverse industry and, whereas a man may be an expert in one thing, he is not necessarily an expert in all sections of agriculture.
  I remember some years ago a bank manager telephoning me and saying,

  1331
  "Next time you are in town, will you call in?" I never like to hear that from a bank manager, but on this occasion it did not matter because it was not my bank. The manager was a friend of mine. When I went to see him, he asked for my opinion on a certain farm. I replied that it was farmed by an expert. "Yes, I know" said the manager, "but I want your frank opinion on the whole set-up of the farm as you know it."
  I replied, "This man writes in all the farming papers and addresses farmers' discussion classes all over the country. He even comes on the wireless to tell us all how to farm." "That is not what worries me", said the bank manager; "he is about £20,000 on overdraft at my bank and he wants some more. What would you say?" I answered, "Shake hands with the £20,000 he has got and do not give him any more." Too often we are advised what to do by the experts who are practical failures, and we know it.
  What we need on the boards are practical, down-to-earth men who have farmed and have made a success of their farms. Those are the men we want on the boards, to build up the structure and to show what can be done with the amalgamations of the small farms into larger units.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will be dealing with the hill farms. A hill farm is not a substitute for a lowland farm. Although the building programmes are gradually bringing the hill farms and the hill land into greater importance, let us remember that the higher one goes in altitude, the lower the fertility; it is colder and one does not get the growth. In areas on the Pennines, we have snow when the corn is six inches long in the lowlands. It is the same on most of the hills of this country. The growth is not early enough and it stops too early in the autumn. However much we may fertilise, drain and stock, a man cannot get the return from hill farming that he may expect after putting all his money into it. The hill farm is not a substitute for the lowland farm. The production can be greatly improved, but it will take a tremendous amount of work.
  I have never been happy about subsidies. Hon. Members will know that I fought the calf subsidy, for instance, from the beginning. There are other subsidies
  1332
  which I do not like. Some of them are good; some of them are not good. My right hon. Friend the Minister should look very carefully at the subsidy and grant system as he has put it forward in the Bill. A tremendous amount of money can be wasted, and has been wasted. I think about the small farmers scheme by which a farmer could obtain up to £1.000 in one way or another.
  I have seen some of these schemes in operation. I have seen ditching undertaken and paid for, and three years afterwards, when the scheme was finished, the same ditches have filled up and are never touched again. The work is not followed up. In agriculture, one must follow up the work done, otherwise the land will return to its former state very quickly. This is one of the things which we have to fight on hill land. One can fertilise it, lime it and slag it, but one must follow up the work all the time; other wise it is useless.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister is bringing forward grants through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and in other ways. I have never been happy with the Corporation. It is too expensive. It charges 25 guineas before it sends someone along to look at the place. No farmer likes paying for something which he has not got—especially if his application is turned down after the Corporation's representative has been. The Corporation's rate is always above Bank Rate—too much above Bank Rate. I do not see anything in the Bill which will bring it down.
  Those in agriculture cannot afford to pay excessive rates of interest. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation's rate should be no higher than Bank Rate. Let the Minister guarantee through the banks the credit which he thinks should be given, but let him watch most carefully the capital outlay which he makes on the amalgamation and improvement of farms, and on the machinery, and see if the work can be done through the bank at Bank Rate, and certainly at a rate no higher than Bank Rate.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward a courageous Bill, and an extensive one, and I wish him well in its progress.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: As time is short, I hope that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his thoughts. I hope that in the category of experts which he described so graphically he does not include those who have taken part in this debate.
  The Bill is regarded with more than just ordinary interest in Scotland, because she has a particularly big stake in the livestock industry. It is worth while making a comparison between England and Scotland, because the provisions of the Bill apply to a greater extent in Scotland than they do in the rest of the country. For example, if we consider the value of agricultural output in the United Kingdom as a whole, we find that 68 per cent. of the total production is made up of livestock products, while the proportion for Scotland alone is 76 per cent. If we look at the rather narrower range of fat and store stock, which is the section of agriculture chiefly affected by the Bill, we find that it accounts for 36 per cent. of the total United Kingdom output, whereas for Scotland alone the proportion is 44 per cent.
  It is important to look at Scotland's special position. For many years she has been a net exporter of meat products to England, and as a result Scottish producers are much more aware than are producers in the rest of the country of the needs of the market. Another result is that they are far more aware of the importance of quality in what they produce. I think that everyone will agree that this is reflected in the high reputation which Scottish meat products enjoy among ordinary consumers. I hope, therefore, that the interests of Scotland will be represented adequately on the Commission, and on the three committees which will help it, because the interests of Scotland are not necessarily the same as those of England. They are very much more specialised, and I hope that proper attention will be paid to this point.
  I welcome the concept of the central Commission which is independent of the various partisan interests. I know that this is perhaps at variance with some of the points of view which have been put forward from this side of the House this afternoon, but often when an organisation
  1334
  of this type is set up, the Ministry, or those concerned in setting it up, try to represent the different interests in equal proportions. As a result, the organisation's decisions are reached only as a result of compromise and are not necessarily in the best interests of the industry concerned. This, I think, is reflected in the allocation of membership within the organisation, and perhaps also in the strength of the personalities of those appointed to it. This independent central Commission should lead to a more decisive organisation of the meat industry.
  Nevertheless, while I welcome this concept of an independent Commission, on the ground that it will be able to reach its decisions more objectively than other forms of organisation might be able to do, I stress the tremendous need for men of high calibre and business ability to be appointed to it because if this is not done the Commission will probably fail. I should like to strike a note of caution about the size of the committees. Great care must be taken to ensure that they do not become too unwieldy. If this independent central Commission does not work successfully, I hope that the Minister will be ready to consider some alternative way of making it more effective.
  One of the first tasks of the Commission must be to introduce more stability into the meat markets of this country. In recent weeks we have had a particular example of the lack of balance which too often occurs. For example, in the Smithfield Market over the last six weeks the price of Scottish beef has fallen by 14 per cent. from 3s. a 1b. to 2s. 7d. a 1b. while the price of imported beef has fallen even more dramatically from 2s. 10d. a 1b. to 2s. 2d. a 1b. Yet over the same period the level of retail prices in the shops has remained very much the same. This, I hope, is the kind of problem which the Commission will tackle, and that is why I regret that a more detailed brief has not been given to the Commission in relation to its activities in the markets.
  I mention two points in particular—first, one which was mentioned in the Verdon-Smith Report, that the Commission should give advice to the Ministry on the question of imports. Anyone who is concerned with the meat market in this country knows that one of the greatest factors causing imbalance and

  1335
  fluctuation in the market is imports, not necessarily their total quantity but large quantities coming in over a very limited period. I am disappointed that it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill that the Commission should be responsible for advising the Minister on the question of imports.
  I particularly draw attention to a question mentioned already by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)—the question of putting a premium on contracts and encouraging contracts. While the Verdon-Smith Report made no specific recommendation on this point, it commended it as a subject worthy of much more study and investigation than has been given to it hitherto. I hope that the Commission will pay attention to it, because a greater use of a system of contracts in the industry will have a stabilising and salutary effect. May I quote the example of the Scottish bacon industry? Because of the lack of an alternative pork market, production has concentrated on bacon. This is a sector of production which lends itself to a system of contracts, and this has developed far more in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It has not only given the producer much greater stability but it has assured for consumers a higher and more level standard of quality.
  May I pass to the question of research, which is of particular importance and which is referred to in the Bill? It is interesting that through the Commission the industry is to finance research carried out by the Agricultural Research Council. It is a good principle that agriculture should support its own research, and it is a principle which obviously works, as has been shown in the history of P.I.D.A. over the last few years. I should, however, have thought it better that the industry should support applied research rather than research of a more fundamental nature, which is the type of research undertaken by the Agricultural Research Council, because I believe that applied research is much more likely to capture the imagination and interest of the industry than is research of a more fundamental nature. We must be careful, because if the interest of the industry is not attracted a great opportunity will be missed.
  How does the Minister envisage that the money spent on research will be
  1336
  allocated between different species of livestock—between cattle, sheep and pigs? Will it be allocated in proportion to the revenue from the levy? I hope that separate research committees will be set up for the different species, because if research is co-ordinated in one committee there is bound to be severe conflicts of interest. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this point.
  Finally, I should like to say a word about the work which P.I.D.A. has done in recent years. There is no doubt that through this work enormous strides forward have been made in the development of the pig industry and, in particular, in research. This has been recognised not only by research workers but by producers. I hope that the present programme of research by P.I.D.A. will be continued under the new livestock Commission. I also hope that what funds the Commission takes over from P.I.D.A. will be kept for research in this sector of the meat industry and will not be siphoned off to help other sectors. If that happened there could be a serious deterioration in confidence in this sector.
  While I welcome the Bill in general, I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to the points I have raised, particularly the question of research.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: We have had an extremely good debate and, as one who has been in farming for more than half my life, I have found it fascinating to listen, if not to the whole of every speech, at least to all of most speeches and to part of all the others.
  I think this is the first occasion on which I have debated with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from this Dispatch Box and I should like to congratulate him on one thing, namely, that it looks almost certain that he will be the only person on the Standing Committee dealing with this Bill who will have sat on the Committees which examined the 1947, 1957 and 1964 Acts. That is something of which he has every reason to be very pleased.
  Looking back to the discussion on the 1947 Act, I find that, with very minor exceptions, it was an English and Welsh Measure. It interested me to find that

  1337
  the Second Reading debate on that Measure was replied to by the Solicitor-General for England, who also attended, in that capacity, many meetings of the Committee. This Measure, on the other hand, applies to Scotland as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) pointed out.
  I must confess that I am anxious, to say the least, about the situation which may arise in the Committee—and I trust that the Minister will think about this very seriously indeed—when we come to Part II and Clause 43, each of which has very distinct legal complications about them. As the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, we have no Scottish Lam, Officer to call upon. I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously and do their best to provide us with a Scottish Law Officer. It seems that they have a perfectly good opportunity, if they wish to do so, for could they not induce their supporters at the Hull by-election to run a Scottish Lord Advocate?
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. Gentleman's Government were faced with the same difficulty, and as soon as they got one they ditched him.
  Mr. Stodart: We were at least fortunate enough to have a member of the Faculty of Advocates in the House, which is more than can be said of the party opposite.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): That was fortuitous.
  Mr. Stodart: Perhaps I should point out to the Minister of State that this is the first time, with one exception, that he has been present in the Chamber. It would be more courteous if he did not interrupt me, as is his wont.
  The Meat Commission proposed by the Bill is undoubtedly a very much better body than that which was envisaged in the White Paper because of the executive powers which it will have. However, the producers are disappointed, particularly after the assurances which were given by the Secretary of State for Scotland. For as long as I can remember the Scottish National Farmers' Union has been consistently in favour of a marketing board. I cannot recall any deviation in
  1338
  its views. The Secretary of State for Scotland numbers among his constituents quite the most alert agricultural journalist in Scotland, and very well the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He must, therefore, have been perfectly well aware of the feelings of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on this subject. In the Glasgow Herald of 12th February, 1964, he wrote:
  "First of all marketing. We will encourage producers to establish statutory marketing boards. Progress here has been slow."
  naturally, hearts in Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh, rose. Those people thought, "This is splendid".
  They are now extremely disappointed as, of course, is one of the right hon. Gentleman's own hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) who tonight—and I think that I took down his words correctly—said: "A meat commission will not deal as effectively with the marketing of meat in this country as a marketing board would". It is, therefore, quite clear that this is yet another example of people being led up the garden path by the pre-election aspirations of the party opposite.
  I hope that the Commission will not try to do too much. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part I of Schedule 1 take the Commission into the field of pedigree breeding. That is a very specialised field, and previous attempts to link the pedigree breeders' efforts closely to the finished article have never been a particular success.
  Reference has been made to Clause 9. Even the mention of the idea of quotas for an individual farm cannot conceivably be made to tie up with the brave new world of expansion talked of in the Government White Paper, where we were told that beef production was to be increased to the limits of technological ability. To suggest that quotas may have to be put on each individual farm seems to be running the horse in entirely the reverse direction. One hears such phrases as "rationalisation", "concentration", "elimination of excess capacity", power to reduce an undertaking", "setting up a new undertaking", "removing existing undertakings"—reference to all these undertakings gives the Clause a most funereal sound.

  1339
  One of the most important parts of this Bill is, I think, that dealing with the farm improvement scheme. The reduction in grant from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. has been adversely commented upon almost universally, and the condemnation has not been limited to this side of the Chamber. I have not yet seen the views of any farming organisation or any newspaper comment that has not regretted this decision. It is most interesting to look back at the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture on the introduction of the farm improvement scheme in the 1957 Act.
  I hope that he will believe that I paraphrase him correctly. He said, "33⅓ per cent. is all very well, but farmers still have to find two-thirds of the cost and the rates of interest are a major problem in enabling them to do so." Those words were spoken on 25th March, 1957. On that date the rate of overdraft interest was 6½ per cent. Today it is 8 per cent. We have therefore a reduction in the rate of grant coupled with the increased interest which the Minister found so disturbing then.
  My right hon. Friend made some highly significant calculations about future allocations to the farm improvement scheme. He mentioned that some farmers might benefit but others would certainly lose. With that I profoundly agree. I thought the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) entirely and correctly pinpointed the effect which this reduction will have.
  On 21st November, 1962, in a debate in this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) gave some interesting figures of the allocation of farm improvement grants up to that date. Eighty per cent. of the total grant had by that time been spent. One-third of it had been spent on grain and fodder storage. Nearly half had gone on milking parlours and rearing and fattening cattle. There is no reason to suppose that that pattern has changed much, and the livestock group which is larger will be affected most by the reduction as farmers in that group have much less fixed equipment in their buildings than the grain storers, and many of the farms which produce store cattle want what is often
  1340
  termed an umbrella roof over them with very little fixed equipment inside.
  This was the case for England and Wales. The position is very much worse in Scotland because by December, 1961—admittedly that was a year before the figures I have quoted—only 7 per cent. of the total expenditure of the farm improvement grant had gone on grain stores. So the overwhelming preponderance of livestock interests—my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has referred to the 76 per cent. which they contribute to the gross output. in Scotland—will suffer from the reduction of this grant.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman why were there no consultations whatever on this matter with the Scottish National Farmers' Union? My right hon. Friend raised this matter of general consultation and the Minister replied that there had been ample time for discussion on this Bill in general. This has not received the agreement of one of his own supporters. It has been stated categorically in the Press that the convenor of the Scottish N.F.U. Legal, Commercial and Co-operative Committee stated that the reduction in the rate of grant was completely and absolutely unexpected. When we have a radical change of this kind it is unpardonable that those interested should not be given the chance of expressing their opinion on the matter.
  The section on hill land is naturally of particular interest to Scotland, where 70 per cent. of the hill land area is in rough grazing, compared with only 15 per cent. in England and Wales. As one who has always and consistently stressed the importance of production from the uplands, I say perfectly frankly that I welcome the removal of the restrictions on the time over which the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies can be paid. I also think that the extension to a five-year period for any single scheme, be it the hill cow, the hill sheep, or the winter keep grant, is a very good move.
  But what has the right hon. Gentleman in mind when he talks of "hill land"? Clause 35 says that this is to be defined "in the scheme". My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) asked whether the Minister was thinking of coming down the hill a bit out of what is described generally

  1341
  and statutorily as the area of mountain, hill or heath. Will the area of the Rural Development Board's authority coincide with what is defined as hill land? In Clause 39 the Board's area is referred to as
  "rural areas of hills and uplands".
  By my definition I would say that, in fact, uplands come a bit below the hills. Therefore, I should be glad to know whether there is a move down the hill for the livestock areas.
  The Minister made what I thought was an important remark when he said that thought was still being given to farms which are clearly and naturally livestock farms in character but which are outside the recognised areas. I therefore hope that as soon as possible he will be able to tell us what the results are.
  But the large amount of good sense and good will which will be generated by the section on hill land and hill farming will be severely dissipated by the animosity which is clearly shown against those who plant trees in an area where there is a rural development board. Under Clause 46 not only can a board veto a large category of proposals for private afforestation, but it can go so far as to make approval conditional on a particular kind of tree being planted.
  As far as I understand this Clause, a rural development board could refuse an owner permission to plant, say, 12 acres of larch on ground which had not been under trees during the previous 10 years. If the owner wanted to sell or to let the land to his next door neighbour, the board could prevent this being done, on the ground, as I read Clause 43, that it and the Forestry Commission thought that the ground would be better planted if it were done by the Commission. This is a most extraordinary reason. There may be other reasons for doing this, but to say that a private owner may not plant because the Forestry Commission might plant it better is the most extraordinary outlook on forestry generally. After all, why would it be better planted by the Commission. It is not planted more cheaply. The figures that we were given some months ago showed that there was a difference of about one-half per cent. between the cost of planting and beating up of trees when done privately and when done by the Commission.
  1342
  I have a great regard for the work which is being done by the Forestry Commission, but I entirely agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he said in another place on 24th February that the closest co-operation and mutual confidence between private forestry and the work of the Forestry Commission was absolutely essential for successful forestry operations in this country. I commend that view to those who are responsible for quite wilfully, it seems, setting private forestry interests into antagonism with the Forestry Commission by means of this Bill.
  I should like the Secretary of State, when he replies, to say whether there are any proposals for the establishment of a rural development board in Scotland. The Bill makes clear that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will look after the job of the rural development boards in its particular area. We have heard that there are two in the Minister's mind for England and Wales. Has the right hon. Gentleman any ideas for Galloway or the Borders, for example?
  The powers which were given to the Highlands and Islands Development Board were the subject of very close scrutiny in Committee, and rightly so because that is the purpose of Committees of this House. As this Bill goes through Committee we shall feel obliged—and we will not be doing our duty otherwise—to subject the Clause, which has to do with the establishment of rural development boards and their powers, to the closest examination in order that we may be quite clear what the Government have in mind.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), with all the experience which he has of marketing matters, emphasised, on Part IV of the Bill, the importance of the small man and the "middle man" getting a co-operative enterprise going. My thoughts immediately flew to the island of Uist where a splendid example of co-operative marketing has been going on for the last three years, in which an increasing number of calves are collected co-operatively off the crofts and find their way into the feeding farms of the Border country and down in England. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) referred to farming in Denmark where

  1343
  there is a brilliant marketing system. I spent a week there in August. My impression was that we are every bit as good as the Danes in production—for example, in the matter of the number of pigs per litter reared—but they lick us in their efficiency in getting the goods to market.
  The grant for the keeping of records provided for in the Bill is first-class. It is a subject which has always been of particular interest to me. It is a splendid example of the interest in the subject that, as I am informed, the record book which the Scottish National Farmers' Union produced very conveniently almost to coincide with the publication of this Bill, has already sold over 1,000 copies in a membership of only 24,000 people. This shows the interest of farmers and their receptiveness to the keeping of records.
  I am also delighted to see the Clause in the Bill which brings in minimum rates of pay for farmworkers when they are sick.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) so rightly said, what farmers are looking for with great anxiety is the carrying into effect of the many expressions of good intent by the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends. Grants for the keeping of records are worthy of commendation, but their psychological effect has already been nullified by the reduction in the rate of grant under the farm improvement scheme. February and March of next year will provide the proof of this particular pudding.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) paid tribute to the attitude of the House to this Bill and declared, having had some experience of agriculture Bills and discussions, that this was one of the best debates he had heard. I cannot do other than agree. It has been a fairly critical examination of the Bill, but I venture to suggest that the Bill has come out on top. At the start of the debate, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) talked about underplaying the importance of the Bill and called it—I think this was his expression—a ragbag. Then we
  1344
  had the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) saying that it was a ragbag of gimmicks. But the more hon. Members actually examined what was in the Bill, the more it became clear that what has been said about it by some of the more important farming journals is true.
  For instance, the Farmers Weekly said:
  "Less than justice will be done to this comprehensive new Measure—perhaps the most comprehensive piece of farm legislation since 1947—if the dispute over the organisation of the meat industry is allowed to obscure the many useful and constructive aims of the Bill",
  and it went on to speak of
  "a significant and welcome shift of policy".
  Then there was the opinion of the Farmer and Stockbreeder,
  "A Bill of vast scope … could be as far reaching as the 1947 Act itself … even the Meat Commission has more power than is generally realised."
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will look at what the Scottish National Farmers' Union had to say in the Farming Leader of October, 1965. After it had got over the disappointment about statutory producers' marketing schemes, it said:
  "Despite our misgivings about the scope and nature of the Commission, we welcome the fact that a central body is to be charged with such functions as the promotion and performance of progeny testing, A.I., and cooperation for marketing purposes"—
  going on to list all the things with which it agreed and proclaimed had long been demanded.
  It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman, on his return to agriculture—it is a bit hard to keep up with the shadows which flit across the Opposition Front Bench—had been a little more objective in his approach to the Bill. Undoubtedly, the scope of the Bill is various. Agriculture contains within itself great variations. In their nature, the sections of the industry which have been pinpointed for special treatment range throughout the variations of production, type of farm, type of farming activity and so on which are agriculture itself.
  The hon. Gentleman said that this should have been a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. Part I deals with a subject which has commanded the attention of farming for the past 40 years—commission after commission, committee after

  1345
  committee, all the way from the Linlithgow Committee in the 1920s to the Verdon-Smith Committee which reported in February, 1964.
  As I expected, the hon. Gentleman twitted me about what I had said. I am surprised at this dedication to dogma of the Tory Party, this devotion to dates and what was said at one particular time. No one must think again. Have we to ignore everything that has been done? I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at just one part of the Bill—I am glad that my hon. Friends referred to its comprehensive nature—the Schedule relating to the functions and duties of the Commission. He will see why it spreads throughout the whole industry. It is not just one industry. One starts with the producer, and before one has finished one is concerned with slaughterhouses, auction markets, the distribution trade and the retail trade and with the problem of the customer. That is the full scope of the Commission. Is it not right that it should have power to go further, with the full check of this House, of course?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) in his speech showed a tremendous knowledge of the slaughterhouse position in England. We have known for a long time that action was overdue. Anyone who listened to that speech would appreciate that it is right that we should have this power under Clause 9 in respect of schemes. My hon. Friend instanced only one aspect, but this could apply to other aspects. If we really mean to take action in this respect—I want the House seriously to face this—we must give this power. It may be power which will deal with excess capacity. It may be power that will detrimentally affect some interests. That is why we have provision for compensation, and this is why, above all, we have safeguards right the way through, in respect of the scheme, the inquiry and consultation and in respect of this House itself. But let us not deceive ourselves. If we really want to take action we cannot burke giving these powers to the Commission. We must, however, ensure that they are properly and justly appreciated. The hon. Gentleman who talked about the sweeping powers of Clause 9 should appreciate that there have been sweeping powers in previous legislation. Apart from that, let
  1346
  him appreciate also that the rights of individuals are safeguarded.
  What surprised me was what the right hon. Gentleman said about time for discussion. In relation to livestock we have been discussing the matter for 40 years. Hon. Gentlemen were in office for 13 years, but did not get very far with it. The right hon. Gentleman himself was for a time concerned with agriculture, and so he should be the last to complain if we now decide to take action, and action on something which was long overdue.
  The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the matter of the levy. My right hon. Friend made absolutely clear how little the burden would be. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether this would be taken into account in relation to costs at the annual Price Review. It will not necessarily he taken into account because it will not necessarily be paid by the producer, no more than the P.I.D.A. levy was taken into account.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton went on from this to the question of the Commission. It was most unlike him to start his speech with a rather sneering reference to the people who were going to be appointed to the Commission. He suggested that the only persons who were to be put on the Commission were persons who would know nothing about it. This was unfair. I am glad that the speech of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) balanced the speech of his right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman said that it was right that we should have a Commission not thirled to any section of the industry but independent and able to sort out all the varying differences. Clause 1(3) says that the Commission shall consist of members:
  "qualified to serve on the Commission by reason of their financial, commercial, technical, scientific, administrative or other relevant experience."
  Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman also read the first part?
  Mr. Ross: The first point is that the members will not have any
  "… substantial financial interest in any business directly connected …"
  That is the right attitude in respect of the tasks we are to give them. But that

  1347
  does not mean that they will have no knowledge of the job. It is wrong to suggest that they will have no knowledge because they have no financial interest. We are tying in the specialised interests in the committees—the production committee, the distribution committee and the consumer committee.
  In the First Schedule there is a definite instruction in relation to the first two of these committees on the appointment of Scottish and Welsh interests, which have to be consulted. The Commission will be using these committees for advice. It will have to consult them. Thus, farmers can take heart in the knowledge that their interests will be consulted.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: In that case, is it not the more surprising that, in the appointment of the Co-operative Council, provision is made for choosing people without experience?
  Mr. Ross: I am dealing with livestock and not with the question of the Co-operative Council, which is a different point.
  I believe that hon. Members have been less than fair in considering what can be done under this Bill in relation to the Commission. The Scottish N.F.U. has said that much will depend upon the members of the Commission and, because of that, we are determined to get people of high calibre.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham underplayed what is to be done about farm structure. We all know the changes that are taking place in agriculture. The small man is being more and more left behind because of the very nature of his farm and its size. These factors limit his ability to keep up to date. I pay due regard to right hon. Gentlemen opposite for making a start with the small farmer schemes. We are going further. There is no doubt that amalgamations are desirable and here we are taking the opportunity to provide for payments of 50 per cent. towards the cost of amalgamations and to provide, by loan, support for the farmers.
  We must face the facts. We have to ensure that the possibility of amalgamations is realised and the same thing is true of co-operation. We shall spend £6 for every £1 spent by the previous Govern-
  1348
  ment on co-operation in farming. That is not something to be dismissed as just a gimmick. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) realised just how important this can be and even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, referred to what has been done in the northernmost islands of Scotland.
  This is a vital operation. We are engaged, in this Measure, in ensuring economic survival for the family farm. We must provide assistance in this way because indeed we are striving to maintain the family farm and the family farmer. It is no good the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) talking about a book that was written 50 years ago. The ladder of farming with the family farm is not what it was 50 years ago. There are fewer tenant farms available on that ladder and rents are very much higher than they were. As often as not, the would-be tenant farmer has to compete for the farm with someone who is not a farmer but who is able to take the land when the farm becomes vacant and is put up for sale. This is something to which we may have to give attention at some time.
  The structure proposals in the Bill are important and we should not underrate even the outgoing payments to those who may be leaving farming because of the position in which they have found themselves. The right hon. Member for Grantham asked whether we hoped that the Bill would accelerate the rate of amalgamations or whether it was just social justice. It is both, because it will accelerate the rate of amalgamations and provide a measure of social justice and easement of hardship which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends ignored for so many years.
  Much has been said about the farm improvement scheme. That goes back to 1957, but it was not supposed to last for ever. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not mention that. It was supposed to last for 10 years and £50 million, plus an additional £5 million, was provided. With that money gone, the previous Government introduced an additional £35 million in 1963. A simple arithmetical sum shows that with a rate of expenditure of about £11 million a year, the £35 million provided in 1963 was expected to last about three years. There was no guarantee for anybody that anything

  1349
  would be done thereafter. In the Bill we have provided £80 million, more than ever was provided at any time by the previous Government for this purpose. I admit that we have reduced the grant from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., but we shall be spending at the same rate.
  It should be appreciated that there were certain limitations about the farm improvement scheme, relating as it did mainly to buildings. It was the landowner who benefited mostly, or the owner-occupier farmer, but the tenant farmer could not himself initiate schemes and so did not get the benefits. The tenant farmer has an interest in his plant and machinery and he will get benefits for the first time and so we shall get a greater spread of benefits under this scheme than under the last. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West should not be so depressed about it. I suggest that he reads Blythe in today's edition of the Farmer and Stockbreeder and he will find that not everybody is unhappy about it.
  Much has been said about hill land. We are to provide an improvement rate of 50 per cent. concentrating on the actual improvement of land. Is that unimportant? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) that in all these things there should be proper precautions to see that benefit is obtained for money spent. In addition, there is to be the possibility of 10 per cent. on hill and field drainage, and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will be glad to know that we have promised to consider the problem of the upland farm.
  The proposal for a rural development board has come in for some examination and I am glad to say that my hon. Friends have rather welcomed it. Once again I was disappointed by the new shadow Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—how quickly shadows flee—who expressed a certain measure of concern about the proposed sweeping powers. I do not know whether he had read the Highlands Development Act. I assure him that its powers were much more sweeping. The powers are related to the problem. We all know that certain hill areas require special treatment because of their special needs. That is what we provide for. Hon. Members opposite, since they recognise the problem of the
  1350
  need, should face up once again to ensuring that the powers are there.
  There have been clashes concerning land use in these areas and it is right that we should give to the boards powers in that respect and, if necessary, to produce the parish plans. Once again, however, it should be appreciated that there will be Parliamentary accountability by a Minister, and in the drawing up of the plans there will be opportunity for objectors to object. We must, however, provide the residual powers for the purchase of the land and ensure that it is properly used.
  The hon. Member for Galloway was worried about the Forestry Commission, which, he thought, was getting off easily, but the Commission's plantings have to be agreed with the board. This matches the question of licence to the private owner.
  I am surprised that we did not get support and demands for this from some of my Scottish colleagues, in particular the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). When this Parliament started, I had questions from the hon. Member and one of his colleagues demanding that I should take action in Strathdon to stop a private forester taking over a private farm and planting trees on it. I told the hon. Member that I had no power. I do not know whether he wants me to take the power now and to apply it concerning Scotland, but I should be interested to know.
  The hon. Member asked me whether I had any ideas about the use of this power in Scotland. At the moment I have not, but I thought it right that we should have it applied to Scotland. We can get the benefit, quite rightly, of any experiments that go on in the South and we will use that if we find that it is an advantage to us.
  We have a far better scheme applying to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Highlands and Islands areas of Scotland cover 47 per cent. of the area. Within that, we have power to extend the area to contiguous areas. We will, however, watch the position carefully. If by chance we have missed out any powers for the Highland Development Authority, we can readopt them from the Rural Development Board.

  1351
  The sick pay scheme has been generally welcomed. I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) said about it. It is not a gimmick, and it certainly will not be regarded as a gimmick by the people who benefit from it. What is amazing is that it has taken so long, until 1965 to bring the advantage of it through to the workers on our farms.
  The Bill does mote for agriculture than any Bill introduced by the party opposite throughout their long period of office, and they know it. That is why they were so uncomfortable today and why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West rather smilingly pushed forward his rather trite remarks in Opposition. The Bill will reform our whole meat marketing system, with great benefit to farmers and to consumers. Let us not underestimate the importance of this.
  The latest new policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite abandons the present system of support. They never were terribly interested in the consumer anyway. That is why the right hon. Member for Grantham is ready to load £300 million to £400 million on the cost of the nation's food. One never knows when they will change their minds. The Leader of the Opposition handed his new "shadow" a new agricultural policy and he did not wear it very well today. In fact, he never mentioned it. We think differently. As a great trading nation relying very largely on our export trade, we must try to get our costs of food to the consumer as low as we can. The hon. Gentleman laughs. I did not say that; it was his right hon. Friend. He said it in 1959. I am sorry for him. But the blame is not on him; it is on the Leader of the Opposition. He just wants to ease his way into Europe.
  We take quite a different view of agriculture. We want to help it play an even more vital part in restoring the nation's economy, not, like the party opposite, to reduce the cost of Exchequer support regardless of the effect on agriculture, and we are prepared to spend Exchequer money in a good cause. That is why we are putting this extra £80 million
  1352
  into the farm improvement scheme. [Interruption.] It is taxpayers' money, the nation's money.
  Farmers will also remember what the Bill does in respect of credit. We are making provision for an extra £100 million; and it is a figure well worth remembering. The Conservative Party made a start on doing something for the small farmer but wearied very quickly in well doing. The Bill provides a really comprehensive plan for dealing with the small farmer's problems. We recognise his value and the dangers he faces today. We are out to help him, and we help him in all the ways listed in the Bill which have been applauded not only by hon. Members on this side of the House but in frank speeches from the benches opposite.
  On co-operation, as I have said, we are not doing the bare minimum. We will spend £6 for every £1 which the Tories spent and will provide help for those who co-operate not only in marketing but in getting better production lines adopted in the market.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West suddenly remembered that it was St. Andrew's Day, and he must praise what we are doing in the Bill. No doubt if he had been at a St. Andrew's night dinner he would have brought the hill farmers into his speech. We are not doing it in St. Andrew's night speeches; we are doing it in a Bill before the House of Commons. It will cost some money, but it will be worth while. For the first time we are providing for new action, not new committees, to deal with the problems of the hill areas where only a comprehensive plan can solve the problems of those who live on the land.
  All this is what the Bill does. All this will allow the Bill to stand comparison with the 1947 Act, and my right hon. Friend the Minister was right to claim a certain measure of pride in having had the honour to introduce it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

AGRICULTURE [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation signified]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Meat and Livestock Commission and make other provision for matters connected with agriculture, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any sums into the Exchequer and the making of the payments out of money provided by Parliament and out of the Consolidated Fund set out below.
A. Payments which may be made out of money provided by Parliament.
1.—(1) Payments by way of grant to meet up to half of expenditure incurred in connection with the carrying out of amalgamations of agricultural land and the reshaping of agricultural units, but excluding expenditure on the acquisition of land.
(2) Payments by way of loan, and payments to fulfil guarantees of any loan, made to meet expenditure incurred in connection with the carrying out of amalgamations of agricultural land and the reshaping of agricultural units.
(3) Payments to meet expenditure incurred by the Ministers or the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in and in connection with the acquisition, holding, management and disposal of land for the purpose of effecting amalgamations of agricultural land and the reshaping of agricultural units, including transactions involving loss.
2. Payments by way of grant (including annuities) to, for, or in respect of, individuals who relinquish occupation of agricultural land.
3. Payments by way of grant towards the cost of improvements for the benefit of agricultural land, including hill land, but so that—

(a) a grant towards the cost of an improvement which is not for the benefit of hill land shall not exceed one quarter of that cost,

(b) the grants towards the cost of improvements which are not for the benefit of hill land, with the grants made under sections 12 and 16 of the Agriculture Act 1957 (farm improvements and amalgamations), shall not altogether exceed £170 million.

4. Payments by way of grant in connection with the carrying out of proposals relating to any form of co-operation or mutual assistance in agriculture (including horticulture), including proposals made and approved before the passing of the Act.
5. Payments by way of grant to persons who fulfil guarantees of loans for any business concerned with agriculture (including horticulture), but so that the grants paid in any
1354
period of twelve months beginning with 1st April, together with the grants paid in that period under section 9 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (guarantees of bank loans to horticulture businesses), shall not exceed, for the period ending 31st March 1967, £700,000, and for any subsequent period £900,000, and those limits shall replace the limits in subsection (2) of the said section 9.
6. Payments in respect of the keeping of records of any farm business, including grant payable by reference to arrangements made by the Ministers before the passing of the Act.
7. Payments falling to be made out of money provided by Parliament in consequence of—

(a) amending the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act 1952,

(b) amending section 12 of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (which authorises the Minister to carry out improvements for the benefit of hill farming land subject to rights of common),

(c) making section 13 of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (subsidies for hill sheep and cattle) permanent,

(d) extending the maximum period which may be specified in a scheme under section 10(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963 (winter keep grants),

(e) extending section 4 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (expenditure for eradication of disease) to poultry.

8. Payments to meet expenditure incurred by the Ministers in providing veterinary services to persons who carry on livestock businesses and participate in arrangements approved by the Ministers.
9.—(1) Remuneration, allowances and other payments to, for, or in respect of, members of the said Meat and Livestock Commission.
(2) Payments to meet expenditure incurred by the Commission in performing functions in connection with fatstock guaranteed prices, calf subsidies and the administration of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts and functions carried out at the request of the Ministers.
(3) Payments to meet the Commission's initial expenditure incurred in performing any other functions.
10. Payments to meet expenditure incurred in the performance of their functions by bodies established under the Act and concerned with rural development in hill and upland areas, or incurred by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in performing functions corresponding to those conferred on those bodies.
11.—(1) Remuneration, allowances and other payments to, for, or in respect of, members of a Central Council or other body established by the Act and concerned with co-operation and mutual assistance in agriculture (including horticulture).
(2) Payments to meet expenditure incurred by that body in the performance of their functions.
12. Payments to meet administrative expenses incurred by any Minister.
B. Payments which may be made out of the Consolidated Fund.
Payments falling to be so made in consequence of—

(a) increasing from £5 million to £12 million the amount of the advances which may be made to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Ltd. under section 2 of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act 1956 for the purpose of increasing its guarantee fund, and

(b) increasing from £425,000 to £2 million the amount of the advances which may be made to the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation under sections 2 and 8(b) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 for the like purpose.

In the provisions above "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State, or either of them.—[Mr. Hoy.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two points that arise on this Money Resolution.
Paragraph 1 provides for the payment of grants in respect of amalagamations. Paragraph 3(a) specifies that the grant towards the cost of an improvement
"which is not for the benefit of hill land shall not exceed one-quarter of that cost."
This is a very binding Money Resolution. It has been drawn extremely tightly, and it will inhibit our later discussions to a considerable extent. I have taken the opportunity of looking carefully at the precedents and at Erskine May. In this Committee we cannot move an Amendment to increase the amount of money to be provided by this Money Resolution. We have either to accept it as it is—and the Committee will have to accept that—or reduce it, but that is far from` our intention.
The point at issue is that if we accept the Money Resolution in this form, with this limitation, as it is drawn so tightly, we will be inhibited to a large extent in our discussions at a later stage. It will be within your recollection, Sir Samuel, that the terms of a Money Resolution determine the nature of the important debates that take place on the relevant parent Bill, in this case the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading. By drawing this Money Resolution as tightly as they have done, the Govern-
1356
ment are taking unfair advantage not only of the Committee but of the House, and I suggest that this is a practice which ought not be indulged in by the Government.
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not so tightly drawn. There must be some particular reason behind the Government's drafting of paragraphs 1 and 3, and I hope that whoever replies to this debate—I would like it to be somebody from the Treasury, but I suspect it will be the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—will explain why this is so. It is wrong for the Government to do this, and I deeply regret that they have drawn two paragraphs as closely and as tightly as they have done. They are inhibiting future discussion.
As was pointed out during the Second Reading debate, the existing rate of farm improvement grant, which at the moment is one-third, is being reduced, and by drawing these paragraphs as tightly as they have done the Government are inhibiting us from trying to persuade the Government to change their minds when the matter is considered in Committee. This procedure is wrong. I hope that the Government will think again, and withdraw this Money Resolution, and resubmit it at a later stage.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has said. I do not know how many hon. Members have looked at page 631 of today's Order Paper which covers this aspect of the Money Resolution. I think it ought to be recognised by the Committee that there is complete unanimity between members of the County Landowners' Association and the N.F.U.—the one representing landlord and owner-occupier interests, the other representing the tenant farmers in particular—that it is highly regrettable that the Government have decided to reduce the farm improvements grant from one-third to one-quarter.
I think that the method by which the Government are introducing this through this Money Resolution is somewhat fast, to describe it mildly. Surely the Government must have known that this was likely to cause a considerable measure of dispute.

1357
As the law stands today, the farm improvements scheme, based on a one-third grant, is about to run out. I recognise that. But before that grant has run out the Government have slipped into a Financial Resolution a proposal to reduce the grant from one-third to one-quarter, knowing full well that when they included this proposal in the Financial Resolution they at once precluded any Amendment from being put down in Committee to enable the Committee to argue the case for retaining the basis of one-third.
If we allow this Financial Resolution to pass, it is important that we should have an assurance from the Government that they will not reduce the amount of grant allowable under a farm improvements scheme from one-third to one-quarter until such time as the Bill which we have given a Second Reading has completed all its stages in both Houses and has received the Royal Assent. One knows that the Chancellor is under some pressure and that the more that is granted under the Bill the more difficult it will be for him to make any improvement in the next Price Review. But it is only reasonable to ask for an assurance that the law as it stands today, based on a one-third grant, will in no way be altered until the Bill has become an Act. As I interpret statements by the Minister and as I read the Financial Resolution, it seems that any further application made under the farm improvements scheme before the Bill becomes an Act will be approved only on the assumption that the grant will be one-quarter instead of one-third. I want an assurance from the Government that they will in no way implement this Financial Resolution in advance of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent.
I recognise that it is impossible for an Opposition, of whatever party, to increase the expenditure permitted through a Financial Resolution by the Government of the day. It is not open to the Opposition to seek to increase the expenditure. But, knowing of the feeling in the farming industry, for the Government to use this method of stultifying debate on the matter is a piece of trickery which is intolerable. It is deceit write large, because the Government know that the average farmer will not understand the niceties of our procedure in the House and that very few farmers will understand that the provisions in the Financial Reso-
1358
lution will preclude any hon. Member from asking in Committee for the grant to be increased. The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for using this deceitful method of introducing this reduction.
Mr. R. H. Turton: I rise to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asking the Government to realise that this is a gross abuse of our procedure. This is legislation by Financial Resolution. It destroys a great deal of the work which can be done in Standing Committee. There is not a great deal of hostility between the two sides on the Bill and it would be unfortunate if the action of the Government in this matter drove the Opposition into voting against the Financial Resolution.
As I see it, paragraph 3 of the Resolution will preclude the Secretary of State for Scotland from carrying out the undertaking which I understood him to give. I gathered that he said that he was looking at the question of grants for upland farms and was seeing whether he could do something to help them in the Bill. However, paragraph 3 of the Resolution is so closely drawn that it would exclude all upland farms from gaining assistance of more than 25 per cent. for improvements. On that argument alone the Resolution should be withdrawn and I should have thought that my hon. and right hon. Friends would he prepared to undertake that if it were withdrawn and if the parts which are at present so narrowly drawn were widened the Opposition would allow the Resolution to go through without further debate.
We are anxious, in the interests of our constituents and hon. Members, to have a full and free discussion in Committee on whether the Government are justified to alter the whole formula of the 1957 Act for farm improvements. There may be a good case for reducing the rate of grant on some improvements from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., but for other improvements—as I tried to explain earlier—the reverse should be the case. I am in favour of having a variable rate, but if this Financial Resolution is not amended this matter cannot be argued in Committee.
I have always protested at the way in which successive Governments have drawn Financial Resolutions, but I think

1359
that the present Government may be commiserated with on the fact that never before has the House of Commons or a Committee of it had such a Resolution before it so tightly drawn that it will stultify all argument at a later stage.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I have been a little surprised at the speeches to which we have just listened—[Interruption.]—and if the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) will bide his time for just a moment I will explain why. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, unlike some of his hon. Friends and myself, has not been here throughout the debate. If he will wait a moment I will explain the position to him.
It is true—and we make no apology for this—that we felt that the time had come when we should widen the scope of the improvements under the scheme. In the course of the debate we have heard about the assistance which will be given for improvements which were previously not eligible for assistance. We thought that we should reduce the level from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. and I ask the Committee to note that continuing the scheme in this revised form represents an additional £80 million for the farming industry. One hon. Gentleman opposite said earlier that we are speaking of the taxpayers' money. That is true, and in this instance £80 million more of the taxpayers' money will be provided by the Bill for the farming industry.
10.15 p.m.
We are told that we should not write the rate into the Financial Resolution. With all due respect to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, it was exactly this that was done in connection with the 1957 Act. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) can escape a little here, perhaps, because he says. "I have always protested against Financial Resolutions being tightly drawn." That may well be so, but the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who now complain are those who were responsible for the drafting of the 1957 Act in which the rate was laid down. There was no deviation in the rate even in that Act.
The inclusion of a maximum rate of grant towards the cost of amalgamations and boundary improvements is also in
1360
accordance with the precedent of the Money Resolution of the 1957 Act. It is of no use the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) shaking his head—it is true. That is what happened in 1957.
Mr. Turton: But there was this difference, that before 1957 there was no improvement grant at all. The then Government said, "We will give a grant of up to that amount." If the present Government are reducing the grant from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., it is a very great difference.
Mr. Hoy: With respect, that is not the argument, and the right hon. Gentleman does not understand if he says that it is. What is complained of is that the rate is fixed within the Financial Resolution, and that, as a consequence, amendment cannot be made in Committee. That is exactly what was done in 1957, as the right hon. Member for Grantham will remember. I think that he had some responsibility for it. So it is of no use him now complaining about it.
It may be true that we have followed a bad precedent—I do not know; it is not for me to say. I only say that the precedent was established in 1957, and we have followed it. I have stated quite clearly and categorically that this Bill will provide £80 million, and that the grants will continue annually at a rate of about £11 million, which is not inconsiderable assistance. Hon. Members opposite sometimes do the agricultural industry more harm than good by such carping criticism, because they convey the impression, perhaps unintentionally, that the industry is always looking for something for nothing. We are here seeking to provide it with this amount.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has asked for an assurance that any grant applied for up to enactment will be at a rate of 33⅓ per cent., but he must know that the money is running out, and running out quickly; and that it is useless accepting claims for this assistance when the money is not there. Until we provide assistance through this Bill, we can entertain only very few more claims, there is so little money left.
We shall be giving grants on an extended scale. As my right hon. Friend

1361
the Secretary of State for Scotland, said the grants will be more widely spread. The tenant farmer will get certain assistance that he was not able to enjoy under the previous scheme. To that extent we will be spreading the money much better. It is because these precedents have already been established that I ask the House to approve the Financial Resolution.
Perhaps I may say just one word more. The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps we ought to have a Minister from the Treasury present, but he knows as well as I do that on these Bills it is the Departmental Minister who answers. He has had that job in the past, and we follow that precedent, too.
Mr. J. B. Godber: I must rise for a moment to take up this issue again because I must tell the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that his reply is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that he has not given any adequate reasons for drawing the Financial Resolution in this particular way.
It is not good enough for him to say that he is merely following the precedent of the 1957 Act. Of course we remember that. It was an entirely new provision, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said in an intervention. It was allowing for a third grant where there had been none before. It was a further extension and it was perfectly right to write it into the Financial Resolution. The Government are seeking now to reduce the level and it is done for one purpose alone. That is to stultify debate in Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of stultifying debate? Is that what he desires to do? If he wishes to intervene, perhaps he will get up and do so.
Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Member had better not lose his temper. I do not want to stultify criticism in Committee, but I cannot understand his opposition tonight because he with his hon. Friends wrote the rate into the 1957 Act. It is that that he is worried about. Having done so and being caught out, he dislikes it, but that is what we have to put up with in political life.
Mr. Godber: That is not the position at all. Merely reiterating the statement does not alter the question I asked, which is
1362
whether he is proud of stultifying debate in Committee. On that issue he has avoided a reply. It is a disgrace that the Government should be doing this. In my speech on Second Reading I specifically said that we should seek to deal with this matter in Committee. No attempt was made to point out that that would be impossible in Committee. Apparently the Government hoped that we would not notice these words in the Resolution. It is a disgraceful way to treat the House.
The Government are afraid of saying what they are doing. They are afraid of the feeling of farmers in the country. The figures I gave in my speech prove that it is not true that the rate of payment will be as great as it has been over recent months. It has been growing steadily way beyond the £11 million to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Because the Government know that they are cutting back, they are employing these shabby tactics, They cannot be proud of what they are doing. They have committed themselves to this amount. We shall take no further action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but we have made our protest publicly and clearly about the way in which the Government are behaving.
Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is showing a great deal of synthetic indignation. He knows very well that what he is doing tonight has been done in this Committee on almost every Bill that has come before us. What he wants to do is to drown the Bill by moving for such an increase as to make the rest of the Bill impossible to carry out.
He knows as well as any of us that when a Bill is framed it is framed as a complete pattern. The Government have to decide how much money is available for the farming industry in the working of this whole Bill. He can wreck it by increasing the amount of money for one particular part of the Bill. That is why the House of Commons procedure stipulates that when a Bill is introduced the amount of money available for the Bill must be stated by the Government. This matter is only part of a great Bill. The right hon. Member is concentrating on one little bit and forgetting the rest.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Member must know, if he has read the

1363
Bill, that some completely uncertain sums are involved in its implementation. What the Financial Resolution does, as he must surely know, is to set maxima, not exact figures.
Mr. Woodburn: Exactly. Nevertheless, the limits in regard to this amount are stipulated. The other amounts are more uncertain and latitude has been left in that case. The Opposition seeks to complain about the provisions of the Financial Resolution. This has been done when we were on the benches opposite in the same way. This is a game of politics. I hope that no farmer will be misled by this demonstration concentrating on one part of the Bill to befog farmers about the great benefits which will come from the Bill as a whole.
Sir H. Legge-BourkeThe right hon. Member is being too specious by far, as was the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He did not attempt to answer the question I put to him about whether or not the present rate will continue until such time as the present Bill becomes an Act. The whole argument put up in defence of the Financial Resolution by the Government and by the right hon. Member has been that it is common Parliamentary practice for Governments of the day to state the maxima. All I am asking is that the Government should at least have the courage to set the maxima no higher than the existing law stands. If they had done that in this Financial Resolution, it would have enabled hon. Members on both sides to table Amendments for Standing Committee designed to see whether the existing rate should continue or whether some new reduced rate should operate.
That is all that this request that I have made tonight would involve. It does not for one moment suggest that in any way the House of Commons should seek to go beyond what received the Queen's Recommendation before this Financial Resolution was introduced. All it is asking is for the House of Commons to allow the Standing Committee which will study the Bill in detail to go into the issue with very great care as to whether the existing rate should continue or whether some new reduced rate should apply.
The effect of the Resolution as drafted by the Government is to prevent any con-
1364
sideration being given to the continuation of the rate as it stands today and to impose upon the House of Commons willy-nilly, whether it likes it or not, in Committee and on further stages of the Bill, a limit of a reduction down to one-quarter, whereas hitherto it has been one-third. This is a gross abuse of the use of the Financial Resolution. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's answer is highly unsatisfactory.
Mr. Hoy: May 1 add one sentence? The House of Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading. Clause 29(8,a) lays down when the last application for grant will be received. That is the date to which the hon. Gentleman and others have just given a Second Reading.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it a fact that during the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend gave notice that he would be raising things in Standing Committee which the Government spokesman, knowing the terms of the Financial Resolution, knew that my right hon. Friend could not raise?
Mr. Hoy: It is not for me to reply to the Second Reading debate.
Mr. George Y. Mackie: I have listened to this squabble. I am tired of hearing past sin quoted as precedent for present and subsequent sin. In this way we shall never get our procedure right. Right hon. and hon. Members on this side seem to have presented a much better case than that put forward by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.— [Mrs. Hart.]
Question agreed to.
Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

GREY SEALS (FARNE ISLANDS)
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move,
That the Grey Seals Protection (Farne Islands) (Suspension of Close Season) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th October, in the last Session of Parliament. be not made.
I want to make clear from the outset that I move the Prayer, in the terms set out on the Order Paper, to invite my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to explain the views of his Ministry on this matter, and not to embark on a full discussion of the complicated and argumentative issue which has been debated, sometimes bitterly, in the country now for some years.
It is of the greatest importance that the culling of grey seals on the Farne Islands should be briefly discussed this evening and the circumstances made clear. I do not want to discuss the whole background of this issue, except to say that there is very real division of opinion among scientists in this country and elsewhere about the procedure that is being adopted, and I want to make clear that I have always opposed this procedure of the culling.
I move the Prayer on behalf of the National Trust. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and I are members of the executive of the Trust and we believe that it is important that its view on this matter should be expressed in the House. As I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the National Trust agreed some three years ago that culling should take place over a period of three years, although there was very strong opposition to this from among members of the Trust and more widely in the country, and certainly in the North-East. The National Trust agreed to this culling for three years, but it has made clear publicly that this year is the final year of that three-year period and that it is unable to accept the position that further culls should take place next year.
1366
Now we understand that the Ministry requires some extension of its present facilities for carrying on the cull for some further period this year to complete this existing year's cull. The National Trust has accepted this year's cull and therefore cannot object to the completion of the cull within this season. We understand that because of weather conditions and other matters it may be necessary for some further day's culling to take place. I gather, for example, that it was not possible for a cull to take place yesterday, when it was officially recognised as such, because of weather conditions, and no one knows how many more days may elapse before culling can take place this year.
The National Trust, therefore, accepts the necessity for the completion of this year's cull, but the Order would authorise a cull to take place next year as well if we do not insert a caveat now—a warning to the Minister and my hon. Friend that the National Trust has declared publicly that it would not agree at present to a continuation of the cull for a further year. As is known, the National Trust is the owner of the property concerned in this case—the Farne Islands. It became the owner for the very purpose of protecting wild life there, including the seals as well as bird life, and for the protection of the wonderful scenic beauty of that area which is admired by people from all over the world. Another related object of the National Trust's coming into ownership of the area is to preserve facilities for people to see the wonders of the district. As a Northumbrian myself, I can, I think, acclaim with some personal pride the undoubtedly unique quality of this area.
It is important, therefore, that we should receive from the Minister tonight an indication of his Ministry's purpose in bringing the Order forward. We can understand its necessity in order to complete this year's cull, but I hope that he will be able to assure us that he does not intend to use the Order to carry the culling procedure on for further years, or, at least, that he will ensure that there is another opportunity for full discussion of the matter before a further cull takes place next year.
For myself—this is not only a personal view but is that of some scientists, too,

1367
including some in the North-East—any suggested extension of culling is not based upon sufficiently accurate scientific evidence, and we should be most unhappy if the Minister used this Order to carry on a procedure which has aroused very strong opposition. We understand very well the views of fishermen with regard to the salmon fisheries, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that there will be an opportunity for further discussion before any continuation of the Order is proceeded with. On the assumption that that will be forthcoming, I and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will be prepared to let the matter rest at this stage, hoping that further scientific evidence can be brought forward during the coming weeks and months to establish much more accurately what the true position is.
10.37 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I seek not to oppose the Order but to elicit a little more information from the Minister about it. It is not surprising that this should be a slightly controversial question. Not only is it a controversial subject but the Fame Islands in particular, which are visited by many people especially to see the grey seals, are bound to be an area of special interest not only to visitors but to others who are aware of the background of this controversy.
The topic with which the Order deals was examined in great detail in the report of the Consultative Committee on Grey Seals and Fisheries published about two years ago under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy, which I have consuled with the object of discovering where the balance of fact in this matter lies. The Committee estimated at that time, when discussing the Farne Islands, that there were about 3,500 seals there, or about 8 per cent. of the total population, and it was agreed that, unless some measure of this kind were taken the potential increase would be about 1,000 a year. It was further agreed that the object should be to reduce this figure by about one quarter, to 750. I do not think that anyone can dispute the authenticity of that point.
1368
Two other points were made. It was desirable to keep the killing to a minimum, and it was desirable to avoid disturbance, if possible. With those two objects in mind, it was recommended that the procedure should be spread over five years. Then, since suggestions were offered as to the prospective results of killing only cows and female pups, the Committee recommended that there should be a combination of the two methods.
My first question is whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us how the Order will bear on the recommendation of the Committee. Is it to be the culling off of a combination of cows and additional female pups and the numbers adjusted accordingly? Until that is clear we are not arguing about the same thing. My second point is that the Committee recognise that the effect of the increase of the Farne Island seal population on fisheries was not clear and that the biological prospects were obscure. Is any more information available now?
These recommendations, on which, I take it, the Order is based, were scientific and were agreed by the Nature Conservancy, in which I have a great deal of confidence, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a possibility of the National Trust withdrawing its agreement in the future. The reason for this is not clear, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say a word about it.
I think that the real source of anxiety is whether the slaughtering of the seals will be limited to the cull authorised by the Order. Early this year it was made clear that the Order exposed the seals to promiscuous hunting and killing. The point is that under the 1932 Act the close season is 1st September to 31st December, and the penalty for a breach of the close season Order is about £5 a seal. But the effect of this Order is to suspend the close season, and that means that poachers are liable only to a fine of £5, a nominal penalty of £5, regardless of the slaughter that they achieve—a single fine of £5 under the byelaws of the National Trust. This is an important point because it makes a difference between scientific killing and other killing that may be introduced or encouraged by the Order. I think we are entitled to ask what the consequences will be. Elsewhere on the coast there have undoubtedly been raids,

1369
with killing and cruelty, such as on parts of the Norfolk coast. What are the prospects for the Farn Islands?
I overwhelmingly accept the need for a sane view about this and not an unduly sentimental one. Baby seals are, unfortunately, endearing objects, and their slaughter is bound to arouse protest even if authorised by the hon. Gentleman. That does not concern me unduly. What concerns me—this is a point that the hon. Gentleman may accept—is the knowledge from past experience in other fields that control sometimes advocated with a wealth of circumstantial scientific data leads to the most unexpected results. Unexpectedly species are rendered rare or extinct by measures which have the most solid backing from the most respectable sources. This is where I have a twinge of uneasiness about even this Order, in spite of the respectable recommendations that it has.
The Committee I mentioned recommended that there should be continual study of distribution, population and biology on the seals and, in particular, of the changes which would be brought about by control. Is this continuing? Can the hon. Gentleman say a word about this? If it is, who is responsible for it? We should like to be quite sure that the scientific supervision is still in hand. Can it be guaranteed that the future of the Order will depend on the results of such a study and not simply upon pressure, however legitimate, from the fishery interests, which could lead to unforeseen consequences for seals? I should like more information on these points before the Order is passed.
10.45 p.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: I do not speak with the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) or of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). Probably I represent more the public point of view, which is very much concerned about this Order and the killings of grey seals which have been taking place and are to continue. I prefer to use the word "killing" rather than "culling" because it is easy to deceive ourselves with a gentle word like "culling" into forgetting just what we are really undertaking.
The public is concerned about this continuing killing of grey seals because
1370
it does not understand why such continuance is necessary. Quite frankly, neither do I. I have heard the arguments advanced for it in the past, arguments which have been advanced again tonight. But it is still not clear to me why it has to go on nor how long it is to continue.
Although the Order is to continue the process for only a further 12 months there is public concern that the process may be repeated indefinitely year after year. It is very easy, once a process has started, for it to go on because no very strong movement is organised against it or because no very strong arguments are put against it. It gains a momentum of its own which can be dangerous.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, in matters of this kind it is extremely easy to go wrong. The grey seal is a very attractive creature to everyone, it seems, except the salmon fishermen. It is an animal which we should be very sorry to lose completely as we have lost so many other animals and birds through misguided control measures. It is possible, with the best will and advice in the world, to go too far and reduce the seal population to a point where it dies out altogether. Therefore, we must watch the position very closely. We must have the facts. We must have full knowledge of what we are doing and that is why we ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say more about this Order and what is proposed.
A big problem of our time—it is big even in relation to so many world events—is to find the right balance in the world between men and animals and the other species. It is necessary from all points of view to do so. We live in a tight civilisation, so densely populated and with so many claims on our resources from men and animals, that we have to be very sure that we get the balance right.
It is particularly for this reason, because there is concern about these continual killings of grey seals, that there is a feeling that we have perhaps reached the point where we ought to stop. I ask my hon. Friend for more information. If he will not agree to take back the Order, I hope that at least he will assure us that he will look at the matter again before any further killings or cullings take place.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) that it is certain that we are unlikely to lose the grey seals around our coasts. They are to be found not only in the Farne Islands. We have the largest colonies in the world at North Rona, in the Orkneys, where there were over 900 in 1964. I hope she will realise that there are far too many grey seals. We are the only country in the world which does not pay a bounty to fishermen to kill them and which protects them. We have more than enough.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) talked about the balance of nature. The grey seal has been protected for so long and the protection of our fisheries has been so poor that, as the Nature Conservancy Report for September, 1964, said, there is little evidence of seals disappearing from around our coasts. Indeed, the colonies have been getting completely out of hand.
This matter has been debated for many years and it would be wrong tonight to reiterate all the arguments as to why the cull is necessary. One of the reasons is the damage done to fisheries and nets——
Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not true that there has been a good deal of improvement in the design of nets and that the new form of net has succeeded in avoiding the kind of damage to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
Mr. Kimball: I agree, and accept the point. But I do not think there is any doubt that the cull itself is necessary. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked for further information. In 1964 there was a symposium at Cambridge, at which no fewer than 34 learned professors who had studied the whole problem of seals came together. They came to the conclusion that the culling of the seals round our coasts was the only possible way to handle the problem. The House should not delude itself into believing that there is any lack of research into the problem.
I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance, bearing in mind the feelings which have been expressed, that the work of management
1372
and the major cullings of grey seals around our coasts will be allowed to continue. Otherwise very serious damage will be done to our fisheries.
It seems that the National Trust is now experiencing qualms about the management of the grey seal on the Farne Islands. I think that the best thing would be for the National Trust to hand over this business to the Nature Conservancy. I do not see why the National Trust should be managing a herd of grey seals on the Fame Islands at all. If the National Trust is worried about it, it should get out of the grey seals business and leave it to people who understand it and who have the confidence of this House.
10.53 p.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I come from a constituency on the north-east coast of Scotland where a lot of damage happens every year to salmon and salmon nets. I have seen it at first hand—not only the damage that is done physically to the nets but also damage to the salmon through being clawed and part-eaten by the seals.
Therefore, I should like to reinforce the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) that we must not allow sentiment to cloud our views of this issue, much as I respect the expressions of sentiment and the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).
I believe there is plenty of scientific research into this subject, and I would particularly mention the Marine Research publications by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. I should like to refer to the report in Paper No. 2 on "Seal Damage to Salmon Fisheries", published this year. In that report, which is based on scientific evidence which has been collected properly, it is estimated that the annual damage to salmon round our coasts is of the order of £67,000 a not inconsiderable sum.
I know that these arguments have been debated before, but there is a slightly more worrying factor which has not been mentioned in this debate. It is brought out in another Marine Research publication by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1963, on the incidence

1373
of the cod worm and its infestation of cod and salmon. A great deal of research has been done on this subject since 1945 by various research institutes, and particularly by the Torrie Research Institute at Aberdeen.
As the result of representations by medical officers of health and doctors in hospitals and elsewhere, the research was instigated and it has shown that the incidence of infestation of codworm rises around the area of the Farne Islands. A definite relationship has been established between the distribution of seals and the incidence of the codwormֵ This is one factor which may have been overlooked but which has a considerable bearing on this matter and on the interests of the fishing industry beyond the immediate interests of salmon which are usually mentioned.
We must get into perspective the figures for the seal population so that the talk about the disappearance of the species may be ended. In 1914, it was estimated that the total grey seal population was about 500. In the light of later research, this was obviously a conservative estimate and a 1963 report showed the estimated population as being about 30,000. Bearing in mind those figures and the obvious increase over the last 40 or 50 years, we have to get the matter into perspective.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I join with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) in inquiring what the Minister's intentions are if the Order goes through the House. The hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the Executive of the National Trust. He on balance is inclined to be against the culling of seals. I am not so certain that I agree with him, but it shows our considerable disquiet that I am happy to join with him tonight in questioning the Order.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the beauty of the Farne Islands. The prosperity and health of the people who live there, and of the fishermen, are obviously also very dear to his heart, as to mine. Apart from our joint membership of the National Trust, the other reason why we can agree about opposing the Order is that we are both Northumbrians.
1374
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked some very pertinent questions and in so far as some of them concerned the Trust, it may be to the advantage of the House if I try to answer them. He asked why the Trust had apparently changed its policy. The answer to that answers his second question. He asked if the effect of the cull was obscure, and what would be the result of killing seals on the Farne Islands. The Trust agrees that the effect of the cull is obscure and for that very reason the Trust has unanimously concluded that we cannot tolerate this culling without in our own minds being completely convinced that it is both necessary and beneficial.
We have allowed three years of the cull to take place and there does not seem to be good enough scientific evidence to support the view that it is essential to the preservation of the fisheries, or that the population of the seals has grown to such an extent that it is necessary forcibly, so to speak, to reduce it.
He referred to people other than the Minister and his servants who might try to take seals on the Farne Islands. I can assure him that the Trust will most rigorously prevent any other person from landing on the islands with that purpose and if someone were to land and attempt to take seals or kill them, we would certainly invoke our byelaws and arrest him.
We cannot prevent people taking seals in the middle of the sea or on some other island or shore, but the Order relates only to the Farne Islands, over which the National Trust has rights of ownership. I agree with my right hon. Friend that from past experience it seems that the strength of the 1932 Act probably is not sufficient to allow others to be prevented when the Minister takes power to make a cull.
My right hon. Friend raised the question of the balance of natural forces which would result from the culling of seals. My hon. Friends the Members for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) and North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) both touched upon this, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). This underlines the doubts in the minds of the Trust about what the effect of all this will be.

1375
The effect of any action upon animals and their whole way of life and their habits is difficult to predict and is something about which we know surprisingly little. I do not believe that the scientists are certain what the habits of the seal are, what its life span and its main diet are and what would be the effect of killing a certain proportion on the Farne Islands. It may well be that a reduced population would breed all the harder, or that if the population grew too much, serious disease would control the population in its own natural way. Possibly the cod worm, of which I had not heard before tonight, is an important factor which we should consider, and we will be expecting from the Minister a dissertation on the effect upon the population of seals of the cod worm, if that is in order in this debate.
These, however, are uncertainties. The Trust would like these and other uncertainties to be cleared up and to be presented with evidence which is so strong and sure that it would have no doubt and no reasonable possibility of objecting to the killing of Farne Island seals. Without those assurances and that evidence, however, the Trust is quite right to question the wisdom of doing this.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green objected to the word "cull" and preferred "kill" as being more accurate. I am inclined to agree with her. The word "cull", I think, derives from the French cueillir, which is normally taken to mean plucking, as of flowers. I recognise the point made by the hon. Lady that it is rather too soft a word to use for the process by which these seals are killed.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tonight give us the assurance which we seek that whatever may be his policy in the future, he will not use the Order to institute killing in the year 1966. We recognise that the Trust has undertaken to give him permission to complete this years' killing, but that does not, in our opinion, allow him to enter into the Farne Islands next year.
If during the coming few months the Minister can produce evidence to convince the Trust that the stand which it has taken is wrong and that the policy it is pursuing is unwise, surely it can reverse its decision and allow future culling to take place. I do not believe, however, that this will happen, and I believe that
1376
the evidence will be unlikely to persuade the Trust.
We would not, therefore, tonight want to oppose the Order simply on the ground of preventing the Minister going to the Farne Islands this year. If he will give us an undertaking to that extent, I am sure that the hon. Member for South Shields and I would allow the Order to pass and then, perhaps, we could discuss the matter early in the season next year and come to a conclusion before the 1966 cull.
11.4 p.m.
Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): I am very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Not only do scientists lack exact knowledge of the habits and the life of seals but they lack considerable knowledge of the life and habits of the salmon which we are seeking to protect.
I appreciate the erudition of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), but I suggest that it is more than sentiment that makes me question this Order. Like the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I worry very much about interfering with nature. As a doctor, I think that this is justified on occasion, but it must be very strenuously and strictly controlled. Unless it is, we, as mere human beings, do not know what forces we are unleashing. I hate to suggest that because these seals are grey, and presumably coloured, this is another instance of colour prejudice and that if they were white they would not be subject to this Order.
I have no strong objection to the Order itself, but I ask that the position be watched very closely. In this country we do not have an over-abundance of wild life of any kind. By means of culling, or by other methods used for thinning out animal populations, we have in the past exterminated some species. I ask my hon. Friend to watch the position very carefully, and to make sure that if there is the slightest indication that this process has gone far enough, the whole position will be reconsidered next year.
11.7 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South

1377
Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), for putting down this Prayer. It gives me the opportunity to explain the reason for this Order.
Perhaps I might deal first with the question of cod worm. I shall not give the House a dissertation on this topic, even though I know a little about it because I have had to discuss it with the research people at Torry and with our own scientists at Lowestoft who have been examining this question for some time. As with many other things, it takes time before one can say that one really believes that one thing is the cause of the other. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that he would like me to be able to give an assurance on scientific knowledge, but he is asking a little too much, because even scientists do not agree about what should be done. In fact, there is a certain difference of opinion about that, but I shall say why we have decided to take action.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, may I say that culling means what it says—killing if she prefers it that way. It is a revolting thing. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, do not like making Orders of this kind. Indeed, we do not like having to ask the Ministry's servants to carry out Orders of this kind, so I hope that once and for all we can get rid of the idea that we get some sort of satisfaction from having to make Orders like this. We do this on the advice of the scientists who assure us that it is absolutely necessary, not only for the protection of fisheries, but for the existence of the seals themselves.
I am told that, unless certain precautions are taken, considerable suffering would take place among the seal pups on the Farne Islands because of the tremendous increase in the population of the seals there. Culling of grey seals took place on the Farne Islands in 1963 and 1964, and the need for the draft Order arises from my right hon. Friend's decision to authorise a further cull this year—a cull which should, in fact, be taking place this week, but I will come
1378
to that later. The cull has been authorised because of the damage which is continuing to be done to the fisheries; and it must be remembered that the number of seals in the Farne colony is now more than 4,000. Their numbers go on increasing.
The Minister has acted throughout on the advice of an expert committee, mainly composed of scientists. I give that assurance to the right hon. Member for Ashford. This committee was formerly a committee of the Nature Conservancy and is now a committee of the Natural Environment Research Council. It has investigated each year the facts of the damage and has advised the Minister. The committee recommended in 1963 that, to control the amount of damage, the culls should take place annually for five years. It was recommended that 360 female pups should be culled during each of the five years. However, my right hon. Friend felt that he should make a decision each year in the light of the most up-to-date information available to him. Thus, this Order is made annually so that he can look at the position each year.
The current Order, which was made on 4th December, 1964, made provision for one year. This suspension comes to an end on Friday of this week. If the cull which should have been carried out at this very moment had been taking place there would have been no need for my right hon. Friend even to have made the Order. I am bound to tell the House that at the time my right hon. Friend took his decision there was always the possibility that adverse weather conditions might delay the cull and, as I have said, that was why my right hon. Friend took the precaution of laying the Order.
The cull was due to start yesterday, but because of strong winds of up to 60 m.p.h. I am told that the helicopter which is used to carry our officers to the Fame Islands has so far been unable to take off. The forecast is that the winds will drop tomorrow, but I do not think that we can rely on completing the cull by the end of the week. Thus, the Order is not designed to legislate for another year, as it has been suggested. It is designed to cover this particular period; no more than that.
I agree that this has given some trouble to the National Trust because the Trust is the proprietor of the Fame Islands. I

1379
have some sympathy with the members of the National Trust. I am a member of the National Trust for Scotland and for some years I have served on its executive committee. I know just how they feel about the matter.
Before I conclude, I should like to say a word about the National Trust, first of all expressing my right hon. Friend's gratitude for the way in which the Trust has co-operated in the carrying out of the culls which have so far been authorised. I am very conscious that this has not been an easy matter for the Trust, that some of its members have very strong objections to the culling of the grey seals, and that, indeed, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and my hon. Friends have said, it has indicated that it would be unwilling to agree to culls being carried out on its property in future years.
While I have great sympathy with the positon in which the Trust finds itself, I hope that it will not prejudge this question. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is keeping an open mind on whether or not a fresh cull will be necessary, and I hope that the Trust will do the same. If the evidence next year convinces my right hon. Friend that the culls should continue, he will be very ready to furnish the Trust with that evidence, and I hope that the Trust, too, will be ready to consider the matter on its merits in that event.
That is the reason for the cull, and the way in which it is carried out, and that is our position vis-à-vis the National Trust. The position is that if we could have guaranteed that the whole operation would have been over this week, my right hon. Friend would not have found it necessary even to lay the draft Order. It will cover the period necessary for completing this year's operation. I give the House the assurance that if any further action is to be taken next year, we shall provide the House with an opportunity of discussing it.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: Before my hon. Friend sits down, can he say whether the evidence which may be produced next year to the National Trust will also be made generally available?
Mr. Hoy: I would not like to say off the cuff that we would do this. This is
1380
a matter, first of all, between the Ministry and the National Trust, and I think that the National Trust would want the information in confidence in the first place. It may be that as a result of consultation taking place, another decision would be arrived at. In the meantime, I give the assurance that we will first give it to the National Trust if we are to ask the Trust to do something. I would not like to venture an opinion on what would happen after that.
Mr. Blenkinsop: With the leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the further assurance, for which we asked, that this Order will not be used to determine the issue as to future years but is necessary in order to complete the present cull. I had heard that weather conditions had not enabled the cull to start. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will do his best to see that every possible piece of scientific evidence is provided to assist us in this matter. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS REBATESREGULATIONS
11.19 p.m.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Redundancy Payments Rebates Regulations 1965 (S.I., 1965. No. 1893), dated 1st November 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for putting down this Prayer on the same evening as the House has had such an interesting discussion on the grey seals. Being new to the House, I did not appreciate that so many hon. Members—and, in particular, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller)—were so interested in that subject.
The Order provides that where redundancy of 10 or more employees is contemplated, 28 days' notice of dismissal must be given. If the employer fails to do this, he loses 10 per cent. of the rebate to which he is entitled under the Act. The Act mentions loss of rebate, but

1381
many employers regard this as a kind of fine for not being able to give such notice.
I raise this subject because one industry in particular will find it almost impossible to give 28 days' notice in many circumstances, and that is the ship repairing industry, an industry which is pretty vital to the country. I can see four particular difficulties that could arise. First of all, it is almost impossible for ship repairing firms to estimate from day to day precisely how much labour will be required. let alone know 28 days in advance. There is no telling when ships will come in for repair, and there is no telling when there may be delays in their arrival because of storms, collisions, breakdown, or diversion to another port because of strikes.
The second difficulty which can arise is in steel deliveries. Although the shipyards are well served by private enterprise steel, it is not unknown for delays in deliveries to take place, perhaps with as little as a week's notice. This can have a considerable effect on the employment position. A particular question relating to Manchester has been brought to my attention. On some occasions the Manchester Ship Canal is blocked for lengthy periods and such a blockage could prevent the arrival in a dock of some ships for repair and could involve sudden payoffs. When a ship is nearing completion—this applies particularly to passenger liners—it is almost impossible to determine 28 days' in advance when an individual's job or the job of a particular trade, will finish. My fear is that, recognising this impracticability, far too many employers will fail to put in a 28 days' notice of dismissal under these Regulations and lose the benefit to which they are entitled. To hedge against possible redundancy, they might put in a notice to the Ministry which will remove much of the benefit which otherwise would accrue.
I do not think I need prove that it is often impracticable for the industry to give the notice because in discussions with the Ministry and in correspondence it has been accepted that in some circumstances the shipping industry will find it difficult to provide the 28 days' notice. The Ministry says that it intends to implement this provision in a reasonable way. I want to know what is suggested that the
1382
Ministry will accept as a reasonable excuse for not giving 28 days' notice. Will it accept delays in steel supplies as an excuse? I fancy that it would.
Suppose that there is a repair contract from a regular customer which is suddenly cancelled. Would that be a reasonable justification for not giving 28 days' notice? When it becomes known that a major pay-off is to take place, the pace of the work sometimes goes a little slower. In some circumstances the employers might wish to give as a reason for not giving the 28 days' notice that the general awareness that such a state of redundancy would take place would result in a slowing down of production, not only in the trade concerned but also in other trades. The ship repair industry is facing a difficult time and it would like assurance on this point which it feels could cause damage to the industry.
There are many other points I had hoped to raise, but I will end now in the hope that I have left sufficient time for a reply.
11.24 p.m.
Sir Edward Brown: For the same reasons as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has given the House, I join him in this Prayer.
We raise this matter not because we are against the principle of the Act, or against the principles in the Regulations. I think the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance of our attitude in Committee on the Bill. We are concerned that as we had a good Bill we should also have good regulations. I have discovered that there is a passage in the Regulations which does not line up with the Act. There is a section relating to termination of notice which is irregular in relation to the Act. In one case it specifies five weeks and in another four weeks. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has had his attention drawn to that. On these grounds I join my hon. Friend in praying that the Regulations be annulled.
11.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I would admit at once, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) that there is a defect in these Regulations. We in the Ministry noticed it only this morning,

1383
and are now taking steps to substitute 21 days for 28 days. In that way the firm undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave, through myself, in Committee will be fufilled, that is not to require more than 28 days' notice. Having given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his point.
So far as the subject raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is concerned, I readily admit also that there are certain difficulties in the shipbuilding industry as there are, probably, in the construction industry. It is our hope that perhaps these industries will get together with the trade unions concerned and, possibly, formulate a scheme which will meet their own particular requirements. I would remind the hon. Member that the Act does provide for this, but I would point out to the hon. Member for Cathcart that questions of notice will arise only where there have been two years or more of service. Under the Contracts of Employment Act, if an employee has two years' continuous service, then the employer is under a legal obligation to give two weeks' notice or two weeks' pay in lieu. If an employee has more than live years' service, then the employer is under obligation to give four weeks' notice.
I believe that the Regulations will be interpreted reasonably, and that it will not be a question of officials in the Ministry of Labour giving a final decision on these claims. If the employer feels aggrieved, then he has a right of recourse to an independent tribunal which will interpret what is thought to be reasonable. As the chairman of each tribunal will have with him assessors from both the employers' and the trade union sides, it should not be difficult to achieve a reasonable decision.
Where it is impossible or unreasonable for an employer to give the notice which is prescribed, there will not be any financial penalty. It is also not our present intention that these decisions on the 10 per cent. deduction from the rebate will be taken at the local level. In the first stages, at least, all cases for making the 10 per cent. permissible deduction will be referred to headquarters and decided there. If the employer feels the decision is unjust, then he will have the
1384
right of recourse, as I have said, to a tribunal.
Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow these Regulations to go through on the basis of the amendment which we shall lay forthwith and which will entirely fulfil the undertakings I gave earlier on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I wish only at this hour to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and for the assurance which he has given.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WEST SUFFOLK (TOWN EXPANSION PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My constituency includes by far the larger part of the County of West Suffolk and, like the rest of East Anglia, it is undergoing great changes. The biggest change is in its population, which is scheduled to grow by 50 per cent. within the next generation. The greatest part of this increase will come from the town expansion programme which is to bring in about 40,000 people from London. These new people, who represent a most valuable injection of human talent, are normally referred to as "overspill". I would urge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and all Government Departments to get rid once and for all of this ugly word. It is nothing more than an insult to human beings to describe them as overspill.
The town expansion programme offers bright prospects for West Suffolk, provided that it is properly handled. But it also poses problems, not the least of which is the need for more money to lift up the standards of the entire social infrastructure of a county which is primarily agricultural. We do not have that money, because we are not a rich county. This raises questions of how Suffolk is to provide things like sports arenas and libraries. We can hardly pay

1385
for them out of local rates, but it is about specific problems that I want to speak tonight and, first, those of Bury St. Edmunds.
The question is whether expansion will improve Bury or not. So far, the town has handled its growth pattern better than most other towns. Its council has retained control, instead of handing it over to the Greater London Council. Its new housing estates have their problems, as I can testify, but, broadly speaking, I think that the Minister will agree that Bury has done well. Whether it continues to do so depends in large measure on central Government. The Minister has to decide about the borough's town map and I hope that he will ensure that there is an important place in Bury St. Edmunds for more home owners. Far too many young Families who want their own house built by a builder of their own choice are having to move out of the town to nearby villages to find a plot of land. The town is, therefore, in some danger of losing its most valuable younger citizens. They work in Bury but live and pay rates elsewhere.
My second concern is that Bury's population expansion should be matched by an adequate build-up of social amenities. There are few towns so well provided with cultural pursuits, but we need more and better recreational facilities. With the support of the county council I recently approached the Army Lands Department to inquire whether Gibraltar Barracks, the home of the East Anglian Regiment, could not be made available for civilian purposes. I am glad to say that when the regiment moves out, in 1968 or 1969, most of this extremely valuable site seems likely to be sold to the county council and the borough. It could be used for excellent purposes—for a badly needed extension of the West Suffolk College, for an indoor swimming pool and sporting arena where Bury's very good football team may be able to move from its present grounds.
I urge upon the Minister to use all his influence to see that we are not held up, for years, by Treasury parsimony over loan sanctions in the acquisition and development of this important site. Bury needs Gibraltar Barracks as
1386
an integral part of its town expansion. The sooner we get it the better.
I turn now to the other expansion towns in my constituency. I shall say little of Mildenhall except to refute those who have sought to attach to this fine little town and its able rural district council the odious label of a colour bar. Mildenhall has not and never has had a colour bar. Its council and its people seek only by wise forethought to ensure that hasty development does not cause unnecessary problems for the future.
In Newmarket, town expansion is unfortunately bedevilled by disagreements. I regret to say that local political candidates have been trying to get into the act for partisan advantage. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that this complex issue should be handled as far as possible in objective and nonpartisan terms for the benefit of all concerned.
The Minister is now studying Newmarket's proposals. I should like to have a talk with him before he makes any decisions, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance tonight that, in any plans which are approved for Newmarket's future, he will have regard to three main points. First, it is a West Suffolk town. Second, its primary business activity, racing, makes a unique and extremely valuable contribution to our national balance of payments. Third, far from wanting to destroy racing, the town council has specifically stated that expansion is to be balanced and limited.
I turn now to Haverhill, and, on behalf of the people who live there, I have some questions to ask about the medical and social facilities and the economic prospects which lie ahead. First, housing. Much of it is good in Haverhill, but some of it leaves a good deal to be desired. On the new estates, I have myself seen numerous cases of sloppy construction. In one brand new house which I visited, the new tenant found a heap of rubble, a dead mouse and a packet of half-eaten sandwiches walled in behind the splash-board in his bathroom. In other houses I have visited, Haverhill families have shown me walls which were wringing wet, doors and windows which did not fit, leaking ceilings, and back yards which

1387
were seven inches deep in water because no drains had been installed.
Many of these shortcomings may well be the result of going too fast, but, whatever be the reason, it is the people of Haverhill who have to put up with them—the tenants who have to live with built-in defects, and the officials of the Haverhill council—to whom I pay tribute, particularly to the town clerk—who are sometimes overwhelmed with complaints from people who want leaking taps, draughty windows or ill-fitting doors put right overnight.
These are the questions I want the Minister to answer as regards housing in Haverhill. Who precisely is responsible for seeing that contractors do a good job, with the taxpayers' money? To what extent do the Haverhill houses, specifically on the Clements Estate, conform to the Parker Morris standards of space and heating?
Now, the medical situation in Haverhill. It is nowhere near good enough. New people arriving in the town have virtually no choice of doctor; they must go on whichever list happens to be less full. There is no hospital, and, on the present plans, there will not be one for 15 or 20 years. I have talked to many young mothers in Haverhill who are genuinely worried about the lack of maternity facilities. What happens in many cases is that a young woman will have to walk up to a mile to the middle of the town to get a bus—which sometimes goes past her because it is full—and she then has a long and difficult journey to either Newmarket or Cambridge. When she gets there, she may well have to wait several hours for a return service. On a cold winter's day, with two or three children hanging on her arm, this can be a miserable experience. In 1965, it is not good enough.
With the support of the Haverhill town clerk, I recently went to see the regional hospital board, and the chairman told me that there had been almost no consultation with his authority over the build-up of population. It seems that an obstetric consultant will soon be making regular visits to Haverhill, and this is a start, but if we cannot have a hospital—which is something which I profoundly regret—at least let there be an extension of the local clinic, with a permanent staff
1388
nurse and a telephone operator who can get hold of a doctor right away when accidents occur. Let there also be better provision for getting patients and their relatives to the hospitals. I should like to see a regular bus for hospital visitors going from Haverhill to Newmarket and, perhaps, to Cambridge, too, on one afternoon each week.
My third point about Haverhill concerns jobs and wages. There is not enough of either. The credit squeeze may have something to do with it, but the situation at the moment is that, in a county which otherwise has a shortage of labour, Haverhill employment exchange shows about 100 men out of work. There is very little casual employment available for women and boys. There is very little overtime in many Haverhill factories, and many men in the town are travelling considerable distances to find work, after moving out there from London.
This is a disturbing picture against the background of an expansion programme in which jobs and houses are supposed to go together. I think that we should face the truth that Haverhill industry is not at the moment expanding as quickly as originally expected. I hope that the Minister will pay close attention to this, for either Haverhill must attract more industry or the rate of its population expansion may have to be slowed down. It does not help for British Railways to be closing down Haverhill station, and perhaps the Minister will say how he sees this making sense in an expanding town.
Lastly, I want to mention the need of Haverhill for more social amenities, post boxes and telephone kiosks, shops, a community centre, a better library, a bigger post office, more buses and more sports facilities. All these things take time. They also cost money. Time may well bring them. But the point I want to stress is that for those who have to wait and go without there is no comfort in being told that somewhere over the rainbow skies are blue. I hope the Minister will try to avoid the kind of answer which says that if only we wait all will be provided. Instead, I ask him to answer my specific questions, which I will sum up for his convenience.
First, as regards Haverhill, will he take care that the build up of housing and

1389
population does not run ahead of the provision of employment and social and medical amenities? We do not want to have a lopsided town. In particular, will he be wary about grandiose plans to push up population to far higher levels for which the economic foundations and resources simply do not exist.
Second, as regards Bury St. Edmunds, will he do his best to ensure that permission to redevelop Gibraltar Barracks for the community is not protractedly delayed?
Third, as regards Newmarket, will he do his utmost, as I have tried to do, to bring the conflicting parties into sensible agreement? There can be no good future for Newmarket unless racing and the urban district council agree.
Finally, with regard to West Suffolk as a whole, will he bear in mind that, while we welcome change, we want to civilise it. We accept the need for expansion. It is no less than our national duty to receive the people from London who come to the East Anglian countryside in search of new homes. We are glad to have them. But, while accepting expansion and all that goes with it, we want to preserve some of the character of our countryside and ancient towns. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that the success of the expansion programme and movement of population out of London will be measured not just by the statistics of people who change their homes but the quality of life that they are enabled to live in their new environment, and that to the extent that West Suffolk can provide people not merely with homes but with a good life, our programme should be judged. I do not believe that this can succeed unless we have a balance between the growth of population and the provision of the social amenities that go with it. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to answer these points tonight.
11.44 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I think that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has put his finger on some very important points arising out of an operation which we all accept can bring great mutual benefit to the parties involved. What is at the moment taking place in
1390
East Anglia is not just an act of good will by the East Anglians, valuable and important a contribution as that has been to the smooth working of the operation. There has also been a very valuable influx of people into the area, people with new outlooks and new ways of life. The mutual interchange of these things will, I am quite certain, in the long run lead to a livelier, more varied community. As the hon. Gentleman says, these things are not done without a certain amount of tension and difficulty but there is no doubt that in East Anglia tremendous efforts have been made by all parties in partnership to try to meet some of the difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Gibraltar Barracks. As Bury St. Edmunds is engaged in the reception of overspill, that itself is one of the grounds for giving it special attention in the matter of loan sanction. I hope that by the time the barracks are available some of the urgent and immediate economic difficulties will be over. Certainly, the reception of a rapidly growing population is one of the major factors in deciding loan sanction.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Newmarket. I must make clear the position here. My right hon. Friend has called in the planning application in connection with the Newmarket expansion and there will be an inquiry next year. I cannot, therefore, talk to the hon. Gentleman about that now. Before the inquiry, what I say would be redundant, as the inquiry is the right place for determining the facts. If I talk to him after it, both he and I may be in serious trouble with the Council on Tribunals for having had consultations which were with not before the inquiry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his best influence to see that the matters of which he talks are deployed at the inquiry so that there can be a full review of the complicated inter-relations of the problems on which my right hon. Friend will have to make his decision.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the need to phase expansion in West Suffolk is correct. There are great difficulties in rapid movement. On the other hand, it is of the essence of this sort of undertaking that movement should be rapid because the need to rehouse people is tremendous. This is the dilemma one is always faced with in these matters.

1391
Looking at the problem from the point of view of the reception areas, one sees the risk of quick movement and the danger of getting out of step. But from the point of view of the desperate urgency of finding better housing conditions for the people of London and Liverpool, for example, one cannot just judge the thing from this angle.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: But the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is necessary at least to ensure that the economic means of making a livelihood for the people moving to the reception areas are available.
Mr. MacColl: I shall come to that. This is the problem of trying to reach equilibrium between things dynamic and not static. It is not easy to see that we have equilibrium. Jobs and home are tied up together, but both move at different speeds. I have visited reception areas where the plan was that industrialists should move there, having been promised that labour would be available. But when they have got there, they have found that a hold-up in housing has delayed the availability of labour. This creates much difficulty. It is, therefore, in everyone's interest to see that jobs and homes go together. But it is not something which can be done beautifully and tidily to several decimal places of accuracy. It is a question of phasing these activities so that as far as possible we get the right result.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the houses in the area of Haverhill. That is a matter for the local authority which is responsible for housing. They are the responsible people. If the houses were built by the Greater London Council as agent, under an agency agreement, the G.L.C. would be responsible. If some of the houses were built by the district council because they would be for their own local people, the council itself would be responsible But I think that these matters, on the whole, are settled with great amicability between the G.L.C. and the local housing authority.
As far as Parkway is concerned, as far as I know, the only Parker Morris houses there are the 80 Calder industrialised-built houses. They are up to Parker Morris standards. In "Clements", as far as I know, some of the houses which are
1392
being built there are Parker Morris. My right hon. Friend wants to maintain Parker Morris housing standards, and it is the intention that all new houses should be up to those standards. I hope there will not be any difficulty about this.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the difficulties connected with hospitals and the need for better surgeries. These again are matters about which he has been questioning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and to which he has had some answer. My right hon. Friend is watching the position, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there will always be conflicting priorities in these matters. The Minister is, I am sure, well aware of the needs of the area and of the rapidly increasing population.
I should like to make it clear that we always have this problem of the conflict between the need to preserve the quality of the social services and the need to expand them quickly. That does not apply only in the case of new and expanding towns. It is a dilemma which we get everywhere. But special risk and danger attach to it because of these rapidly expanding populations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the challenge presented to the people in the various areas. In one of his more moving speeches, which I happened to read the other day, I saw that he said these problems could not be solved in Whitehall or at County Hall; they must be settled on the ground. I agree very much with that statement.
A study group of the Central Housing Advisory Committee published a pamphlet called "The First 100 Families". This is a report with some very practical and down-to-earth advice about how to handle the problem of reception. My right hon. Friend has decided that the work of this study group needs to be carried further, and he has set up a special sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee to consider the scale of community facilities and services needed in expanding communities, and to consider the administrative and financial problems arising in town development schemes. I think the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the Clerk of the Haverhill U.D.C., to whom he referred, is one of the members of the sub-committee. His

1393
intimate and practical experience of these problems will be available to my right hon. Friend. This will be to the advantage of lie country as a whole as well as to Haverhill.
We are aware of the problem and we are consulting the people who are involved in these matters. It may, however, help the hon. Gentleman if I make it clear that the responsibility for making these arrangements lies with the local authorities concerned. That is where the provisions for the expanding towns differ from those for new towns. There is no development corporation with Government money to direct. There has to be agreement among the county council, the district council and the exporting local authority, in this case the Greater London Council. On the whole, their relations have been happy. As schools, hospitals and roads and so on are built, other authorities become involved. They have the problem of having to work together, too, and everyone realises the importance of that.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There is a distinction between the new town arrangements, when new town corporations are established, often with a great deal of money, and the arrangements for an expanded town when, broadly speaking, the local authority has to provide amenities out of its own rates. In an area such as West Suffolk, which in many respects is comparatively poor, we need to jerk up the levels of our social facili-
1394
ties. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider whether there are means by which the financial arrangements available to new towns could be injected into the arrangements for expanded towns.
Mr. MacColl: I do not want to paint too rosy a picture of the new towns. They grumble that they do not have enough money for amenities. However, there are grants for expanding towns and, for example, in matters like water and sewerage help is given to the district authority to meet the great strain of the early stages. My right hon. Friend feels that there is much in the town development legislation which is worth while and he wants it to be a success. The advantage to an authority like Bury St. Edmunds is that it is king in its own castle and there are not the tensions which can arise in the new towns with the corporations. On the other hand, when one has responsibility, there are disadvantages which one has to tackle. The maturity of the community is often increased by tackling these problems. I do not want to seem complacent, but I think that this community will gain in maturity from the very fact that, under the leadership of the hon. Gentleman, it will have to struggle with these problems and work out its own solution to many of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Seychelles (Overseas Civil Servants' Salaries)
  Seychelles (Overseas Civil Servants' Salaries)
  Zambia-East Africa Rail Link (Feasibility Study)
  Zambia-East Africa Rail Link (Feasibility Study)
  Jamaica (Financial Assistance)
  Jamaica (Financial Assistance)
  Kenya (Farms)
  Kenya (Farms)
TECHNOLOGY
  Automation
  Automation
  Technological Information
  Technological Information
  Atomic Energy Authority (Research Projects)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Research Projects)
  Computer Programming (Power Cuts)
  Computer Programming (Power Cuts)
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Atomic Energy Authority
  Atomic Energy Authority
  Short-Wave Wireless Transmitters
  Short-Wave Wireless Transmitters
  Computers
  Computers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Establishments (Northern Ireland)
  Government Establishments (Northern Ireland)
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Import Charge
  Import Charge
  Newsprint (Surcharge)
  Newsprint (Surcharge)
  Road Projects, Kent (Deferment)
  Road Projects, Kent (Deferment)
  Export Rebate Scheme
  Export Rebate Scheme
  Battle of Hastings (Commemorative Coins)
  Battle of Hastings (Commemorative Coins)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Motor Vehicle Licence Duty
  Motor Vehicle Licence Duty
  Investment Allowances (Hotel Equipment)
  Investment Allowances (Hotel Equipment)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  War Loan
  War Loan
  North Sea (Oil and Natural Gas)
  North Sea (Oil and Natural Gas)
  Exports (Joint Stock Banks' Charges)
  Exports (Joint Stock Banks' Charges)
  Government Departments (Computers)
  Government Departments (Computers)
  Capital Gains
  Capital Gains
  Fuel Tax (Gas Feed-Stocks)
  Fuel Tax (Gas Feed-Stocks)
  Commercial Travellers (Meal Allowances)
  Commercial Travellers (Meal Allowances)
  Computers and Tabulators
  Computers and Tabulators
HOUSING
  Industrialised Building Methods
  Industrialised Building Methods
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Underground Car Parks (Tree Preservation)
  Underground Car Parks (Tree Preservation)
  New Ash Green, Kent (New Village)
  New Ash Green, Kent (New Village)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Local Authority Joint Widows and Orphans Fund
  Local Authority Joint Widows and Orphans Fund
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Doctors
  Doctors
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Collieries ("Bingo while you work" schemes)
  Collieries ("Bingo while you work" schemes)
  Opencast mining, Broomhill (Planning Direction)
  Opencast mining, Broomhill (Planning Direction)
  Drilling (Irish Sea)
  Drilling (Irish Sea)
  Underground Gas Storage
  Underground Gas Storage
SCOTLAND
  Dounreay Experimental Establishment (Cost of Services)
  Dounreay Experimental Establishment (Cost of Services)
  Worboys Committee (Directional Signs)
  Worboys Committee (Directional Signs)
  New Police Stations (Deferment)
  New Police Stations (Deferment)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Warhead Component (Test)
  Nuclear Warhead Component (Test)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  EIRE (PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS)
  EIRE (PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
GILBERT AND ELLICE ISLANDS
  Phosphate Exports (Royalties)
  Phosphate Exports (Royalties)
SEYCHELLES
  Civil Airfield
  Civil Airfield
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  North-West Study Group Report (Cumberland and Westmorland)
  North-West Study Group Report (Cumberland and Westmorland)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Health and Welfare Services
  Health and Welfare Services
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Administration of Justice (Police Expenses)
  Administration of Justice (Police Expenses)
  Probation Research Project (Report)
  Probation Research Project (Report)
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road)
  Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Gambling
  Gambling
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  HISTORIC DOCUMENTS (EXPORT)
  HISTORIC DOCUMENTS (EXPORT)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Disabled or Chronically Sick People
  Disabled or Chronically Sick People
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
POST OFFICE
  Unsolicited Goods
  Unsolicited Goods
BOARD OF TRADE
  Rolls Razor Ltd. (Report)
  Rolls Razor Ltd. (Report)
  West Cumberland (Industrial Development)
  West Cumberland (Industrial Development)
  Tobacco (Dollar Imports)
  Tobacco (Dollar Imports)
ROADS
  Rushden (By-pass)
  Rushden (By-pass)
  A.66 Road, Crackenthorpe
  A.66 Road, Crackenthorpe
  Sussex (Deferred Schemes)
  Sussex (Deferred Schemes)
  Wellington Road North, Stockport (Accidents)
  Wellington Road North, Stockport (Accidents)
  Cumberland Trunk Route (Accidents)
  Cumberland Trunk Route (Accidents)
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Examiners)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Examiners)
  Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations
  Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

LOADING OF VANS IN OXFORD STREET AREA
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on their discussions with the Commissioner of Police and the Greater London Council concerning the impediment to other traffic caused by vans loading or off-loading during peak hours in Oxford Street; and what periods and dates were covered by the inquiry.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, as this is a matter for the Greater London Council, I have asked them to let my noble friend have their views and those of the Commissioner of Police, with whom I have also been in touch. I understand that the Council's Traffic Manager wrote to my noble friend last week.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while being grateful to my noble friend for his trouble, is he aware that I found the answer from the Greater London Council quite incredible? May I ask my noble friend whether he really and truly believes the statement that in Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street no undue difficulty to vehicles is caused by goods vehicles both loading and unloading?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it all depends on the interpretation one puts on the word "undue". There is most certainly difficulty, but I am assured by the Traffic Manager of the Greater London Council that there is continuous
1132
supervision and no vehicle is on the spot for more than five minutes without being observed, or under observation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord said this was a matter which was the responsibility of the Greater London Council. Am I to take it that the Ministry of Transport disclaim all responsibility for traffic conditions in Oxford Street?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, Parliament and the Government of which the noble Viscount was a distinguished member transferred this responsibility from the Minister of Transport to the Greater London Council. Under the Act, part of which he assisted through this House, the Minister has only reserve powers. I understand that reserve powers mean that the Minister can step in only if he can prove that in fact the Greater London Council has fallen down on the job, and we are not in that position at the moment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am very serious about this. Is the noble Lord aware that on December 13 I hope we shall be able to prove to him that the Greater London Council has fallen down on the job? But may I ask him whether he is aware that statements like this do a great deal of harm? Does he really believe we are going to be fobbed off with something which is quite untrue? This congestion does exist, and there is not a bus driver in Central London who would not agree with me.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, everyone agrees, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness on a previous occasion, that the only satisfactory solution to this problem is rear access to the business premises in the area. That can be provided only when redevelopment takes place, and that may be some time ahead. Meanwhile, the Greater London Council has adequate powers to facilitate the movement of traffic, bearing in mind that there must be some inconvenience arising from loading and unloading.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as the Government have reserve powers, is it not their responsibility, and have not the Government stopped redevelopment in many cases?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, redevelopment has not been stopped during these last twelve months. What happened in the previous thirteen years no doubt the noble Lord will be able to tell us.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many effective traffic authorities there are within the Greater London Council?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, here again it depends upon what one means by "traffic authorities". The Greater London Council is the only traffic authority as such, but of course problems do arise from the fact that there are thirty-two boroughs which are highway authorities, and one has difficulty where there is the Greater London Council and thirty-two boroughs all concerned with the general organisation of traffic routes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this: has he not now put his finger right on the crux of the problem—that not a Greater London authority, but thirty-two authorities control this problem?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there are thirty-two highway authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is the same thing.
LORD LINDGREN: No.

SOCIAL SURVEYS
2.40 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 Government Social Survey is to be placed under the administrative control of the Social Science Research Council; and whether the Council will be able to initiate surveys on its own account.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Committee on Social Studies recommended that the Social Survey should be
1134
transferred to the Treasury and that an Inter-departmental Committee should be created, under Treasury chairmanship, composed of representatives of the main user departments and of the Social Science Research Council, to advise on the programme of the Social Survey. The Government consider this recommendation to be right in principle, but the detailed arrangements are still being worked out. My noble friend Lord Snow, in moving approval of the Draft Social Science Research Council Order 1965, announced that the Council would concentrate initially on the support of research being carried out in the universities and elsewhere, and that for the time being at least the Council would not set up research units of its own. I think it follows that it would similarly not conduct social surveys at this stage.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer, most of which is not at all bad. But is he aware that the last part is not really any better than that which I got from my noble friend Lord Snow? Indeed, I did not get any answer from my noble friend Lord Snow when he moved the Order, and in accordance with the Order, is it not a fact that the Social Science Research Council will be empowered to set up units even though it does not do so immediately? Is it, therefore, not logical that it also should initiate surveys in due course, even if it does not do so immediately?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his conditional appreciation. It is true that the Charter of the Social Science Research Council would permit it to set up units and carry out independent surveys, but at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that the Council has not yet started work, I think it would be too soon to say what course it might decide to adopt in conjunction with the Government.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that much more satisfactory supplementary answer?

MOTORWAY CRASH-BARRIER TESTS
2.42 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: 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 tests on crash barriers and double steel rail safety fence being carried out on an eighteen mile length of the M.1 have now yielded enough information for further extension of these crash barriers to be proceeded with.]
LORD LINDGREN: No, my Lords. The double steel rail was completed earlier this year, and erection of the wire rope barrier will start in the spring of next year. At least two years' experience of their effect on accidents will be necessary before any conclusions can be drawn.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. As I am sure he is aware, last week in another place his Minister, when making a statement upon the speed limit to be brought in on motorways next year, stated that a certain number of people from his Ministry had gone to Germany to study the problem on the German autobahns, and, as I think the noble Lord is aware, these barriers are being erected along the whole length of every single German autobahn.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes; we take advantage of the experience of any and every other country so far as we can. But the noble Lord will, I am sure, admit that so far as the German autobahns are concerned, many of them were built pre-war and many were constructed immediately after the war. Most of them are dual-lane roads, and not three-lane roads as ours are, and that makes a considerable difference, together with the fact that the density of traffic on the German autobahns is at the moment much greater than that on our motorways.

HUMBER BRIDGE
2.44 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: 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 building of a Humber Bridge is recognised as an integral part of a plan for the development of the Humberside area.]
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the Government accept that a Humber Bridge should be built if it is justified to meet the development needs of the area. Account will be taken of the advice which has been received from the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, but at the present time our limited resources do not allow us to give construction of such a bridge the highest priority. We must cater first for the urgent needs of through-traffic in the area.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I would thank my noble friend for that Answer, which I interpret as being a "Yes" to the question of whether the Humber Bridge is an integral part of a plan for the development of Humberside. I would also ask him, in view of the comments he makes, and in view of the fact that advice is being taken from the Humberside authorities, whether he is aware that a recent authoritative survey indicates that 10,000 vehicles a day could use the bridge, and that this number would be likely to increase when the bridge was built.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords, and the present road proposals for the area—which amount to a £50 million programme—are so planned as to link up with a bridge as and when that bridge becomes urgently necessary. In regard to the latter part of my noble friend's question, I shall, of course, be happy to look at the figures he has been provided with. But the figures I have been given from a recent survey show that, in so far as East-West routes are concerned, there are 15,000 vehicles a day; and it could be only an assessment taken from the traffic as it was travelling, that 4,000 vehicles a day would use the Humber Bridge if and when it is built.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain his first Answer?

1137
Did he not say that the Humber Bridge would be considered necessary only when through-traffic had already been dealt with? Is not the Humber Bridge part of the through-traffic flow?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the major traffic is East-West from the port to the Great North Road. It would certainly be of considerable assistance to the development of the area if one had a bridge as well as these roads, but in the present circumstances the most urgent problem is that of the improvement of the road communications from the East to the West, and I think perhaps there is some reason for complaint that they were not dealt with earlier.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, whether he remembers that as long ago as 1931 a Bill for the construction of the Humber Bridge nearly got through both Houses of Parliament, and would certainly have done so had it not been for the intervening General Election of 1931? If this matter was urgent then, is it not still more urgent now? May I put this further question? If there is to be substantial development on the South hank of the Humber without the building of a Humber Bridge, will that not have the effect of still further isolating the ancient city of Kingston-upon-Hull, and would that not he a grave injustice to that city?
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord is quite correct. There was a proposal in 1931. And I think that even before that there was a proposal which did not get so far as a Bill. There is also the Humber Bridge Act, which went through Parliament during the period of the last Government, and is in existence. If, in fact, development in the area warrants it urgently, the question of the bridge will, of course, be considered. There are two possibilities. Noble Lords will know exploration is going on at the present time in regard to gas and oil in the North Sea. Finding gas or oil in commercially exploitable quantities would immediately alter the whole economics of Humberside. Equally, if the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with whom our roads programme was agreed prior to being announced, were to decide that a New Town is required in Lincolnshire, that, too, would make a difference to the urgency of the construction of the bridge.
LORD WADE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is some degree of urgency in this matter, in view of the new developments proposed on the South bank of the Humber; and is it not now essential that there should be an adequate link for several reasons, including mobility of labour? Surely the building of this bridge should be given top priority in the development of the Humberside.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this applies to practically every area in the country. Every area feels that, for its own development, something additional is urgently needed. But in the assessment or my right honourable friends, and also, I might say (because I have been to Hull and discussed it with them) of the County Borough Council and the Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, the most urgent need is to implement the £50 million roads programme to improve communications from East to West. The bridge, as and when it becomes urgently necessary, will be in addition.
LORD PEDDIE: My noble friend stated that the bridge would be built when conditions warrant it urgently. Would he give a specific indication of the precise nature of the conditions that would justify the building of the bridge?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I thought I had done so. In existing circumstances the roads are more urgent. If oil and gas were found in the North Sea, or if a New Town were planned for Lincolnshire, the bridge could become urgent and the matter would be dealt with on that basis.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I finally ask the noble Lord: is he saying that the Government have no idea in their own mind as to when this bridge might be built?
LORD LINDGREN: No, my Lords, because I am not aware, nor are the Government, nor are the Ministry of Transport, as to what are likely to be the possibilities of development on Humberside arising from the finding of gas or oil in the North Sea.
LORD DERWENT: The answer then, ought to have been "Yes, my Lords" not "No, my Lords", if that is the correct answer to the question.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL
Brought from the Commons yesterday, and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.
CORPORATION OF THE TRINITY HOUSE OF LEITH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has aroused a great deal of interest among all sections of the community, and almost as great interest in this House as did the Rhodesia Bill a fortnight or so ago. There are on the list to-day 26 speakers as against 43 on the Rhodesia Bill, but that is a pretty solid expression of interest in a measure of this kind. Childbirth, and the problems flowing from it both before and after the event, affect at some period of their lives the majority of married women, and occasionally unmarried persons. There has been for at least fifty years a growing opinion that the law of abortion, dating back to 1861, is in need of radical amendment. This opinion has been sponsored over the last quarter of a century by a powerful and influential movement, the Abortion Law Reform Association, which numbers among its members some of the most eminent men and women in this country in all walks of life. I am much indebted to the Association for all the help it has given me in connection with this Bill, although I want to say quite plainly and clearly that I take full responsibility for its terms.
I propose, first of all, to explain very briefly what is the present state of the law on abortion. Abortion is a criminal offence under Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is stated to be punishable by life imprisonment. Any woman who with intent to
1140
procure a miscarriage administers to herself any poison or drug or who uses any instrument for the like purpose commits an offence. So does any other person who administers drugs or uses any instrument on a woman for the same purpose.
It is true that since the Act was passed there is to-day some common sense, humanity and mercy introduced into the harsh application of this law. For instance, there has been no sentence of life imprisonment for a long time past, and the maximum in practice to-day is six years. The prospective mother who commits an offence is very rarely charged. In recent years three Judges of the High Court have interpreted the law, in their directions to juries when doctors were charged with performing illegal operations, so as to make it lawful for a doctor who honestly believes the mother's life or health are seriously endangered to carry out an operation for abortion.
That is satisfactory so far as it goes—that is to say, where the mother's life or health is seriously endangered—but it is still a fact that this decision depended upon directions to the jury by three specific judges. There has been no decision of any higher Court; therefore there is still a considerable element of doubt and uncertainty as to what the law is. In fact, a number of doctors—about two every year—have been convicted since the first decision in 1938. They have been sentenced to up to three years' imprisonment and struck off the roll of doctors. It may well be that the view was taken that they did not honestly believe that the mother's life was in danger, but it certainly creates a strong element of doubt among doctors as to the present state of the law. Furthermore, the decisions, so far as they go, do not go beyond Clause 1(a) of the Bill; the Bill which is before the House to-day goes very much wider than merely cases where the mother's life or health is seriously endangered. The decisions do not cover, for instance, serious injury to physical or mental health resulting from the strain of caring for the child; still less do they help in dealing with the other provisions of the Bill. One would have thought that the very heavy penalties which have been imposed under the Offences Against the Person Act would have stamped out illegal abortion, but in

1141
fact the amount of ill-health and misery caused by the unhappy conditions of people in childbirth have tended to increase the number.
The number of illegal abortions has certainly increased over the years. The Government of 1937 set up an Inter-Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Birkett, to inquire into the prevalence of abortion and what changes in the law were required. Their figure, which was the best estimate they could make upon a great deal of evidence, was that at that time, in about 1937, there were up to 60,000 illegal abortions a year. This figure is not far different from the figure given in evidence to the Committee by the Abortion Law Reform Association, which gave a figure of 54,900. So we may assume that something of the order of 60,000 was a reasonable figure in 1939. But the Inter-Departmental Committee gave it as their opinion that in medical, police and social circles illegal abortion was thought to be becoming more frequent; and if we were to take the figure to-day as against 1939, having regard to the increased population and, I am afraid, the changes in attitude towards sex relationships, it would not be unreasonable to say that there are probably 100,000 abortions a year at the present time. Yet, my Lords, the total number of convictions for illegal abortion is only about 50 a year, or one conviction in 2,000 cases of illegal abortion. Clearly the law has broken down. It is neither respected nor obeyed. Abortion, to use the words of the former Archbishop of Canterbury in a debate in 1958, has been driven underground by repressive legislation.
Many women to-day are so desperate that they resort to means which are gravely damaging to their health, or even to their life, to create an abortion. They take drugs and pills, such as quinine pills, which are calculated to end pregnancy; they insert things into the womb by means of a syringe; they use disinfectants, running a grave risk of serious injury to tissues and organs; they use methods of violence, such as moving heavy furniture and jumping down stairs. Cases of that kind are known to most of us. Often their husbands assist in these operations. Where these methods are unsuccessful, many then resort to unqualified abortionists. The results have
1142
been described in graphic terms by an eminent physician.
"The trail of disease and crippling injuries, displacements, discharges, hæmorrhages, inflammation after unskilled operations (whether by the woman herself or by an illegal abortionist) is as much a human sacrifice as the more spectacular death roll itself."
In fact, in 1964 there were 50 deaths from abortion not carried out by doctors. There were also between 30,000 and 40,000 cases of abortion, or attempted abortion, admitted into hospital at public expense; and the number is steadily increasing. This may sound a very high figure in relation to the number of abortions itself, but it is a fact that three out of ten attempted abortions result in hospital treatment.
Contrast this position, my Lords, with that of the woman who can afford to pay a doctor to carry out an operation, on the alleged ground that her health or her life may be endangered if she gives birth to a child. There were recently two articles in the Sunday Observer giving detailed accounts of abortions carried out by doctors for those who could afford to pay, costing from £100 at the minimium rate up to £500 in some cases. So there is a very big difference between women desirous of an abortion who can get it if they can afford to pay, and women who cannot get it and have to resort to back-street methods. Even worse, there are those who do not even know how to set about it, and there are quite a number of women who want abortion but do not know at all where to go.
The Bill before the House is designed, first, to make the law on abortion clear and certain, so that no medical practitioner need fear prosecution if in good faith he carries out an abortion on a patient whose circumstances fall within the provisions of this Bill. I want to make it clear at this stage that the conditions in the Bill are carefully circumscribed, and it is not a general licence to a medical practitioner to carry out abortions on anybody who desires an abortion. There are considerable categories of women who might desire an abortion but would not be able to get it under this Bill. Nor does the Bill compel any medical practitioner to carry out an abortion. If he has a conscientious objection to doing so, he is under no obligation at all to carry out an

1143
abortion at the request of a patient. Secondly, the Bill has for its purpose to extend the cases where abortion is legal to the three kinds of cases mentioned in paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 1(a) is very much in line with the three cases to which I have referred, where doctors were acquitted. It is generally regarded as the practice which should be followed, although, as I have indicated, in quite a number of cases doctors have been convicted. The Bill deals with three other special cases in which abortion would be permitted. These three cases will not, as I have said, cover all abortions; they are carefully circumscribed.
Clause 1(b) refers to cases where there would be grave risk of the child being born grossly deformed or mentally abnormal. I am advised that medical knowledge has reached the stage where a medical practitioner can say with considerable certainty, by X-ray and other tests, that if born a child would suffer these abnormalities. One particular case is very well-known, and that is the case of rubella, or what is popularly known as German measles. If a mother contracts German measles during pregnancy there is a very great danger indeed of her child being born with one or more grave abnormalities, such as deafness or blindness. I do not think I need emphasise the unhappiness caused to both parents, and to the children and other members of the family, where a child is born grossly deformed or with other serious mental or physical abnormalities. All of us have in mind examples of children born deaf, blind, without hands or legs, unable to speak, or generally mentally defective.
Clause 1(c) relates to the health of a patient or the social conditions which make her unsuitable to assume the legal or moral responsibility of parenthood. I have in mind cases of women between 40 and 50 years of age who have conceived a child, some of them grandmothers, some with five or six children, who are so desperate that in a number of cases they have attempted suicide, and in some cases have carried out the attempt successfully. I want to quote first a letter which I received, one of a great many similar letters, which I think demonstrates
1144
the kind of problem confronting women of this kind:
"You see, I'm nearly 38 and find I'm pregnant again. Oh, I wouldn't mind if it were my first, second or even third. But I have four, the last being premature twins of both sexes. They are both backward at school and the boy has very little sight in one eye and is very easily led. I'm going out of my mind with worry, and I would certainly get a back-street abortion if I only knew where to find one. I have even made an attempt on my life but failed, but I'm sure I will try again."
That is typical of the kind of case that I have in mind. I should like to quote one other. In that case the woman wrote:
"I am married to a complete drunk who is out of work more than he is in. I have four children and now at 40 I am pregnant again … I was just beginning to get on my feet, and get some of the things we needed. I've been working for the last three years, and cannot bear the thought of that terrible struggle to make ends meet again. I've tried all other methods that I've been told about; without success, so as a last resort I appeal to you—please help me if you possibly can."
That is typical of the sort of case—there are thousands of them—that one hears about.
In a recent Government Report it was stated that out of 1,000 investigated cases of death from childbirth, no fewer than 345 women were already mothers of six or more children—that is, one-third; and in the Registrar General's Report for 1958 it was stated that pregnancy, childbirth and abortion are an increasing cause of death among married women as one passes down the scale from social class 1 to social class 5. This is the kind of case that Clause 1(c) is designed to cover.
Clause 1(d) provides for cases where the patient becomes pregnant as the result of intercourse which is an offence under Sections 1 to 11 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. These are cases which involve rape, sexual intercourse with a child under 13, sexual intercourse with a child over 13 (where the conditions and the penalty are rather different), sexual intercourse with a woman who is insane or mentally defective, or sexual intercourse as the result of administering drugs to a woman so as to make her unconscious. There are various cases of a kind which will be familiar to most lawyers, but these are all cases where there is involuntary intercourse on the part of the woman, with one possible

1145
exception—incest. These cases cover incest as well. Clause 1(d) is designed to enable a woman to get an abortion in any one of these cases covered by the Sexual Offences Act.
In 1964, 56 persons were found guilty of sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, and 567 with girls aged between 13 and 16. There were also 124 convictions for rape—although, of course, there were many more cases than those which were actually brought before the courts and punished. I think that any woman, and most men, would appreciate the revulsion which a mother must feel, particularly when she is very young, in carrying a child which is unwanted, and which was brought about through no act on her part at all. Then there is the situation in which a child is going to be born as the result of intercourse with a woman who is an idiot or an imbecile—that, of course, is one of the eleven cases covered by the Sexual Offences Act.
There is one horrible case which came to my notice of a child of 12½ who was about to give birth to a baby as a result of rape. She was unable to get an abortion. She was placed in an institution. The child has now been born, and is likely to be a mentally defective. Under the present law, there is no help for a child-mother of that kind unless a doctor is prepared to come forward, as Dr. Bourne was in 1938, and say that the mother's health would be seriously endangered as a result of giving birth to a child. If he is not prepared to go as far as that—"seriously endangered"—then there is no way in which such a child-mother can get an abortion at the present time.
Clause 2 provides that, in cases of abortion on the ground of social conditions or of pregnancy arising from offences under the Sexual Offences Act, no termination of a pregnancy shall be performed after the sixteenth week of pregnancy. That is admittedly debatable. It is the least period that I could assess from the advice which I have had; but, like all else in the Bill, it is subject to discussion at a later stage. Clause 3 places on the Crown the onus of proof of bad faith in the case of an abortion carried out by a registered medical practitioner, or any breach of Clause 2. The doctor will not have to prove his innocence or lack of good faith. Clause 4 provides that the law relating to the requirement of consent
1146
to a surgical operation shall not be affected. In other words, no abortion may be carried out without the consent of the woman—except, I suppose, in cases where she is unable to give such consent, in which case it would be through the next friend.
My Lords, the principles contained in this Bill have very wide support throughout the country. Bodies like the National Council of Women, the Women's Co-Operative Guild and other women's organisations have passed resolutions in support of a measure of this kind. So have the Magistrates' Association and the Eugenics Society. A National Opinion Poll was held this year which showed that nearly 75 per cent. of the general public were in favour of a measure of this kind; and a private poll taken of London practitioners showed that about the same percentage was in favour.
There is an Amendment on the Paper to reject this Bill, and I shall listen with great interest to the grounds put forward in support of the Amendment. I will not anticipate them now, but I hope that I may be permitted to say this. I recognise that there are some who, on religious grounds, oppose all forms of abortion. I respect their views; I respect their sincerity; and I try to understand them as best I can. But I hope they will give credit to those who are supporting a measure of this kind and accept the fact that we are equally sincere and equally honest in doing what we think is right. Neither the medical profession nor the patients are going to be compelled against their conscience to accept abortion. And while any woman who feels that her religious, moral or ethical convictions would prevent her from having an operation is certainly free not to have it, those who do not feel that way should be free to have the operation if they so desire.
In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I am not asking it to commit itself to every detail of every paragraph, to the four grounds for abortion set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, or to Clause 2 of the Bill. Some may have reservations and think we are going too far; others may feel that the Bill does not go far enough. I ask all noble Lords to express their views on the broad principle of the Bill by supporting the Second Reading and I appeal to all noble Lords

1147
to stand up and be counted and not to refrain from voting. I would assume that an abstention is equal to a refusal to support the Bill.
There may be appeals for delay; I know there will be one from the British Medical Association. There may be an appeal to set up a committee—yet another. I can only say that this is not a new conception. The need for reform of the law was recognised, at least, when the Inter-Departmental Committee was set up in 1937. That Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Birkett, took two years to report. It came to the conclusion that the law needed altering, but it came to no other conclusion unanimously. There were five or six different Reports—and, naturally, nothing was done. This was partly because, soon afterwards, the war broke out; but nothing has been done since then to implement the Report or to do anything about an amendment of the law which everyone on that Committee recognised to be necessary.
My Lords, I doubt whether the setting-up of an Inter-Departmental Committee to-day would have a much better fate. It would, at any rate, postpone for many years what I regard as a most urgent reform. As to the British Medical Association, who are also asking for delay, they have been aware of this problem for many years. Indeed, they gave evidence before the Inter-Departmental Committee which sat between 1937 and 1939. They are aware that five years ago Mr. Kenneth Robinson, the present Minister of Health, introduced in another place a Bill on similar lines to this, which did not get through. They were aware then that there was strong feeling in support of reform of the law. Two other measures have been introduced in another place, but nothing has been done. Now the B.M.A. have set up a committee and, by a strange coincidence, that committee is meeting for the first time to-day. I hope noble Lords will not regard that as sufficient justification for not proceeding with this measure.
This Bill will obviously need amendment. I am quite confident that your Lordships are in a position to apply your wisdom, your knowledge and understanding to hammering out something which will be satisfactory to all concerned. I
1148
see no justification for deferring this Bill merely because a committee is sitting or because the desirability of setting up a further committee is being suggested. I think that to-day we all know enough about the human problems involved to enable us to make up our minds as to whether or not we want this measure. I appeal to all noble Lords to support this Bill on Second Reading in the knowledge that there will be, as I hope, an effective Committee stage here later on to deal with certain of the points they may feel need amending. I am not claiming for one moment that this Bill is perfect in all respects. We are certainly not covering all the cases of women who want abortions. There will be a great many cases not covered by this Bill—and deliberately so. The case of the young woman who "gets into trouble", who is in perfect health and is quite fit to give birth to a child but who (whether she is married or unmarried) has her own reasons for not wanting a child, is certainly not covered by this Bill. If she decides to have an abortion, she will have to adopt the measures which are at present adopted, of going behind the scenes and getting something done that way.
If we give this Bill a Second Reading to-day we shall have taken a momentous and an historic step towards removing an immense amount of misery, wretchedness and distress, and relieving hundreds of thousands of women—and men—of a terrible shadow which to-day hangs over their lives. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Silkin.)
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken most persuasively in support of the Motion that his Bill should be now read a second time. I am certainly in sympathy with a great deal of what he has said. He has stressed the need for legislation on this subject, and on that I am in complete agreement with him. I think there is a real need for a measure which both declares in what circumstances it will be lawful to terminate a pregnancy and also—and this is equally important—provides adequate safeguards against abuse of the right to do so.
I think the advantages of legislating on this subject are really two-fold. First,

1149
the removal of any uncertainty (and I will come back to that in a moment) about when the pregnancy can be terminated; and, secondly, making it clear that in certain circumstances that can be done lawfully. I think that making that absolutely clear by legislation may give more guidance to members of the medical profession than is now available to them from directions given by Her Majesty's Judges in the course of summing-up to juries. It may also have the effect—and I hope it will—of reducing the numbers of illegal operations. But I believe that we should be deluding ourselves if we thought that by passing a Bill of this character we should be putting an end to those dangerous operations which can do so much harm—and do so much harm—to so many women.
In Denmark they have had a law permitting abortion since 1956, and six years later there had been 4,000 lawful abortions, and, it is estimated, no fewer than 15,000 illegal ones. The noble Lord referred to the estimated number of illegal operations in 1937, and inferred that the number must have risen to something like 100,000 this year. I am not sure that inference may be properly drawn. I should have thought that, with increasing knowledge of birth control, there was at least a possibility that the number of illegal operations might not have risen appreciably; and might even, possibly, have fallen since 1937. But that is by the way.
I should like to make absolutely clear that I, for one, am in favour of a Bill on this subject. My difficulty lies in connection with this Bill. I think that to convert this Bill into the Bill that I want would mean the re-writing of every single provision in each clause, except Clause 5, which says that the title shall be the Abortion Act, and that the Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
I am sorry to say that there is little in this Bill which I do not criticise. I would start by saying that in my view the Bill does not contain adequate safeguards against abuse. The noble Lord has told us a great deal about the consequences of an illegal operation and about the tremendous distress experienced by many women who wish to have a pregnancy terminated. But, my Lords, surely we must all recognise, whatever view we take
1150
on this subject, that to terminate any pregnancy, to destroy a potential human life, is of itself a very serious thing to do. I cannot claim to speak on this subject with any authority, but I understand that it is wrong to suppose that the operation, even if performed in the early days of pregnancy, and when properly conducted, is entirely without risk. There is a risk of trauma, physical or mental, which may be serious and prolonged, and possibly irreversible; and there may be physical results as well. If that be right, I am sure that on that ground, too, we should regard the performance of this operation as a serious matter. Yet this Bill proposes that this serious operation shall be lawful if any one doctor believes any of the matters stated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in Clause 1. I do not think that this will do.
In these days almost everyone has his or her own doctor, and where a woman or girl has her own doctor I think it very important to provide that this operation should not be performed without a certificate from the doctor that the conditions prescribed by law are complied with. If a woman has no doctor of her own, I think that a certificate should be given by a doctor serving in a hospital. I do not think it a sufficient safeguard against abuse merely to provide that this serious operation can be performed on the opinion of one doctor—and a doctor who may never have seen the woman or girl before. To allow this might be to open a door very wide. The opinions of doctors, like those of other people, includ-lawyers, may differ, and if this Bill were passed in its present form we might find—I expect we should find—that some doctors were much more ready than others to believe that the prescribed conditions were satisfied, and people would flock to them to secure the performance of this operation.
For these reasons, I hold the view that it is a necessary requirement that a certificate should be given by the woman or the girl's own doctor, where she has one. But I do not think that that goes far enough. I do not think that the operation ought to be performed without a second medical opinion, and I believe, therefore, that the Bill should prescribe not only that there should be a certificate from the woman's own doctor but also

1151
there should be a certificate from a consultant. If these two certificates were produced, it would be, open to any registered medical practitioner to perform the operation.
It is also desirable, in the public interest, I believe, to require that the fact of the need for the operation be reported to the local health authority within 48 hours, together with the name and address of the woman and the two certificates from her doctor and consultant giving their opinion why the operation should be done. I suggest that this would be a satisfactory procedure. It might be necessary to make some special provision for performing the operation in an emergency, though I do not understand how an emergency could arise of such a nature as to prevent this procedure from being complied with. The Bill provides no such machinery. In my view it is very necessary that it should, and provision should be made that only if this procedure is followed should the operation be treated as lawful; and if it is prescribed and followed there would be no risk of prosecution.
My Lords, I turn to the conditions which, in my opinion, would be required to be established to justify legal abortion. I know that some people take the view that it should never be lawful; others think that it should be lawful if a pregnant women herself does not want her pregnancy to be completed. I do not take either view. In my opinion it should be lawful to terminate a pregnancy if its continuance is likely to endanger the life of the woman or girl or seriously injure her physical or mental health. I think that this proposition commands widespread support throughout the country. Indeed, it states the present law as I understand it. But that law, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, is based on directions given by Judges to juries in certain well-known cases. While some may think it most unlikely, it is, of course, possible that if the matter came before a higher Court, that Court might, as the matter depends on the interpretation of a Statute, express an opinion different from that of the Judges in those cases. I think there is a strong case for making clear that it is the law of the land that where there is such a risk to the life or health of the patient abortion is lawful. My Lords,
1152
I believe this is the right test: that if the pregnant woman's life or health is likely to be so affected, then her interests should be preferred to those of the potential human being.
Paragraph (a) of Clause 1 contains this proposition, but it also goes further, and, in my view, too far. As your Lordships will see, it would permit of termination if it were believed by one doctor that there would be a grave risk to the life of the patient or a serious injury to her health from the strain of caring for the child after it is born. Consider, my Lords, what that means. If there were any such risk to the health of a mother arising during pregnancy it would not be necessary to consider the effect on the mother of the strain of caring for the child: the pregnancy would be terminated. So the case one has to consider is where a woman may have a child without risk of serious injury, and we are asked to enact that in those circumstances it should still be lawful to terminate a pregnancy if, in the opinion of one doctor, looking after the child when born might constitute a serious risk to that woman.
My Lords, that seems to me to assume a remarkable degree of prescience on the part of medical practitioners, and in these days of a Welfare State, I think it is going far too far. I do not see how the destruction of a potential human being can be justified on the ground that the woman, who can without risk to herself bear the child, may be thought likely to suffer in health "from the strain of caring for it". If this Bill receives a Second Reading, I hope I shall have your Lordships' support in moving the deletion of those words from paragraph (a).
May I ask your Lordships to look at paragraph (d)? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, told us of a distressing case of a young child pregnant by rape to whom no help could be given under the present law. One does not know the circumstances of that particular case. Of course, the case of a woman or girl who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or of the commission of any other criminal offence upon her, is one which demands the greatest sympathy; but, at the same time, in my view, paragraph (d) is entirely wrong. I would ask your Lordships to consider just what it means. It requires that the doctor should believe

1153
that the pregnancy was due to the commission of a criminal offence by a man or that the patient is a person of unsound mind. But how is a doctor going to satisfy himself that a criminal offence has been committed? What evidence will he have before him? The only evidence is likely to be that of the girl or woman concerned. She may allege that she has been raped. Such assertions are sometimes made by a girl who finds that she is pregnant after there has been intercourse with her consent. If this paragraph remains in the Bill, there may be many more allegations of rape and, as I see it, no doctor would be in a position to establish the truth or falsity of the allegations.
It seems to me that this paragraph requires the doctor to undertake the functions of a judge and jury and to decide whether a criminal offence has been committed. And whether a criminal offence of having unlawful intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16 has been committed may in some cases depend on the accused's belief as to the girl's age. If he is under 24 and has not previously been charged with a like offence, he is not guilty of having unlawful intercourse with a girl between 15 and 16 if he believes her to be 16 or over and has reasonable cause for that belief. Under the Bill as it stands, a doctor would be required to consider all these matters. How is a doctor going to satisfy himself about that? The man concerned will not be a patient of his, and the doctor will have no machinery for investigation. Surely the test in such cases should be whether the continuation of a pregnancy is likely to cause serious injury to the mental or physical health of the woman or girl, and not whether there has been criminal conduct on the part of a man.
Doctors are best qualified to judge of the effect of a pregnancy on a woman or girl, and I should have thought that if we enacted a provision of this kind we should have to go a long way to find a doctor who would not express the opinion, for a girl of 12 or just over, that to have a child as a result of rape would be a serious risk to her mental and physical health. That is why, in my belief, if we make the test whether a pregnancy will really affect the woman's health, that will cover the vast majority of cases—I would
1154
think all those cases—with which one has so much sympathy, where pregnancy is due to rape or some other criminal offence. Whilst sympathetic with the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I am bitterly and strongly opposed to paragraph (d), because it is asking doctors to undertake what they are not really well fitted to perform. I think that we can achieve the same results by a proper interpretation of the test which I have recommended.
I must admit that I am not at all happy about paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) can be looked at from two aspects. It is the paragraph that gives the doctor a right to terminate a pregnancy if there should be grave risk of a child being born grossly deformed or with other serious physical or mental abnormality. If it be the case that the mother feels that her child will be abnormal, whether because she has caught German measles during pregnancy or for any other reason, and her fears are of such a character that they can affect seriously her mental or physical health, then the test which I have adumbrated, which accords, as I think, with the present law, would apply. But if there is no ground for saying that her health will be affected, none the less we are asked to agree that pregnancy can be terminated if there is a grave risk that the child will be born grossly deformed or with other physical or mental abnormality. In some cases, no doubt, a doctor can say that there is a risk of abnormality or deformity, but I should be interested to know whether during a pregnancy he is in a position to assess the gravity of the risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to cases of German measles. It is well known that here there is a risk that children will be born deformed. I am told that 30 per cent. of the children born of mothers who have had German measles are born deformed. Is it to be said—and I am looking at this now not from the point of view of the mother but from that of the child—that there is a grave risk of abnormality where the mother has German measles, when 30 per cent. of the children have been horn deformed? Is the potential life of the remaining 70 per cent. to be destroyed on that account? I must say that I find this a very difficult question upon which to express an opinion.

1155
When two or three children have already been born deformed, it will no doubt be possible to say that there is a grave risk of the next child also being born deformed, and in the case of thalidomide babies one can say that there is a grave risk of abnormality or deformity, but can any doctor say with any certainty how serious the abnormality will be? Under this Bill, as it stands, he is required to reach a conclusion before the sixteenth week of pregnancy on how serious the physical or mental abnormality might be. Being born without an arm or a leg would constitute a serious physical abnormality within the meaning of this clause, but surely to destroy a potential human life on that account would not be justifiable?
I do not think that paragraph (b) provides the right test. As I said, if there is any danger to the health of the mother owing to her fears, then that could be dealt with under the principle I have put forward. But if one is looking to the child alone, as I think the paragraph requires one to do, then I do not think that the paragraph provides the right criteria. It is difficult to define it with any precision, but I think that a better test than the one provided in the Bill would be to say something to the effect that abortion should be lawful if there is a substantial and unacceptable risk that the child will be born in such a physical or mental condition that it will have no or little prospect of living a reasonable or normal life.
I must say that I am strongly opposed to paragraph (c) of Clause 1. To destroy a potential human life because in the opinion of a doctor the mother is unable to assume the legal and moral responsibility of caring for it is, I think, quite unjustifiable. If, after the child has been born, it appears that the mother is not suitable to look after it, then, surely, provision can and should be made for its proper care and custody. But to say that, because of an opinion before the birth of the child, the mother is unsuitable to assume legal or moral responsibility for it, seems to me a wholly inadequate ground for making sure that the child shall never be born.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, indicated, to me, at any rate, that he was not very
1156
firm in his support of Clause 2. I must say that I think Clause 2 is quite illogical. If you recognise that in certain circumstances the termination of a pregnancy can be lawful, then it seems to me quite illogical to provide that that termination should be illegal, even though those conditions exist which would justify termination, after 16 weeks of pregnancy. I recognise that termination after that time may be more serious, and may, indeed, involve a most serious operation; but I think it should be up to the doctors concerned to assess the risks of the operation against the risks to the woman if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. I would leave it to the doctors to decide whether it be right to terminate after the sixteenth week. I cannot see why what should be lawful in the sixteenth week should be illegal both in the seventeenth or later weeks, irrespective of the health and condition of the woman. I should therefore like to see Clause 2 out of the way.
This also applies to Clause 3, because Clause 3, about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said so little, really imposes an impossible burden of proof on the prosecution. It requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the operation was not performed in good faith in the belief specified in this Bill. But how on earth the prosecution are going to be able to prove conclusively that the man does not believe what he says he believes, I do not know. The prosecution might adduce a mass of evidence to show that his belief was wholly unfounded, that it was totally unreasonable, and that there were no adequate grounds for it. None the less, unless they could prove that he did not hold the belief he said he held, any prosecution would be bound to fail. This clause really does provide a charter for abortion, and if it remains in the Bill there is really no need to worry very much about drafting with care and precision the conditions under which abortion should be lawful. The onus of establishing that the operation was lawful should rest on the defence. It should not be a heavy onus, and if the procedure I outlined at the beginning of my speech is followed, the fact that the operation has only been performed on the opinions of two doctors gives, in my view, entirely adequate protection to those concerned.

1157
Clause 4 is rather nebulous. I should like to see that clause say in terms that the operation should not be lawful save with the written consent of the pregnant woman, or, if she is under 16, one of her parents or guardian. I think, also, that some amendment of the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 is required, and if this Bill is given a Second Reading I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to consider that.
Those are my criticisms of this Bill. I am afraid that they cover almost the entire Bill, with the exception of Clause 5. I am sorry to say that, for the reasons I have given, I think that this is a badly drawn, wholly inadequate, and to me, I say quite frankly, a most disappointing Bill. I hope it will not be assumed, because I have been so critical, that I am against legislation on this subject. I would support wholeheartedly a Bill which proceeded on the lines that I have suggested, with the two heads—and I think they are all that is necessary—making it lawful to terminate a pregnancy when there is serious risk to the health of the mother, or where there is a substantial and unacceptable risk that the child, if horn, will have no or little prospect of living a reasonable, normal life.
In these circumstances, in considering this Bill I have found it difficult to make up my mind whether, holding these views, I should seek to ask your Lordships to reject this measure. I speak for myself alone. On this question there are no Party views, and no doubt in this debate each of us will express his own personal opinions and we shall give effect to them when, as the noble Lord said, we stand up to be counted. If the views that I have expressed meet with the support of the majority of your Lordships, I believe the best course that could be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin (I am not suggesting that he should refer the matter to a departmental committee, or anything of that sort, which I agree would cause considerable delay), would be to withdraw this Bill and to reintroduce a fresh Bill on the lines that I have suggested. If the noble Lord were prepared to take that course, I should be only too ready to give him such assistance as I could; and I would hope, too, that the Government would make avail-
1158
able the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen to produce a proper and workman like measure, which with the greatest friendliness to the noble Lord, I must say I do not think this Bill is. This is a Bill that requires not just amendment; it requires to be wholly rewritten from start to finish.
If the noble Lord does not take that course, then, as I see it, we shall have a very long and protracted Committee stage, and at the end of it we may not get out such a good Bill, satisfactory to those who want to see legislation on this subject, as if a further attempt were made at redrafting. I hope the noble Lord, when he has heard your Lordships' views, will accede to the request I am making, in all friendliness, if the majority of your Lordships' views accord with those that I have expressed. I think that this would save a great deal of your Lordships' time. I would certainly want to see a new Bill produced as quickly as possible.
If the noble Lord at the end of this debate says that he is not prepared to take that course, despite his observations at the end of his speech that abstention would be read by him as a refusal to support this Bill, I think the proper course for me to take is not to vote against it and not to vote for it, but to abstain. I feel that I cannot vote for this Bill, because it really does not contain within it a single proposal that I can support. On the other hand, I do not want to vote against it, because I want to see a Bill on this subject on the Statute Book as soon as possible. So I would ask the noble Lord to consider seriously the suggestion that I have put before him. I believe that if he were to take that course—I may be wrong; and the debate will show if I am—he not only might save a great deal of your Lordships' time, but would also materially increase the prospect of the Bill going to another place early this Session, and so materially increase its prospects of being enacted.
4.0 p.m.
TILE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I rise to speak, but very briefly, as most of the things I wanted to say have already been said and the conclusions I wanted to draw have already been drawn with such clarity and force

1159
by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Like the noble and learned Viscount, I find myself in a difficult position. I agree with the basic aims of this Bill, but the wording is unsatisfactory. In fact, that is an understatement, for it is so unsatisfactory that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will withdraw the Bill and bring us something better.
Let me say at once that this is not a delaying tactic for the sake of delay. As I shall say later, I will have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, which I deplore. Nobody who has spent many years as a parish priest, both in the east end of a large city and then at Cambridge, would want the present position to continue. To suggest that our choice is between abortion and no abortion is utterly unrealistic. Abortion happens every day: if a woman has the money, then in a nursing home; if she has not, then in a back street. No, my Lords, our choice is between recognising abortion or conniving at it; between taking steps to regularise it and allowing it to happen in secret and, perhaps, in sordid and dangerous conditions.
As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the matter into the open and cause society to treat it in a helpful and constructive way. This I applaud; but what worries me about the Bill is that, as it is now drafted, it is neither as helpful nor as constructive as it might be. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the following points. First, the Bill makes no explicit provision for consultation with the father, although Clause 4 may make it implicit. I am, of course, referring to those cases where the child is conceived in wedlock. The question I ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is this: if he believes, as I am sure he does, in the sacredness of the family unit, does he think that the decision to have an abortion should ignore the wishes of one of the parents? Surely, the decision should be a shared responsibility from the earliest moment. If possible, father and mother should be agreed. There may be instances when their views will differ, and in the last resort it may be right that the mother, or a third party, should make the ultimate decision. Of this I am uncertain. But one thing is clear to me: that for the preservation of family life the law should explicitly state that the father, when
1160
known, should be consulted. It is right that he should have the opportunity to make his views known. What happens should be, in any responsible society, the concern of both parties, and not just of one.
Second, the Bill places too heavy a responsibility upon the medical practitioner. I have the highest regard for the medical profession, but is it fair to expect a man who may be overworked and subjected to many pressures, to make such a grave decision? Would it not be better to ease the burden by requiring him to consult another doctor, or possibly a small tribunal designated for this purpose? Moreover, what is to happen if the medical practitioner has conscientious scruples? Is his refusal to be final? Similarly, if he has scruples of another sort, is his decision to be final? These questions demand a greater consideration than is given to them in this Bill. The right to live is a serious matter. It concerns not only the mother, the father and the child, but society itself—and society has the right to insist upon adequate safeguards.
Third, Clause 1(a) allows abortion if the birth of a child should cause undue strain to a mother in caring for it. I am not quite sure what this means. What is the definition of the word "strain"? Who is to determine the definition? The nurturing of a child usually involves strain. How can a medical practitioner decide, before birth, the degree of strain that will be placed upon the mother after birth? And even if it could be proved that the strain of nurturing would be excessive, does it necessarily follow that the child should not be born? Those of us who have had experience of adoption societies know what can be done to provide happy homes for children who, for one reason or another, have to be taken away from their parents. If this Bill, as it now reads, should become law, it might mean that children who could grow up happy, useful, citizens, the joy of their foster parents, will never see the light of day. I am glad, if I may say so with respect, that the noble and learned Viscount drew our attention to that matter. It seems to me to be a matter of great importance. We, as responsible legislators, must ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to think about this again.

1161
Fourth, Clause 1(c) is as unsatisfactory as Clause 1(a), and for similar reasons. The medical practitioner may terminate pregnancy if he considers the social conditions in which the mother is living make her unsuitable to assume the responsibilities of motherhood. What is meant by "social conditions"? And how does one become qualified to pass a judgment upon them? Are we to assume that a degree in medicine gives to the holder of it such insights into sociological problems that he is competent to determine by himself, and without consulting anybody else, what are suitable or unsuitable social conditions? Now it is just no good saying that the answer is obvious—it is not. Social conditions in a slum or, for that matter, in a cattle stall, may be prejudicial to mother and child, but not necessarily so, as I could prove to your Lordships, whereas social conditions in Belgravia may be beneficial, but we must not necessarily suppose that they are. This paragraph is too loose, too vague and (dare I say it?) incompetent in draftsmanship. If the intention is that home circumstances should be taken into consideration, then there must be some sort of tribunal under the chairmanship of a qualified social worker and assisted by local officers to hear evidence and to decide.
Fifth, Clause 1(d), in intention, will commend itself to many of your Lordships, as it does to myself. It is, however, not sufficiently definite. The words of a patient are not always reliable. If possible, a medical practitioner should require a notification from the court in which it was ruled that an offence had been committed; but very often the verdict of the court may come too late, in which case provision must be made for an appropriate authority to give the permission.
Sixth, I wonder whether the framers of this Bill have given sufficient thought to Clause 3, and in particular to the words:
"within the time specified for terminating pregnancy."
There may be a considerable delay before a prosecution is launched, and unless the Legislature were to include a provision for preserving the fœtus in all cases of abortion for a specified time of considerable length, I do not see how the prosecution could prove its case. Unsuccessful
1162
prosecution would only serve to bring the law into contempt. The clause as it now stands is not practicable.
My Lords, this Bill is unsatisfactory. This Bill is a ramshackle affair. This Bill should be withdrawn. I regret this conclusion as I am a supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his attempt to treat abortion intelligently, as befits an adult society. Let him withdraw the Bill and at a later date come back to this House with something that is more worthy of his cause. In the meantime, the questions to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention must be faced and answered. Perhaps the way forward is for the Government to set up an Inter-Departmental Committee or an appropriate body of this kind. This Committee would take into consideration the advice of the Churches, the medical profession, the legal profession, psychiatric and social workers, together with other interested parties, and it would then have the evidence on which to base an informed opinion. The Church of England Board of Social Responsibility will shortly be producing a Report of this nature.
This informed opinion we must have if we are to deal with a situation which, in my judgment, ought to have been dealt with long ago but which, for one reason or another, Parliament has shirked. We can shirk it no longer, and for this reason I deplore the Amendment and will vote against it, and I salute Lord Silkin's courage in compelling us to face the issue. I want him to succeed, and it is for this reason that I hope he will tear up what I can only describe as this sad little piece of paper and then come back to this House with a Bill which will do justice to his cause.
4.13 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, once again your Lordships' House is called upon to consider a moral and social issue of deep public concern, on which the Lower House has not yet found opportunity to express a view. Abortion is about acute human suffering and misery—about life and death. And, whatever views we may hold, there is not one of us who is not grateful to my noble friend, Lord Silkin, for this opportunity,

1163
or who does not sympathise with his motives in presenting the proposals which he has put to us, so persuasively, and with such warm humanity. No one with knowledge of the agony, physical disasters, and misery of the unskilled abortion can fail to recognise it as a serious, social, evil. No one with knowledge of the frantic distress that can be caused by an unwanted pregnancy, can fail to understand, even though one may not condone, the desperate efforts of the girl to terminate it.
But it is easier to deplore and recognise the evil, than to find an effective and acceptable remedy. This is a most difficult and controversial subject on which there are widely divergent, and sincerely held, views. These divergencies have little connection with social class and none with Party politics. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Bill is one of strict neutrality. We want the free opinion of the House, and my noble friends on these Benches are free to vote as they wish.
In my view, on an issue such as this, from which it is impossible to exclude emotion, personal neutrality is not possible. I shall therefore express no personal opinion. I propose instead to discuss first the principle of permissive abortion, paraphrasing the arguments of leading protagonists for and against, and then mention some of the practical difficulties of the main proposals in the Bill.
The protagonists on both sides take their stand in the name of humanity. Those who oppose an extension of legal abortion do so because they regard it as the legal killing of an unborn child. A fœtus at 13 weeks, they point out, has a heart that beats, limbs that move, and a strong instinct for survival. Though still in the womb, it is a human life. What is the essential difference, they ask, between the life which is aborted at 13 weeks and the baby prematurely born at 6 months? If the killing of a new-born infant is unthinkable, how can we allow the killing of the live unborn? How can a nation which has just abolished the legal killing of murderers, sanction the legal killing of a baby?
On the other hand the advocates of abortion law reform ask us to think, not of the unborn child, but of the prospective
1164
mother. As my noble friend Lord Silkin mentioned, they claim that in Britain there are 100,000 illegal abortions a year. This, of course, can be no more than a guess, and it might well be that, if abortion was legally available to all, the numbers would be much larger. These assumptions apart, it is right that the reformers should draw our attention to the appallingly large number of furtive, degrading, back-street abortions, and to the fact that many of them occasion mental and physical distress and agony, whilst some entail permanent injury or death for the mother. No one who saw the television film Up the Junction can have any illusions about the nature of the evil we are discussing.
These, my Lords, are the arguments for and against the principle of abortion. Your Lordships have to decide between those who start from the principle that abortion involves the destruction of a human life and thus cannot be justified, and those who start from the principle that no woman should be compelled to give birth to a child she does not want. I say "start from the principle", because these are not the alternatives before your Lordships to-day. If you reject this Bill the Case Law which has been built up will still leave abortion legal, in certain limited circumstances. And if you pass this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out, you will not be legalising abortion at will. The Bill would not, for example, affect the type of case portrayed in the television film to which I have referred. Even if we passed this Bill we should still be living in a world in which many thousands of teenage girls and young women would conceive in ignorance and abort in terror.
The choice before your Lordships is not between accepting one or other of the two extreme positions, but the much more difficult one of deciding where the line should be drawn between them. In taking this decision you may find it helpful to consider the following three questions. First, is it right, in principle, to give statutory authority for abortion? If you answer "No", there is an end to the matter. If your answer is "Yes", you must answer the second question: how far, and on what grounds, should the law be relaxed? And, thirdly, in what way will it be practicable to make these changes and still enforce the law against those who would go beyond it?

1165
May I mention some of the factors the House must take into account in answering these questions? My noble friend Lord Silkin mentioned that opinion polls showed that 75 per cent. of the members of the public are in favour of reform of the law. Your Lordships will know that I have consistently held that Parliament should do what it considers right and refuse to be governed by Gallup Poll, but we can be in no doubt that attitudes toward abortion have changed and are changing. There is an increasing public awareness of the serious social problem of illegal abortions and a greater understanding of the distressing circumstances which can lead women to it. There is a substantial body of opinion which believes that the present law is unrealistic and inhumane. They argue—and Lord Silkin gave some graphic examples in support of the argument—that it is wrong that thousands of law-abiding women should be driven each year to risk their lives in misguided efforts to terminate pregnancy and that much of this is due to the narrowness and uncertainty of the present law. It is important in this connection also to remember the growing support for these views which is coming from various women's organisations, including, as I think my noble friend said, the National Council of Women and the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.
We must also attach special weight to the views of the medical profession. The proposed changes would impose considerable responsibilities upon doctors, and we have to be sure that they are willing and able to carry them. Last year, as I understand, 70 per cent. of the 750 London doctors who took part in a survey organised by the Abortion Law Reform Association pronounced in favour of reform of the law, and the Socialist Medical Association are also in favour. On the other hand, there is evidence of apprehension among the medical profession about the responsibilities which it would impose. We cannot ignore the fact that the Annual Representative Meeting of the British Medical Association passed a resolution in July calling on their Council to set up a committee to study the matter and urging the Government not to introduce any new legislation until the committee have reported. I understand that the B.M.A. Council have agreed to appoint this com-
1166
mittee and it will be starting work soon; I am not sure whether my noble friend is right in saying it started work to-day.
There are those who will agree with Lord Silkin that the matter is too urgent to await further lengthy deliberations. But I think it is important that the House should bear in mind that the medical profession, whose members would have to operate the new law, have not yet committed themselves to support any change. Even if the committee eventually report in favour of reform, their detailed observations will be of considerable importance in framing legislation. We have also just had a suggestion from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that the Government should set up an Inter-departmental Committee. I cannot at this stage enter into any commitment, but the Government will certainly consider this suggestion.
I now turn to the detailed proposals in the Bill. I find that at least in some respects I shall be echoing things that have already been said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, but I think I owe it to your Lordships, and certainly to my noble friend, to state the Government's views on these matters as they may help in framing decisions in regard to Amendments if the Bill should go to Committee.
We have already been reminded that it is the law that a doctor may lawfully terminate pregnancy if the abortion is carried out in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life of the expectant mother or her mental or physical health. This has been established by the rulings of the courts, and, as my noble friend Lord Silk in made clear, the primary object of Clause 1(a) is to give statutory effect to these rulings. I do not accept the view expressed by my noble friend, and indeed by the noble and learned Viscount, that there are any real doubts about the present law. In practice, there is now no risk of a doctor being prosecuted for having terminated a pregnancy in good faith on these grounds, particularly since the police are required to report to the Director of Public Prosecutions any alleged offence of abortion, and consistency in prosecution policy is thus assured.
Nevertheless, I think many of us would agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it would

1167
be better to put the law on a statutory basis, though we shall need to give careful consideration to the precise form of the statutory provision by which we seek to do it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if I may intervene, I was not suggesting that there was any uncertainty about the existing law. I said that the uncertainty lay, though some might think it unlikely, in the possibility that a higher court, if it had to consider the question, might say that a different interpretation from that given by judges in the well-known cases was to be placed on the Statute. I did not express the view that the law was at present uncertain.
LORD STONHAM: I recall the noble Viscount's reference to the higher court, but my impression was that before he came to that he felt there was some uncertainty about the law, and I am glad to have his agreement that that is not so.
Clause 1(b) brings us to the first of the proposed extensions of the law, and your Lordships will appreciate that this and the remaining provisions of the clause take us beyond the purely medical grounds on which abortion is at present permitted. Good reasons can be advanced in support of each of them, but they are eugenic or sociological or humanitarian reasons, not medical ones. If a woman's health is clearly endangered by distress at the likelihood of bearing a deformed child, then abortion may be legitimately carried out at present. But we may well ask whether this is not an encouragement to artifice, and whether we are not right to insist, as we do now, that the more balanced woman must be left to put up with the fearful prospect, as it is to some, of bearing a deformed child. At the same time, we have to remember that, despite the many advances in medical science, it is still not possible to forecast with any reasonable certainty that in any particular instance a child will be born normal.
There are various circumstances which may lead doctors to fear that a child may be born defective. As has been mentioned by my noble friend, a common cause of malformation is where a mother has contracted rubella during pregnancy. Or the condition may be due to the mother having taken certain drugs during pregnancy. Your Lordships will not need
1168
to be reminded of the thalidomide tragedies. My noble friend referred to the grave danger of having a malformed child under such conditions.
In none of these cases, however—and I would emphasise this point—is there anything approaching certainty that there will be abnormality in the child. A report published by the Ministry of Health in 1960 of an investigation into rubella as a cause of malformation showed the risk of major deformity in the baby to be about 15 per cent. (the noble and learned Viscount mentioned 30 per cent.) which is less than one in six. Even in the best-known instances of transmittable diseases the chances of serious abnormality in the child are seldom more than one in three. Given these facts, we have, I suggest, to weigh very carefully the desirability of this obviously humane proposal against the very real danger of terminating the life of a child who may yet be born perfectly healthy, and to consider also the tremendous responsibility this would place on the doctors who would have to perform the operation. On this point, also, I would say that for thirty years I have worked with the blind and disabled, and more recently with the mentally handicapped, and I have never met parents of physically or mentally handicapped children who did not love and cherish them at least as dearly as their normal children.
Clause 1(c) proposes that abortion should be lawful, on the ground that
"the health of the patient or the social conditions in which she is living (including the social conditions of her existing children) make her unsuitable to assume the legal and moral responsibility for caring for a child or another child …".
This proposal is not included in the declared aims of the Abortion Law Reform Association, and I venture to think that it will not command the same sympathy as some of the other proposals. It is aimed against a very real social problem: the situation, for example, of the harassed mother who already has a family of children and simply cannot cope with another; and it is stimulated by concern not only for the mother but also for the unborn child. But many, I think, will feel that the proposed ground is too imprecise. It is not primarily a medical ground, and it is arguable that it should not be left to doctors to decide. "Social conditions", would presumably cover

1169
the case of a woman with five or six children living in two rooms. It may be undesirable to bring another child into the world in such conditions; but it is surely arguable that rehousing, not abortion, is the answer. Even if the clause were more closely defined, there would seem to be a real risk of inconsistency and abuse in the absence of any special machinery for selecting the cases in which it was proper to act.
Clause 1(d) provides for termination of pregnancy on two quite distinct and unrelated grounds: first, where there has been a criminal assault; and, secondly, where the mother is a person of unsound mind. I am sure that there will be general agreement that, if there is to be an extension of the law, there is no more compelling reason for allowing a woman—or very often a young girl—to have her pregnancy terminated than where it has been forced on her by criminal violation. But, providing for such cases in a Statute raises, as the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, a number of very difficult practical problems.
It is relevant to mention here the views of the Interdepartmental Committee on Abortion, which sat under the Chairmanship of the then Mr. Norman Birkett, K.C., and reported in 1939, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already referred. The members of the Committee were very sympathetic to this proposal, and reported against it only because of the practical difficulties. The problem is who is to decide, and how, that the pregnancy has resulted from a criminal offence. The matter is not wholly a medical one; and there are obvious opportunities for alleging an assault simply to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Any limitation to cases where there has been a conviction would exclude very deserving cases—for example, where the offender cannot be found or, for some reason, cannot be proceeded against. This would probably delay action until it was too late. On the other hand, a decision to terminate pregnancy without waiting for the result of proceedings would be to prejudge issues which might eventually be tried by the courts. These arguments are as cogent and as difficult to-day as they were in 1939. You may not agree that they are of overriding force, but they must be stated.
1170
Other questions arise, as the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, as to the particular offences to be included as criminal assaults qualifying for the legal termination of a pregnancy—for example, the offence of intercourse with a girl under 16. Such intercourse is unlawful, and it is not a defence for a man charged to plead that consent was given. In these circumstances it is reasonable for the supporters of the Bill to argue that any girl who becomes pregnant before reaching the age of 16 should be legally entitled to have her pregnancy terminated. On the other hand, it is a fact that consent is often freely given. We have to ask: is it right in these circumstances that a girl who has willingly entered into sexual intercourse, in the full knowledge of what it means, should be entitled by law to have an abortion procured? Some may feel that such a provision would be a condonation, if not a positive encouragement, to promiscuity among young girls. Then there is a further complication arising from the fact that in certain circumstances it is a defence for a man charged with this offence to show that he had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over 16. Here again, we have to consider whether it is desirable to allow a legal right to abortion to a girl who encourages a man to believe that she is over 16 in order to have sexual intercourse with him.
The second part of Clause 1(d), where the mother is of unsound mind, takes us back to eugenics, and to questions of the inheritance of mental disorder and defect. Apart from questions of principle on which I make no comment, the term "person of unsound mind" is, I am advised, out of date, and my noble friend, would in any case need to reconsider it in the light of the present statutory classifications of mental disorder contained in the Mental Health Act 1959.
Passing to Clause 2, we have to consider the important question of the safeguard against the performance of the operation at a dangerously late stage of the pregnancy. Previous Bills on this subject would have restricted the time during which the operation could take place to the first thirteen weeks of pregnancy, in all cases except where there was danger to life. This Bill would allow

1171
the operation at any time, not only where there is danger to life, but also if there is risk to the mother's health or the likelihood that the child will be abnormal; in other cases the limit is extended to the sixteenth week of pregnancy. Is this perhaps going too far?
I should mention here another important respect in which this Bill differs from previous proposals. The Birkett Committee, in proposing that the Bourne directions should be given statutory effect, recommended that the doctor should be obliged to take a second opinion, except in urgent cases, and this safeguard was embodied in previous Bills. There is no similar safeguard here. Of course, the absence of such a provision may mean no more than that the doctor would not be under a statutory obligation to obtain a second opinion; in practice, no doubt most doctors would still think it right to do so. But many people may feel—and Lord Dilhorne underlined this—that it is altogether too risky to make substantial extensions in the grounds on which abortion may be allowed and, at the same time, omit safeguards which have hitherto been thought necessary.
Finally, I come to Clause 3, which has been referred to as a charter for abortion, and which deals with the burden of proof in prosecutions for performing the operation unlawfully. It is true that my noble friend's Bill preserves the present position under the Bourne and Newton and Stungo judgments, which place on the Crown the onus of showing lack of good faith. But we have to ask ourselves whether, with this very considerable extension of the grounds for legal abortion, the burden on the prosecution might not become so onerous that enforcement of the law would be virtually impossible.
My Lords, I have dealt in some detail with the arguments for and against these various proposals, because this is not a simple issue and the Government feel that account must be taken of both sides and of all views. We recognise and respect the sincerity and depth of conviction on both sides, and we do not think it right for the Government to seek to impose a view on the House. Therefore, as I have said, so far as we are concerned, there will be a free vote. There is a deep conflict of opinion, and even wide
1172
divergence of views among those who agree that some change in the law is desirable. This is because the issues are large ones—respect for human life, concern for human distress, desire for justice. Even on what might be considered incidental matters of procedure, we find ourselves coming back, again and again, to these fundamental questions of principle, and our own judgment of the matter must ultimately rest on our own personal values. The heavy duty of making a choice, and the choice itself, my Lords, is yours.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months". The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I express much gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his tribute to the sincerity of those who oppose him. It is almost unnecessary for me to reciprocate that compliment. No one who has sat in the House as long as I have with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, can fail to recognise his high sincerity, deep devotion to principle, and great Parliamentary skill.
My Amendment has, however, been deplored by the right reverend Prelate. I learned the conventions of your Lordships' House rather a long time ago, between the years 1927 and 1939, and I dare say that my views are very out of date, but in those clays it was considered courteous, if you objected strongly to a Bill which was to be read a second time, to put down a notice to reject it or to see that someone else put it down. In my action, which I took at the last possible moment and when I had finally despaired of anyone else putting such a notice down, I was following what used to be the conventions of this House.
I think the noble Lords who have spoken so well in criticism of this Bill will save my troubling your Lordships with an over-long speech. The Bill is an extreme one, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has told us the respects in which it goes beyond the Bill previously introduced in another place. In setting up no tribunal at all, it goes beyond the action of quite a number of foreign countries which have legalised abortion. It also goes beyond the practice of many

1173
States of the American Union, which allow therapeutic abortion, but only on the advice of a hospital committee. It is an extreme Bill and it is a premature Bill. We have heard that a committee of the Church of England has considered the matter, but the report of that committee has not yet been published. I have no doubt that that report will be a very distinguished piece of moral theology, but it has not yet been submitted to the Church Assembly, nor to the informed judgment and criticism of other theologians.
We have heard—and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will tell us more about this—that a medical committee has been established to investigate this matter, and I understand that the British Medical Association would wish to defer judgment till that committee has reported. There is no doubt much that they will wish to investigate. Not all gynaecologists desire the abortion law reformed. One very distinguished gynaecologist—I do not know what his religious views are, or whether he has any—said to me: "The Bourne case and other legal decisions give me all the discretion that I want to have, and I have used that discretion on several occasions and removed the fœtus, though I hate doing it. But I do not want women coming to me and demanding an abortion as of right."
So much for my friend. But let us follow his point a little further. What use will it be if one doctor exercises his rights with great discretion and with great care, and another doctor does not exercise them so conscientiously? Naturally, judgments of medical men will differ, and there will perhaps be different views on the subject and different practices in different parts of London. Let your Lordships remember that it is a simple matter to change your family doctor; a simple matter to change your lodgings and to move to a quarter in which you expect that a more broadminded policy prevails, and where you will get your abortion with but little difficulty. Again, I hope that the committee will consider the position of conscientious objectors, and not only those among the doctors (and there will be many there) but also—and this is of some importance—those among the nurses. That, my Lords, is rather a serious issue.
Now in asking your Lordships to await the reports of the various committees I must make my own position clear. I speak from profound conviction, and my views will not be altered by the opinions of committees. I hope that many of your Lordships will sympathise with me and will oppose this Bill, if not for the reasons I have already given then for the other reasons which I shall give, of which this element of prematurity is one. Much has been said about the backstreet abortionist, and I need not go further into that matter. Of course, such abortionists will not be greatly reduced in number if this Bill is enacted. But I must say I am getting more and more doubtful of the legislative principle that if you cannot stop something bad from being done, then you had better legalise it, under restrictions. That was the basis of the last Gaming Act, and I must say I voted for it, but I am getting very doubtful whether I was right.
I now turn to the Bill, and here my notes are scribbled over with a large "D" in almost every place. The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and sometimes the right reverend Prelate also, have largely anticipated me, as was to be expected. As regards the phrase "strain of caring for it", of which the right reverend Prelate has spoken, I ask: what are the children's services for? What are the Dr. Barnardo's Homes and the other voluntary children's bodies for? I would beg your Lordships who follow me not to use the phrase "the unwanted child". It is a terrible phrase, and it is not true. These children are wanted by would-be adopters all over the country; they are wanted by foster homes, who welcome them; they are wanted by the voluntary societies, and they are wanted by the country. I have forgotten how many extra workers the country has got to have according to The National Plan. We need more workers.
But, my Lords, I feel somewhat personally about this matter. Many children are "in care" because their mothers cannot bear the strain of caring for them. I adopt words which are often heard from the Labour Benches—namely, "We are talking about people". I am talking about people. One noble Lord also used, very effectively, the phrase, "We are talking about boys and

1175
girls"; and I am talking about them. I serve on a children's committee. I know that very many of our children are in care because their mothers, sometimes through mental deficiency, are unable to care for them. I know that this girl is going to the technical college, that this boy is working in a garage and that this child has joined the Brownies; and upon their behalf I am a little affronted by a suggestion that they should have been doomed to non-existence.
Now the defective children. Well, let them speak for themselves, for they desire life. Your Lordships will remember that some years ago a woman in Belgium killed her thalidomide baby, and the ethics of that mercy killing were much debated. Three youngsters from a spastics school wrote to the Daily Telegraph a letter with which some of your Lordships may be familiar, but I do not think we can hear it too often:
"Sir—We were disabled from causes other than thalidomide, the first of us having two useless arms and hands, the second two useless legs, and the third the use of neither arms nor legs.
"We are fortunate only, it may seem, in having been allowed to live, and we want to say with strong conviction how thankful we are that no one took it upon themselves to destroy us as useless cripples.
"Here in the Thomas Delarue School for Spastics, … we have found worthwhile and happy lives and we face our future with confidence. Despite our disabilities life still has much to offer, and we are more than anxious—if only metaphorically—to reach out towards the future."
My Lords, cripples have a purpose in life. Do you remember the story of the great novelist Henry James, who visited a hospital for war wounded? He was taken to the bedside of a man who was limbless, dreadfully wounded, and in despair. The man said to him, "I'm finished". Henry James answered, "My dear fellow, your work has only just begun. From now on your work is to call out from other people the noblest qualities in humanity".
Finally, on this point, are we not in danger of encouraging infanticide by those women—there are a few—who murder their ill-formed babies? If this Bill had been passed a short time ago, that Belgian woman would have been able to say, "Had this defect in my baby
1176
been discovered as it lay in my womb, then, with all the sanction of the law, the doctor and I could have agreed to slay it. As it was stricken, even though it was viable, we could have killed it." What is the moral difference that that short time has made?
Then there is the "social conditions" clause. Here, I express a little mild criticism and a certain surprise that so exceedingly competent a noble Lord as Lord Silkin should have used such a very imprecise phrase as "the social conditions". What does it mean—or, rather, what does it not mean? Almost anything, I think. Housing, certainly. I picture a woman going fearfully and humbly to her housing officer to ask for a council house "because I am afraid there is another little one on the way", and his saying, "No, you cannot have a house but you can get an abortion, and I will give you a social conditions certificate to show your doctor". What else could it mean? Is it her employment? Does every model get an abortion as of right? And what about the "social conditions", as has been mentioned, of those who live in Mayfair and who say: "Doctor, we are in society and we have certain social obligations." The doctor is concerned with health, not sociology. He has not been trained in case work and there is no one to do it for him. He cannot investigate these hard luck stories.
Sufficient has been said, perhaps, by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about the next paragraph, which makes a doctor not only a sociologist but also a magistrate. The noble and learned Viscount has perhaps said enough, and indeed there is need to say very little. Those of your Lordships who are magistrates know how difficult it is to make firm decisions in certain cases of rape, procurement, or incest. The magistrate has the advantage of evidence on oath, of cross-examination and of counsel, and he will, no doubt, through those helps be able to reach a just decision. But the doctor's consulting room cannot be made a court of law. This paragraph opens the door wide to any woman who is prepared to tell her doctor—he may be her very recent doctor, who knows nothing of her family—a string of lies.
My Lords, what should we do? I very much hope, with some confidence, that the

1177
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will see fit to withdraw the Bill. How much many of us would congratulate him and thank him for that decision! But, if not, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has pointed out that almost every clause contains most dangerous matter and is highly unsatisfactory. I do not know, with any precision, on what criteria one should vote for the Second Reading of a Bill. This is not, after all, a Resolution. The noble Lord could have moved a Resolution in favour of the reform that he desires and it would have led to just as interesting a debate as has this Second Reading of the Bill; but he has moved a Bill. If you think with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, or with the right reverend Prelate, who spoke a little strongly at the conclusion of his speech, I cannot see how, with whatever reluctance, you can take any step other than to vote against the Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Motion.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
5.5 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, I welcome this Bill because I am sure, from inquiries I have made among medical colleagues, that the present state of the law relating to abortion is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory that doctors should be put into the position of having to make up their minds whether what they may do will fall within the interpretation of the law as decided by judges many years ago. I am told that, as a result, it is often difficult to get a gynæcologist to terminate pregnancy in a case where all the doctors are agreed that on medical grounds it is desirable. The law, therefore, I am sure, needs to be defined; but I am bound to say that in many respects I think the present Bill falls far short of a satisfactory definition.
May I take first Clause 1(a)? Here I find that the indications for the termination of pregnancy set out in the Bill conform fairly accurately to what is the current practice. But there is one unfortunate departure to which the noble and lea riled Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has already alluded. That is the fact that under the Bill the decision rests with a
1178
single registered medical practitioner. It is the current practice, before a termination of pregnancy is agreed to, for the opinion of a consultant in the relevant field to be obtained. I am sure that any Bill that becomes law should embody that provision and should require certificates from two doctors, one of them to be an appropriate consultant, whether psychiatrist, heart specialist or whatever the case demands.
I also agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it is very desirable that one certificate should come from the family doctor. But, for obvious reasons, this is not always practicable. He might have a conscientious objection to it, or he might be a close personal friend and the patient might not want him to know what has happened. We must take account of that possibility. But the difficulty might be overcome by requiring the second certificate from another approved practitioner.
Some mention has been made of the provision that the strain of caring for the child should be taken into account. I think that the difficulties of this have perhaps been rather exaggerated; because it is the current practice to take it into account to some extent, and in suitable cases. For example, if a woman has severe heart disease or a disabling disease of the nervous system, it is relevant to consider not only what the immediate effects on her physical health of the pregnancy going to term will be, but also what will be the effects on her physical and mental health of having to care for the child after it is born. I am told that is a current consideration in many cases.
When we come to the next clause, there are, as has already been pointed out, considerable difficulties. There are a wide variety of risks here, some of which are easy to estimate and some of which are very difficult to estimate. I think I should say something particularly about rubella (German measles) where the risk varies a great deal according to the precise stage of pregnancy at which the disease occurs. If it is at the most vulnerable phase—I think that is about the sixth to ninth week—then the risks are extremely high, and very responsible gynæcologists have told me they would regard that established fact as in itself indication for the termination of pregnancy.

1179
However, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that two possible principles are at stake here. We should be clear whether we are terminating the pregnancy because the child is likely to be born deformed or in the interests of the mother. If it is the former, then I think that a new principle is being introduced into law. But I cannot help thinking that all that needs to be done in this respect could be adequately covered under the existing Clause 1(a). It should take into account the state of the mother's mind and her fears, whether reasonable or not, as to what may happen, and also the doctor's estimate of the risk of a deformed child being born; and, I would say, the likely effect of that on the mother's future health. I think that if all these considerations are taken into account the factor can be adequately dealt with under the provisions of the existing Clause 1(a).
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from that point, may I ask him whether he will say something about what I understand to be the quite considerable success of the antidote to rubella known as gamma globulin now customarily administered to all pregnant women who are at risk from rubella and which has, I understand, a very high success ratio?
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, I believe that in general that is true. I am not enough of an expert in this field to be able to say what bearing that would have upon the risk of deformity at any particular stage of pregnancy.
With regard to Clause 1(c), I entirely agree with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about the risk of allowing a termination of pregnancy on the consideration of a single medical practitioner's belief with regard to the potential effects of the mother's social condition. But I think again that what we want to do, if we do want to do this, can be brought into the consideration of the mother's own mental and physical health. Indeed, I noticed that the instances which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, brought forward of mothers threatening to commit suicide because of circumstances of a late pregnancy, and things of that kind, are exactly those
1180
which would normally be covered by the consideration dealt with in Clause 1(a).
With regard to Clause 1(d), I wish to discuss only the question of unsound mind. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, this is a term with no medical connotation at all. If the Bill is to go on, it is essential therefore that some definition of this term should be included. Your Lordships will already know the difficulties which arise in trying to define unsoundness of mind in relation to criminal responsibility. I should like to ask your Lordships to consider what might happen if a woman who was mentally ill had her pregnancy terminated on that ground and subsequently she recovered. What would be, or could be, her attitude to what had already happened? It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will say that that is not what is intended to be dealt with in the Bill. If it is not, I think that a further ground for clarification.
Clause 2 deals with the time in which it is appropriate to terminate a pregnancy. I am advised by experts that there is no medical justification for limiting the period to the sixteenth week of pregnancy, and that the operation may safely be performed much later, though on general grounds it is desirable that it should be carried out before quickening occurs and at a time when, from a legal point of view, the result is a miscarriage and not a notifiable still-birth; that is, within 28 weeks. However, here again is a point on which differences of opinion occur and some medical opinions, at any rate, differ from the line taken by the Bill.
I believe that enough has been said already in this debate to show how complex are the issues dealt with by the Bill, and although, as I said, I welcome it in principle, I do not believe that the Committee of your Lordships' House is the most suitable place for all these difficult and technical questions to be discussed and decided. I know that this is the view of many doctors, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to set up an Inter-departmental Committee which would take evidence from all concerned and provide, I would hope in a reasonably short time, a considered report on which future legislation could be based.

1181
Your Lordships will have heard that the British Medical Association has in fact set up a Committee—not to-day, though it might have met to-day. It was set up in response to a resolution of the Annual Meeting last summer. I am quite sure that, if an Inter-departmental Committee were set up, the British Medical Association, and many other bodies, would be only too glad to give evidence to it. I know that this would take time, but surely it would be worth while to devote some time to a matter of such complexity and seriousness. I hope, therefore, that instead of trying to amend this Bill in Committee, it may be referred to an Inter-departmental Committee. I propose, nevertheless, to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because I am in general sympathy with its objects, but hope that some better solution may be found when it reaches the Committee stage.
5.18 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, the law as at present known is quite uncertain, in regard to doctors at least, but so far as the unqualified abortionist is concerned there is no difficulty. I should like for a moment to draw attention to the grave social consequences which appear in cases which come before the courts. I have tried such cases myself. The picture is all too simple—the married man and the unmarried girl or the other man's wife. The man says he knows of someone who will help, usually a middle-aged woman in a dingy house. There are clandestine appointments; crude instruments; the payment of money by cash, not by cheque; a conspiracy of silence of which no one ever knows unless the woman dies or is rushed to hospital with sepsis. I remember well a case in which a man was tried before me as being an accessary to the offence of manslaughter and I sentenced him to a substantial term of imprisonment. I remember a woman abortionist to whom I gave a sentence of nine months. When one thinks of the misery which is consequent on that situation one realises the serious and great social problem before us. That is one type of case.
The other type of case is of the medical practitioner, let me say the unscrupulous medical practitioner, as in a case which was tried before Mr. Justice Ashworth in 1958. A girl was recommended by
1182
one doctor, a doctor Stungo to another doctor, Dr. Newton, for termination of the pregnancy. She went and had an injection. She went back to her hotel and within a few days she was ill and died. When Dr. Newton was prosecuted he raised the defence that his action was justifiable on the ground of the girl's mental condition. Mr. Justice Ashworth gave a direction on the law which, so far as I know, has always been accepted. He told the jury:
"The law about the use of instruments to procure a miscarriage is this: 'Such use of an instrument is unlawful unless the use is made in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life or health of the woman'. When I say health, I mean not only her physical health but also her mental health. But also I have said 'it is unlawful unless'. I must emphasise and add that the burden of proving that it was not used in good faith is on the Crown."
In spite of that direction to the jury, Dr. Newton was found guilty. I imagine that he could not succeed in showing that what was done was clone in good faith for preserving her health. I imagine also that there must have been many other cases in which he had been concerned, because the Judge sentenced him to three years penal servitude. It is cases of this type which come before the courts in the ordinary way.
I should like to say that, for the registered medical practitioner who acts in good faith for the purpose of preserving the health of the woman, after consulting a consultant—I have never known of such a case, at all events since the Bourne case, when it has been established that it is justifiable for good cause to terminate a pregnancy—that state of the law seems to me to be simply followed out in Clause 1(a) of this Bill. If it would do good to clarify it, by all means let that be done.
Then there is Clause 1(b). Assuming that a woman's health is not impaired, what about the case where the child may be deformed or suffer some kind of malformity or weakness? The law does not say what the position is there. I would only say that in a somewhat parallel case, where a man who was a porter in a hospital had himself sterilised so that he should have no further children by his wife, I held that this act was unlawful unless it was for a good cause. "Good cause" might consist in preventing the transmission of an hereditable

1183
disease. I know of no other statement or authority on such a matter as this, but, for myself, I would say that it was not unlawful, if a child was going to be born deformed—it might be a thalidomide baby—for the doctor in good faith to terminate the pregnancy. I draw that view on the general law as to operations, which is mentioned in Clause 4.
A surgical operation is, in law, an assault, unless done with the consent of the person operated upon. In all the cases under the Bill, of course, the woman gives her consent; but even that does not make it cease to be a criminal offence in certain circumstances. There are the old cases of the young and lusty man who had his hand cut off the better to be able to beg, and in the old days when soldiers used to have to bite their cartridges, of the soldier who had his teeth pulled out so that he could not bite his cartridges. In those cases, consent was no answer. Consent is no answer unless the surgical operation is done for a just cause. Although there is no authority upon it, I would suggest that it is open to the law to hold that there is just cause, and if there is a grave risk of a child being born grossly deformed or with other serious physical and mental abnormality, that may be just cause. But it is a case where surely it is desirable that the law should be known, so that medical practitioners may know where they stand.
In regard to the next two clauses, I am afraid that they go far beyond the medical sphere. As to belief that the social conditions in which she is living may make a woman unsuitable to assume responsibility for a child, that ceases to be a medical question and becomes a social one. Is it right to entrust that question to any body of persons to decide? It may mean opening a gap through which all the world may go.
As to paragraph (d), dealing with the rape of girls under sixteen and mental defectives, it all sounds a very humane provision, but those who practise in the courts know that girls may allege rape. It is always a question of consent or no consent, and girls of 15½ often, and usually do, consent. If this clause were to go through as it is, all these cases would be cases in which termination of pregnancy would be justifiable. I do not say it is wrong. My own inclination is
1184
to say that if termination of pregnancy were allowed only to registered medical practitioners after consultation with consultants, and maybe in these cases after further consultations with social workers and even magistrates, there might be a case for it.
I turn to Clause 2 and the sixteen weeks of pregnancy. I would repeat what the old Common Law says: that before quickening, the child is not considered in law to have a life of its own. Blackstone said:
"Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual: and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if anyone beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, or she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law, homicide or manslaughter."
The old Common Law drew that distinction between the time before quickening and the time after quickening, though a woman may say that it is only a question of bringing on her child earlier.
It seems to me that there is a case for the consideration of this House, a case to make the law certain. It is fairly certain in regard to Clause 1 paragraphs (a) and (b), but it is necessary to consider whether or not, with adequate safeguards, paragraphs (c) and (d) may not be given effect. I would support the Second Reading of the Bill.
5.28 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, on the face of it, one must say that the State has signally failed to deal with the social problem of the illegal abortion. That is why I welcome this Bill. It is thought that about 100,000 women seek to obtain legal abortions during the year, and it looks, from the figures that one can get from the Emergency Bed Service, that the number of pregnancies which go wrong is increasing. There has been a fairly big increase in the number of women applying for beds during the last ten years, while the same increase has not been observed in calls upon these beds for acute surgical cases.
The Bourne judgment, one might think, would be sufficient to give the medical profession complete trust and faith, but there is always the fear that it might be reversed in the Appeal Court, and it does not satisfy a great many doctors.

1185
The Bill that we are considering now does not seek to limit the number of babies born; it is not in any sense of the word a birth control Bill. It seeks merely to reduce the number of casualties which can occur as a result of a back-street or illegal abortion, call it what you will. Paradoxically, as I shall try to show, it may reduce the number of abortions which are being carried out. One comes across examples which show what an extraordinarily organised racket the abortion system in this country is. I was talking to a young man, who some years ago worked with me, and who is now working as the registrar in the obstetric hospital of one of our big towns in the North, and he told me that about every five or six weeks there is a rush to the obstetric hospital of women with incomplete abortions, septic abortions, bleeding from badly done abortions, which showed that the local abortion man, so far as one could see, had arrived in the town, and it had got around, and he was running his practice, or whatever you call it, for the short time he was there.
Another thing that has not been mentioned this afternoon is that abortion is the second largest cause of maternal deaths, and a substantial portion of the people who die are not young girls, but women between 35 and 40 who have had four or more children. So the bulk of the people seeking abortion at the present time do not always comprise the young teenage girl who has gone wrong, but include, in many cases, the respectable family woman, who seeks it for either economic or emotional reasons: emotional, because she feels she cannot undertake the care of, and cannot begin to understand, one more child when the rest of her family is growing up; and economic, due to the fact that there is not enough money, or the accommodation is too small. I am not making that a defence of these people, but, as has already been said in the debate, one can do much more by rehousing them than by procuring abortion and allowing them to live in the same quarters as they lived in before.
The effect of a back-street abortion, of course, can be terrible. It can lead to chronic ill-health in the mother; and, also—a tragic thing, supposing she should wish to become pregnant subsequently—the chances of her being sterile are enor-
1186
mously increased. The other thing which I think one finds is that if they have been to a back-street abortionist they get a much greater feeling of guilt when the operation has been carried out and they come away, than they do if it is done in a legal manner. This, I think, can have a very bad psychological effect on the mother and upon the family she is bringing up.
A great deal has been said about the clauses of the Bill, and while I do not want to go over them again one by one, I should like to say that on Clause 1(a) I entirely agree with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. It seems to me to be badly drawn, and that it would be quite impossible to enforce it in a correct way.
I should like to make one comment on Clause 1(b), dealing with deformed children. Here I think we have to be extremely careful because your Lordships will remember that when the Germans, under the Nazis, began to kill the mentally defective people, some people said: "These people do not live at all; they are complete cabbages, and it is better to put them away." And from that have come all the terrible things we have seen in the last few years. So I think we must be careful not to start on that slope. I agree that it is a terrible thing if children are born blind, or if they are born deformed, in a thalidomide form. But some months ago I went down to Roehampton, where some of these children are, and I saw some of them being fitted with their prostheses. They were born without a leg or arm (these were not the most deformed children), but they were taking to their new prostheses in a way that I should not have believed possible: they were cheerful, bright and intelligent. What their future will be, I do not know. They will no doubt have an extremely difficult time. But I am sure that if your Lordships had seen those children, you would not agree that it would have been a good thing if they had never been allowed to be born.
There is one thing on which I do not agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He said that the one clause with which he could agree was Clause 5. I would far rather the Bill were called the "Termination of Pregnancy Bill" than the "Abortion Bill".

1187
That being so, I have a profound objection to Clause 5.
Before sitting down, I should like to say one or two things about the question of abortion in general. What is not generally realised is that abortion requires a really skilled surgical hand in order that it should be successful. This is why I am shocked that this Bill should make it possible for every registered medical practitioner to perform an abortion by himself, and with no consultation. I should much prefer that the abortion were to be done by a skilled gynæcologist or a skilled surgeon, because, although it is a comparatively simple operation, it has a mortality, even in the most skilled hands. It seems to me that it would be far more satisfactory, if a Bill like this is to be passed, that the work should be done by someone experienced in the diseases of women. But if this is going a little too far, the gynæcologist should, in my view, be called into consultation with the medical practitioner before the operation is performed. The American Medical Association are thinking along the same lines as we are now, about a Bill of this sort, and I was pleased to see their provision that the patient must be seen by two doctors, in consultation, one of whom must be a gynæcologist.
The other point is that if the woman is going to be seen by a gynæcologist, it will mean a big increase in the medical and social staff of the gynæcological departments, because that is where I think a properly drafted Bill could reduce the number of abortions. Supposing the woman becomes pregnant, she rushes to her neighbours in a frantic kind of way, and they advise her to go and see a backstreet abortionist, when he comes. But if she could talk reasonably and calmly to a doctor, a social worker, or perhaps a health visitor (I am not going to say who she should call in), a great deal of worry could be taken away and things could be made much easier. If that were done, more staff would be needed in these departments, but if the treatment could be canalised to the proper department, we might see a substantial decrease in the number of people seeking these backstreet abortions.
If this Bill, or a Bill like it, does pass, it will put a great responsibility upon the medical profession. I think I am right
1188
in saying that it is part of our training to be prepared to take that responsibility when it is necessary. What we should like to do is to be associated with the clergy and the social workers, because I think that they, with the doctors, are the people who really know what is going on, certainly in the poorer parts of the country. If we can all work together in that way, we can do a great deal to make the lot of these unfortunate women a great deal more satisfactory than it is at the present time. Although I think that this Bill has a great many defects, and that there is not a single clause which does not want tearing to pieces and re-drafting, I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. Because the more this subject can be discussed, the better; and the British Medical Association (I know that there is to be a Committee of that Association) might well learn something from what is said on the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
5.42 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think I am the only mother speaking in this debate, and consequently my approach to this subject will be more subjective, more forthright, and possibly more emotional, than that of the noble Lords who have already spoken and who, for obvious reasons, on questions like pregnancy, can approach it only in a theoretical manner. I am sure that many of them who have spoken have spoken with deep feeling nevertheless, I have been a little shocked to find how many have tried to run away on legalistic issues and how many have tried to evade the principle by asking for another committee to be set up. My noble friend Lord Brain will recall that three years ago, when I had the Boxing Bill before the House, which I lost by only seven votes, my noble friend asked the House to postpone a decision so that it could go to a committee, and I am still waiting for the final decision of that committee.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, may I remind the noble Baroness that the Interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction reported one year after it was appointed?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That, I am afraid, is no excuse. This was three years ago. I am raising this point only because I was a little shocked to hear my

1189
noble friend Lord Brain mention a Committee after the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, had warned the House that my noble friend would do so. I had the feeling that this had all been arranged behind the scenes.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: No.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I feel this should be mentioned, because on the Second Reading of a Bill we are here to discuss a broad principle. Most of the comments made by the right reverend Prelate—who, I was shocked to learn, advised my noble friend to tear up this little Bill—and those of the noble Viscount, are comments which should be made on a Committee stage; and I am quite certain that this Bill of five clauses could be amended in Committee in such a way that it would be acceptable to the House.
The matter with which the Bill is concerned, the practice of abortion, is by no means new—it is as old as pregnancy itself. That is why I ask your Lordships again, here and now, to decide on the principle. Unhappily, as we have already realised, this question arouses tremendous passions, stemming from custom and prejudice which cannot be countered by rational argument. Consequently, since 1803, when the procuring of an abortion became a statutory crime, society, buttressed by convention and prejudice and by theological doctrine, has been obdurate and merciless towards the pregnant woman who seeks relief by abortion. I should say also to the House that, apart altogether from feeling strongly about this as a woman, since I qualified as a doctor in 1924 I have seen hundreds and hundreds of cases similar to those which my noble friend Lord Silkin read out.
Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to whom we always listen with great relief on all these subjects, I acknowledge that there have been many men like him on the Judicial Bench who have felt a twinge of conscience which has been reflected in the various sentences passed on abortionists. But this still, small voice has been drowned by the moralising of men who, in the name of Jesus Christ, forgetting the example He gave, have condemned those unfortunate women who have sought relief. I hope that on this
1190
occasion in the mid-twentieth century, when we have abolished hanging for murder, those who have held that it were better for an expectant mother to die rather than be saved by an induced abortion will adopt a more humane attitude.
Throughout the ages, the interests of the mother and her unborn child have been closely associated with the survival of the community. The prohibition of abortion and birth control, like the laws of Moses, which were concerned with elementary hygiene and the safe preparation of food, stemmed from the urgency of the need to increase the population and to decrease the mortality rate. In order to ensure the obedience of primitive people, these instructions had to be invested in some Divine decree. To-day, literate people of the space age, in well-populated countries, are not prepared to accept taboos unquestioning, and in the matter of abortion the human rights of the individual mother—rights that we so often hear about in the United Nations—with her own fully developed personality and her responsibilities to her family, must take precedence over the survival of a few weeks old fœtus without sense or sensibility.
I find it difficult to understand—and I address this to the noble Lord who talked of murder—how the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is observed by deliberately sanctioning the death of a mother who would otherwise have survived if her pregnancy had been terminated. To my mind, in those circumstances a mother has been killed with the utmost premeditation. Before a decision is made that she should go to term in her confinement, she has been advised, perhaps by one of the best specialists in the country, that this is injurious to her health and that she will be risking her life. And yet, in the name of religion, she is condemned. I say to those who come to us to-day and suggest that by destroying the fœtus of a few weeks we are thereby committing a crime, it cannot be compared with the condemnation of a fully grown woman, perhaps with a small family.
In 1939 the Inter-departmental Committee Report on Abortion recommended that the 1861 Act should be amended to protect the doctor who procures an abortion in the interests of the mother's health. I was astonished to hear the right

1191
reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, ask your Lordships not to do anything about this Bill but to set up another Inter-departmental Committee. The Departmental Committee between the Ministry of Health and the Home Office sat for years. Some people are now asking, in order to postpone a decision, that one more Inter-departmental Committee should be set up, and I feel that Mr. Justice Macnaghten's interpretation of the law in the case of Rex v. Bourne—that noble doctor (and let us pay tribute to him) who risked his whole professional career because he believed it was right to abort a little girl who had been raped—and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 established that British law was determined to safeguard the interest of the mother.
Therefore I would say to the House that the principle of abortion has thereby been accepted and we are here to-day to discuss whether it is advisable to extend the surgical practice. So I hope that, when it comes to voting, no noble Lords will go into the Division Lobby against this Bill believing that they are voting against the principle of abortion. Abortions are being done in all the hospitals in London, probably to-day, on women who are suffering from serious diseases and who it is believed may lose their lives if they are allowed to go to term.
My Lords, we are being asked to-day to discuss whether this human principle shall be extended to two or three other pathetic categories of women who cannot help themselves but who are dependent upon you. I believe that public opinion is now leading in this matter, and Parliament must not drag its feet by endless moralising. Moralising leads us nowhere. We have heard it for years. It sounds good, but what does it do? Does it at any time help any poor suffering being? These women, my Lords, are asking for you to act to-day, not to listen to moralising.
As has been said, in March a survey was carried out by the National Opinion Polls which showed that 72 per cent. of the people are in favour of some reform of the abortion law, and I want to stress again what the National Council of Women have said, because I feel that this has not been sufficiently stressed. The National Council of Women, a representative organisation of women in this
1192
country, have recommended that the 1861 Act shall be amended in accordance with the Inter-departmental Report, to which I have just referred, and they ask that abortion should be legalised where there is a grave risk of a serious defective child being born and where the pregnancy results from a sexual offence such as rape or incest. With all due respect to the Church, this is a matter in which the voice of women should be the deciding factor, and with all respect to my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh, whom I do respect, surely he must realise that it is not for celibate men to decide the fate of these women. The modern law on the subject in many other countries—and we are dragging behind other countries—aims primarily to protect the mother and to make it clear that her interests are paramount.
I should now like to comment, quite briefly, on the various proposals in the Bill. And here I would say that, while I think the drafting is defective, I have seen in another place Bills drafted as badly as this put right on Committee; and there are only five clauses to put right. It would seem from the practice, as I have already said, in our hospitals to-day that the provision in paragraph (a) of Clause 1 is already observed; that is to say, as I have just described, pregnant women who are suffering from serious diseases can to-day have their pregnancy terminated. But it is right that this should be embodied in an Act of Parliament.
With regard to paragraph (b), we know that, as has already been said, a mother who has contracted German measles early in pregnancy may bear a child defective in the eyes, ears, heart or brain, and that the inadequately tested drugs on the market may well be responsible for further thalidomide tragedies. Do not let us gloss over this situation. All these drug houses are pouring out drugs every day, competing with each other. These drugs are inadequately tested, and the risk of pregnant women getting them is, I think, just as great to-day as it ever was. Are we to ignore this knowledge acquired by the scientists, and deliberately allow a child to be born with shocking deformities, by withholding the skilled hand of science? My Lords, it is a paradoxical state of affairs. On the one hand, we sit back and see these things happening, because science has advanced to such a degree that we give pills and tablets for various ends;

1193
but, on the other, we must not sit back like primitive people and say, having done that, "You must suffer. We are not going to let a skilled surgeon come along and terminate the pregnancy, even if the child may be deformed". And we have heard to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that the view is that a very large proportion of these children will be deformed.
I suppose the first question that a woman asks after childbirth—I know it was mine—is, "Is the baby all right?" The expectant mother experiences a deep anxiety, stemming from her maternal love, lest a child may have to suffer all its life from some physical imperfection. Having learned, therefore, that there is a chance that her child may come to some harm because she has taken some drug, or because she has had some illness which has accompanied her pregnancy, she must be free to decide. I am quite prepared to agree with the right reverend Prelate that she must discuss it with her husband; but she must also discuss it with many experts in this field, and she must be free to decide whether, in all the circumstances, she wishes to continue her pregnancy. For let us remember it is she who will have to bear the burden of a crippled child throughout its life.
Under Clause 1, paragraph (c) (which again has been very badly drafted), provision is made for a woman to have her pregnancy terminated on social grounds. Here I am unhappy about the social grounds which might be considered legitimate in the circumstances. If the social conditions under which she is living affect her health, and if the situation would be aggravated by a pregnancy, then it is understandable that she should seek relief. But this paragraph requires clarification, because, according to this provision, "social conditions" could well cover living in a one- or two-roomed home, living with a difficult mother-in-law, or the temporary unemployment of her husband. This, of course, would be quite unacceptable to many of those who are otherwise sympathetic to this Bill. If, however, this paragraph refers, as is the practice in Scandinavia, to the mother of a large family who is abandoned by her husband, or a woman with a low I.Q. who already has illegitimate children, then I find it quite acceptable. But I believe that the words "social conditions" must be carefully defined.
1194
Furthermore, I feel very strongly that the provision of facilities to secure an abortion must not be looked upon as a reason for not using some method of birth control. In 1920, abortion clinics where a woman could have her pregnancy terminated on demand were established in the Soviet Union. When I first visited the Soviet Union in 1932, I asked to see one of these abortion clinics in operation. In a large room six operating tables were being used simultaneously and every few minutes a fresh batch of women were wheeled in. The operation itself takes only two or three minutes. I was reminded very disagreeably of an assembly line in action. And I was relieved to find on my last visit that in 1936 the Soviet Union rescinded the liberty of abortion on demand owing to the high morbidity rate among women who had availed themselves repeatedly of this service. I have not to tell this House that I am a champion of my sex; but in seeking to help women we must not establish a service which used indiscriminately might react to their disadvantage. Safeguards are very important; otherwise the floodgates will be opened.
I now come to Clause 1(d). This is concerned with those girls against whom an offence has been committed, under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. A girl who has been the victim of rape cannot be expected to feel anything but loathing for the man who has assaulted her. Her human rights have been totally disregarded, and when pregnancy results it violates her maternal functions. Can it be argued that it is socially desirable and reconcilable with human rights that she should be compelled to bear and rear a child criminally begotten? And the birth of the child does not solve her problem. She will find it difficult to get the child adopted, because a child born as a result of rape is not wanted by anybody.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, reminded us of these homes where there are children. Life without love is very sterile, and however devoted these people may be, in these homes the human personality thrives and flourishes only where it can find love. I cannot agree that it is desirable to bring into the world a child who knows he has been hated since his birth.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I really feel that the noble

1195
Baroness may reconsider those words. The tendency to-day in child care is to get rid of the children's homes wherever possible and foster all the children—and it is most of the children who are capable of being fostered—and to look after the more difficult ones who are really seriously troubled in very small homes, where, I do beg the noble Baroness to believe, they do get love.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am very sorry, but I totally disagree. The law punishes rape as a serious crime. Should it not also help to its maximum potential the one who has suffered most from the crime? Have we not already established the principle that the State should recompense the victim who has suffered some injury at the hands of a criminal? While it is impossible to recompense a girl for the violation she has suffered, at least she should have the resulting pregnancy terminated. Can it be argued that it is in the interests of the child—again I ask—that it should survive, when it is known that in addition to being fatherless it was entirely unwanted and hated by its mother since conception?
One function of the law is to uphold the rights of the individual. Roman law gave the husband the power to authorise the abortion of his wife, and a right to damages against a third party who procured her abortion without his consent. That law was designed to safeguard the man's absolute interest in his wife and children as persons subject entirely to his power and control. I am asking this House to recognise that the human rights of a mother must be upheld, and that the law should safeguard her interests above the claims of all others.
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I support this Bill, if not in its present form, and may I say straight away I have the deepest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Your Lordships may recall I had a little Bill before your Lordships last summer and I was told to go away and redraft it, which, with the kindly aid of the Parliamentary draftsmen, was done. I deeply hope the same assistance will be given to the noble Lord.
This is not a subject I know a great deal about, and I am going to talk
1196
about only one aspect of which I have experience. It is seemingly the fact that 80 per cent. of all abortions are carried out on married women. Personally I think this is a comforting statistic; one had imagined it was mostly girls in trouble who had their pregnancy terminated. But your Lordships should not think that, even for a respectably married woman, giving birth is easy. The lady may be physically ill. A lady I know extremely well had two pregnancies in two years. On both occasions she vomited unceasingly; on both occasions her weight went down to below 6 stone. In both cases it was clear, even to a layman, that she was desperately ill. There was no question here of an unwanted child. Both parents deeply wanted it; it was perhaps what they wanted most. But they were faced with the position that if the pregnancy were to continue the mother might conceivably die.
Could they in these circumstances get a certificate from the local general practitioner recommending an abortion? Not on your life. The doctor hung on. "It may be all right", he said. It was not all right. On both occasions the lady was taken to hospital in an ambulance, and on the second occasion the surgeon said to the father, "Lucky she came in; she might have been dead in a week". Why did the G.P. withhold the certificate? I am convinced that it was because he was frightened lest in giving the necessary permission he might be regarded as too easy-going in such matters, or might even find himself on the wrong side of the law. Perhaps he was not a very brave man. At all events, he feared it and did not take the risk, even though in doing so he was taking a much greater risk, that of losing his patient's life. I conceive that one of the purposes of this Bill is to make doctors less fearful of the consequences of agreeing to abort in cases where abortion is clearly a physical necessity. For that reason alone, I will support this Bill, but in addition I welcome a measure which I believe will reduce human suffering.
6.10 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Summerskill, in that very spirited speech which she has just given to us—with most of which, almost all of

1197
which, I agree—said that the woman must be free to decide herself in the case of a potential thalidomide baby or other drug-induced deformity of the fœtus. Under this Bill she would not be so free to decide. The decision would be made by a single medical practitioner, as I read it, and I think that this is correct. He would make it in his belief that the pregnancy would involve great risk that the child would be deformed. I should be much more inclined to agree with my noble friend. There is a very strong case for saying that in such a situation the facts should be placed before the mother and she should make a decision. I think this is right, but this is certainly not what the Bill provides.
This afternoon we have had a number of examples of good intent in this Bill, but they did not achieve what one might want them to achieve. I quoted one particular example because my noble friend Lady Summerskill was critical of my noble friend Lord Brain, and by implication of my noble friend Lord Amulree, in suggesting that the problem might be referred to a Select Committee or to some commission of inquiry. I feel with her exactly as she does about the boxing inquiry. It is a tragedy that this wretched committee has not reported. But here we are dealing with problems—and I do not know the answer to it—of which I have just given her one single example.
There is another simple example. I think that abortion should never be done for a fee. It is a monstrous thing that, in a country where we have a National Health Service, an abortion should be performed for a fee. This is a terrible temptation to doctors to behave in an immoral way. I can see no reason whatever for it. I can see every reason why we should have all such abortions as have to be performed, performed in the National Health Service—in ordinary general hospital beds, in obstetric or gynæcological wards, or even in amenity beds—but certainly not in pay beds, in private nursing homes or in private houses. But this Bill will not make any such provision of that sort. In fact, it will make it legal for one registered medical practitioner's opinion to make abortion possible. That is a very bad thing for the woman.
1198
The third situation which is unsatisfactory is where doctors disagree about aborting a woman, or where they refuse to abort a woman on medical grounds. I can think of a lady doctor of my acquaintance who was refused an abortion and who appealed to a very great doctor, and the decision was reversed—quite rightly, in my opinion. I should like to see some provision for an appeal by the woman against the decision of a doctor to refuse to abort her. Nobody likes performing abortions; it is a horrible business. There is a certain disgust about it, because you are destroying an unborn life and because the fœtus is manifestly alive. It is not a nice business at all. Again, I agree with the way in which Lord Brain decides it, but I must say that I should like to see provision for any woman to have the right of appeal if she is refused when she thinks her grounds are good.
Fourthly, I agree with those who have spoken so strongly on the subject on social grounds. If there are to be social grounds for an abortion—and it may be that there should be social grounds for an abortion—it is not for the medical profession alone to decide this; but it is a social decision and society must have a share of the responsibility. I would not mind if a woman justice of the peace or some other responsible citizen—I would prefer that it should be a female citizen—were to join with the doctor and the social worker in inquiring into the case when making such a decision. Once one introduces social conditions, having regard to the provision that social conditions may make a woman unsuitable to assume the legal and moral responsibility for caring for a child, then it is society as a whole making the decision and not just the medical profession.
Finally, I should like to see the veiled sale of abortifacient drugs dealt with, if practicable. I cannot see why this should not be done at the same time. It is a singularly unpleasant trade which is going on. We all know about it and we all know the names under which these drugs appear. Therefore, I personally think—and I should certainly vote for my noble friend's Bill, I am glad that he has introduced it—that there should be a proper Royal Commission. I would prefer a Royal Commission to undertake this task once and for all and to make

1199
a thorough job of it, in the same way as the Wolfenden Committee cleared up a very unpleasant mess. I do not think we shall get what we want by amending this Bill, but I am prepared to try. I am going to vote for the Second Reading, but I would prefer to see a full-scale investigation.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I have not previously spoken in your Lordships' House on a Second Reading debate, so if I fall into any error I ask your Lordships' indulgence. I venture to address your Lordships to-day because I am one of the relatively small number of Members in this House who have a personal involvement in the often difficult problems which arise from a decision to terminate a pregnancy on medical grounds.
When we are to-day considering alterations in the law relating to termination of pregnancy, it is paradoxical to realise, as is true, that the very uncertainty of the existing law has resulted in considerable safeguards to the mother and to the unborn child. This is undoubtedly so in conventional hospital practice. Because of the uncertainty, at least consultants in appropriate specialties will confer, and in difficult cases there will be more. These cases may indeed pose the most appallingly difficult decisions in the whole realm of medicine. Whatever is in due course found to be the will of Parliament, they will continue to do so.
Let no one underestimate the purely medical difficulties, to say nothing of the moral, the ethical, difficulties. Last year a lady was referred to one of the consultant obstetricians at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, where I have the honour to be one of the consultant physicians. She was eight weeks pregnant; she had rheumatic heart disease—one of the heart valves was seriously obstructed. In consequence, she was in heart failure. She had been referred by her general practitioner for termination, and you may think that this was not only a very reasonable act on his part but, indeed, obligatory. However, in accordance with our invariable practice a joint consultation was held. The obstructing valve was deemed to be amenable to operative repair. This was done: the obstruction
1200
was removed and the heart function recovered. The lady was delivered of a live, healthy baby. She herself is now well and has been advised that, if she so wishes, it will be perfectly safe for her to undertake further pregnancy in eighteen months' or two years' time.
Whatever the grounds of termination, be they medical, moral, ethical, sociological, the responsibility is much too great to be vested in one individual; and also, I suggest, often outside any one person's competence. That it should be lawful for one registered medical practitioner to perform the physical act of termination is, of course, acceptable; and that is really all the Bill says, as I understand it. But it is another matter for that one registered medical practitioner to decide alone that termination should be performed. This is to me, as to so many other noble Lords, unacceptable. Lone judgments on matters of this sort are too susceptible of error.
When left to an individual, causes of wrong decision may range over a wide spectrum, from creditable to discreditable. At one extreme, one may put the medical practitioner who loses objectivity through too deep personal emotional involvement in the distress of his patient; at the other end, there is the practitioner who would terminate for gain. There is, also, as I hope I have made clear, the grave risk of serious academic medical misjudgment. Like other noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I am convinced that the decision to terminate must not be vested in one individual, no matter how high-minded or professionally skilled.
The prevailing practice within the hospital service, whereby such patients are seen by at least two consultants, works well. I wonder whether an adaptation of this observance could be incorporated in the law. Perhaps, as I believe is the practice in the United States, there should be set up an advisory panel in each large hospital, comprised of consultants in the appropriate medical specialities, and from these a board or tribunal—call it what you will—would be convened to examine each case on merit, thereby relieving any single practioner of the burden of responsibility, and also acting as a powerful safeguard against abuse. In so far as I have had

1201
time to ask, none of my general practitioner friends has been anything but enthusiastic about such a notion. As any legislation will so vitally affect future generations of doctors, I canvassed the views of a number of young men and women at my own hospital. These are young men and women at present in house officer or registrar posts. There was unanimity in the view that to allow one general practitioner alone to decide on termination was most dangerously permissive. My Lords, that generation's views deserve, and should command, respect.
It only remains for me to say that, because the present state of the law is so incoherent, and because, therefore, the very integrity of my profession is so liable to be compromised, I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. But that is subject to our receiving an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that he will give the most earnest consideration to my deep anxiety, and the anxiety of so many other noble Lords, over the contemplated permission for a single medical practitioner to decide alone about termination on any grounds whatsoever.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can give that assurance straight away, without any reservation whatever.
6.25 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, there are 26 noble Lords down to speak in this debate and we are only halfway through, so I think all will agree that we should be as brief as possible. I would venture to support the principle of this Bill, though I entirely concede that it is open to some objections of detail, as well as from the point of view of drafting, which my noble friend Lord Silkin has already very candidly conceded. But it is a humane Bill, and it embodies a principle which I venture to think your Lordships ought to support.
There are three basic objections against leaving the present law as it is. In the first instance, the present law is very uncertain, as has been pointed out, and therefore, there is need to have the law properly defined so that doctors know where they stand. But, quite apart from this, it seems reasonably clear that the law does not confer immunity in important cases where it ought to; in particular,
1202
where the pregnancy is due to rape, and equally, in my opinion, where there are eugenic grounds such as a grave risk of congenital defects, as in the case of the thalidomide babies.
I observe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has pointed out that there is possibly some basis for saying that even at present our existing law would confer immunity in these cases. Of course, any expression of view on a legal matter coming from such a source will deservedly receive the closest attention of your Lordships' House. At the same time, I venture to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would be the first to concede that some, at any rate, of his opinions have not always commanded the universal consent of his brethren.
I venture to suggest that, so far as these two grounds are concerned, it is extremely difficult to see why a woman should be forced to give birth to a seriously deformed child. In addition, I entirely support the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, when she says, in effect, that she can see no reason whatever why a woman should have to nourish within her body the seed placed there by a sex maniac, which is, in effect, what is being asked for when it is said that a woman who has been subjected to rape should be forced to go on and give birth to a child, and then either rear it herself or have it adopted.
I quite see that paragraphs (b) and (d) of Clause 1 of this Bill may be open to some drafting objections, but surely these are matters which can be put right. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, made, if I may say so, some valuable suggestions as to the way in which they could be improved. I am bound to say that I feel rather more hesitation about paragraph (c) of Clause 1. I think that the essential question is an extremely difficult one; but, at the same time, with adequate safeguards, particularly if one introduced the idea of a medical board such as applies in Sweden, it may be that a paragraph of this kind, suitably amended, would be of value.
Then, of course, there are the great social evils attendant upon the present state of the law, and I need not dilate on them. We have heard a great deal about them already, and we all know

1203
about the illegal abortionists and all the dangers which threaten to the mother; the fact that the mother may, without any proper advice, apply dangerous drugs to herself with disastrous results. We know, too, that if the law were amended in the terms of this Bill these evils would by no means be eliminated. But, at any rate, I submit that they would be to some extent reduced and therefore, to that extent at any rate, this change in the law will be beneficial.
As to the arguments which are put forward, in perfect sincerity of course, against any extension of the present law, there are of course the religious arguments. However, I think it is fair to say that we have heard comparatively little of these this afternoon, and I do not propose to say anything about them. Of course, these views are held with utter sincerity; but I venture to think that these are matters which concern the criminal law and that we ought not to invoke the criminal law merely on the basis of the religious persuasions of any group of persons, however influential.
Then, my Lords, it has been suggested that care should be taken in amending the law because the operation effecting an abortion, even when carried out by a qualified practitioner, may be harmful. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to this. But, surely, with great respect, this is rather a strange argument. There are a great many operations in medicine which are dangerous, but we do not, on that account, invoke the criminal law in order to restrain their being carried out. This is a matter for doctors; it is a medical question. I should have thought we would be better advised to leave that question to the doctors, and not to transfer it to the criminal lawyers.
Then, again, it is said—and, I venture to think, with very great force and cogency—that this Bill incorporates insufficient safeguards from the point of view of the doctor, who is apparently given carte blanche to form his own bona fide view when faced with this difficult problem, and from the point of view of the patient and, indeed, that of the community; because, of course, if it is left to one doctor, not only may opinions
1204
differ, but one must recognise that there is the danger of abuse. But surely this is a matter which can be comparatively easily remedied in Committee, because there are a number of ways in which one can build adequate safeguards into this Bill. One of them was suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, himself when he suggested there should be two doctors, one of whom should be a consultant. An alternative would be to introduce something like the Swedish system of having a medical board which would certify in these cases.
So I venture to submit that those are not really fundamental objections, and that in principle the Bill is deserving of support. The real principle embodied in this Bill, if I may venture to remind your Lordships of it, is that the present law ought to be clarified and, in certain limited cases, extended; and it is that principle which I support. Although there are points of detail and drafting about which I, like so many of your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon, have considerable reservations, I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the principle of the Bill and its Second Reading; and, if there is a vote, I, for my part, intend to vote for it.
6.33 p.m.
BARONESS AUDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the House for the indulgence which is customarily given to maiden speakers? I have listened intently, and with great respect, to the speeches of noble Lords on this very difficult subject of abortion, giving both legal and medical views, clearly and perhaps forcibly put forward. I am going to speak very shortly, just as a woman, realising, as we all must, the gravity of cutting off, at one act, the potential life and development of a human soul—an aspect mentioned earlier in this debate by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The act of abortion, the scope and consequence of legal abortion, and the social impact of allowing abortion, produce in me a sense of fear, tragedy and abhorrence. There are reasons for considering the introduction of legal acts of abortion—for instance, the control and prevention of backstairs and secret abuses which can, and do, amount to destroying life. So I ask your Lordships, humbly, to give the utmost thought and consideration to the full

1205
meaning and implication of this Bill, and its scope.
6.35 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I know your Lordships' House will join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Audley, on her maiden speech. As one who has only recently made his own maiden speech I can appreciate her emotions only too clearly. We all respect her for coming here, probably moved by conscience and probably at some inconvenience to herself, to express her views. I am sure we all hope that her conscience will bring her here again, so that she can contribute to our debates in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, speaking neutrally from the Government Front Bench, said there were two starting points for one's consideration of this problem. The one from which I start is the extreme one that every woman should have the right to determine whether or not she should bear the child that she has conceived. This is, I realise, an extreme position; and I recognise that many noble Lords, and many people outside this House, have equally strong conscientious objections to this point of view—and I respect those objections. Indeed, I even considered that I might be mistaken; but it is the view I hold. Starting from that point of view, I feel that there is real unanimity in this House in the view that the law (or lack of law), as it now stands, needs amending, and that speedy action must be taken. I want action now. I know the meaning of the word "compromise", and I will settle for what I can get.
I think, again, that there has been complete unanimity throughout the debate in the view that the Bill as it stands needs amendment, but I am certain that my noble friend Lord Silkin is not surprised at this. In my view, he has performed a major public service in bringing this matter to the Floor of the House and, indeed, to the attention of the country. The mere discussion of the problem, I am certain, will help to clarify the minds of many people, both doctors and individuals in distress.
The question, so far as I am concerned, is simply this: what is the best way of amending this Bill so that we can quickly improve the Statute Law on the subject? Inter-departmental Committees have been
1206
mentioned and a Royal Commission has been mentioned, but I believe that the matter is so urgent, and so comparatively simple, in its basic factors, that further discussion by specially created Committees would cause only delay. After all, we have the 1939 Inter-departmental Committee's Report, on which no action has been taken, and I do not see that another, similar Report would produce any profoundly different changes in the view in your Lordships' House.
Therefore, the only alternatives that remain, to my mind, are the proposals put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in which he suggested that my noble friend should withdraw his Bill; that the Parliamentary draftsmen should be put to work on it and that a reformed Bill should he put before your Lordships' House this Session. This strikes me as the height of optimism, because there is no guarantee that the Government will provide the time of Parliamentary draftsmen, and there is no guarantee that your Lordships' House would have time given to the Bill in its revised form. I see my noble friend Lord Stonham looking in my direction. Am I right in thinking that there is no guarantee that the time of Parliamentary draftsmen would be available for this operation?
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend is quite right in thinking that I cannot at present give any kind of guarantee of that nature.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Therefore, it seems to me, my Lords, that this is a job for us; that we must look at the Bill ourselves during the Committee stage and do what we can, in our collective wisdom, to improve it. I believe that we have all the knowledge here in this Chamber to do just that job. I therefore urge my noble friend to persevere in the work that he has started, and to arrange for the Bill to be discussed in Committee. At the end of the day, we may have a smaller Bill, but I am certain that it will be a good one; and, from my point of view, it will be a starting point for a further liberalisation of our attitudes in this most important matter.
6.40 p.m.
LORD VAUX OF HARROWDEN: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Audley, on her brave first speech—this

1207
is only my second—and to say how much I agree with what she said and the way in which she said it. I am one of those terrible celibates of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has so low an opinion. I congratulate her on her sincerity. She does not pull her punches in spite of her boxing views. I am also a parish priest in the town which the noble Lady used to represent in another place. I am quite in touch with the inarticulate many on the ground-floor level; and that is why I came down to speak to-day.
It is perfectly true that one has a vast amount of sympathy with this Bill in so far as it makes a tremendous effort to stem back-street abortion and I cannot find words to describe what a frightful thing that is. But, my Lords (I almost said "dear Brethren") surely some other way could be found of stopping this frightful abuse. We must not substitute the scalpel for the knitting needle, and then wave a cheerful blessing over the taking of human life, which is exactly what we are asked to do to-day. It is true that it is very humble human life, very unimportant, very insignificant human life; but, nevertheless, it is human life. And though the process may be cloaked under the more pleasing phrase of "terminating pregnancy", it is, and it remains, the taking of human life which the Almighty gave and which it is the Almighty's duty to take—not ours.
I do not propose to talk on the essential matter of the sanctity of human life, nor to embroil myself in the knotty problem of when the fœtus can first be called human. Not being a lawyer, I do not propose to discuss the problem of Mr. Justice Macnaghten's ruling; but I should like to say a few words from the angle of the ordinary Christian man and woman and their reactions to this Bill. We find that it is proposed that doctors be permitted to take human life, to kill a human being if they hold the belief—I do not like that word—that the mother's health will suffer either by the strain of childbirth or by the consequent strain of bringing up the baby. You will notice that the second clause, the time-limit clause, does not apply here. We are being asked to allow the doctor to kill the child right up to the day before birth would normally take place. There is no
1208
question of Cæsarean section, no question of induced labour, no question of adoption—no mention at all of the wonderful services provided by our Welfare State.
Exactly the same applies when the doctor believes that the child may be abnormal or deformed. One noble Lord who spoke to-day asked the question I pose now: need we do more than to point to those many men and women, whom you know and whom I know, who have learned to live with their pre-natal defects and who are all the better for the process—all the better in character in sympathy and in human understanding? Need one mention also the magnificent qualities brought out in those gallant men and women who choose of their own free will to look after the mentally handicapped?
The third and fourth clauses throw open wide every other door which remains (except one which we are told of) to the unscrupulous practitioner. From my reading of it, practically everything from had housing to poverty, from temperament to tantrums, could be taken as a reason for the doctor to initiate the "belief" process, so long as he does it within the first four months. I must admit that when I first read this Bill I thought it must be a gigantic hoax. Then I decided, by the way it was printed, that it must be official. I then took a walk across my backyard to the parish school where I saw a couple of hundred happy, healthy little kids of up to the age of about 11 in the playground making the sort of noises that happy and healthy little kids make. From my knowledge of those happy and healthy little kids and of their family background, I would say that between a quarter and a half of them would not have seen the light of day under one or other of the provisions of this Bill. Indeed, one could say the same about their parents; or, indeed, my Lords, about some of ourselves. You or I, but for the British legal doctrine of the sanctity of human life, might have flickered into nothingness in the first four months of our existence under the "beliefs" of a scalpel-happy registered medical practitioner.
That such provisions should ever be seriously referred to as likely to reach the Statute Book seems to be bad enough. It opens up vistas of wholesale slaughter of unborn babies—such as has happened

1209
in one country that has introduced such laws. It opens up vistas of campaigns for racial purity, of colour bars, of genocide, such as we all had thought gone with Nazism. But, surely, far worse is that these powers recently removed from the competence of Her Majesty's Judges should be left in the hands of the greenest, most inexperienced, most immature doctor—so long as he can flourish his little bit of paper.
Then I went to a place where doctors gather. I was amazed, I said, at the provisions of this Bill. Even though I have been trying for the last thirty-five years not to get married, I keep abreast of these matters as I am the chairman of a marriage advisory committee; and I understood that therapeutic abortion was on its way out, due to the wonderful progress of medical science both in body and mind in the last few years. What I could not understand was who was promoting the Bill. I asked: Was it the doctors who wanted these powers? Were they demanding the power to take human life in the vague belief that somebody might profit by it? The answer, perhaps in deference to my cloth, was: "Not Pygmalion likely!" One man told me that I was right in my surmise that nowadays responsible medical opinion frowns on therapeutic abortion except in the rarest of circumstances. He admitted that in the far distant past he had had to do one and that the feel of that faint flicker of human life which he was extinguishing was so repugnant to him that he refused to have anything to do with it again.
Another man told me that, if this becomes law, the doctors will be inundated with ladies whose contraceptives have not worked and who threatened to have nervous breakdowns unless doctor terminates the pregnancy. We all know, with excuses to noble Ladies present, how from the very earliest days of human history woman's persistence has been wearing down man's resistance. Another criticised the alarming extent of the powers to be confererd on the doctors. The taking of life, hitherto the perquisite of the Almighty, is to be left to the discretion of a doctor with no question of consultation. Certified examination by two doctors is required for burning a dead body. This is a question of life.
I am not going to prolong my speech beyond telling that a fourth, who was
1210
musically inclined, told me that Beethoven, whose father had a certain unpleasant male disease and whose mother was consumptive, would have been a candidate for the noble Lord's scalpel. Admittedly, he did not get an M.B.E., but I am one of those who think the world would have been poorer without his Symphonies. I will not go on to tell your Lordships what my mothers' confraternity had to say about the matter; but I will end—not as a theologian, not as an official representative of my Church, nor even as a man with an axe to grind, but as representing the decent Christian thought of decent Christian people—by calling on your Lordships not to give this Bill a Second Reading and not to add your voice to the voice of the primeval temptor by saying to the whole medical profession: "Ye shall be as gods".
6.49 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as an active member of the Anglican Church I can respect sincerely the convictions that have just been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrow-den; but I should like to think that I am one of the decent Christians to whom he made reference in his speech. Whether the Bill before your Lordships to-day is good or bad from a drafting point of view, I think we have to keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that we are dealing with real human misery—human problems and human misery which cannot be measured in terms of statistics. It would be correct to say that, for the first time, abortion has become a matter of great public concern and discussion in this country, and we in this House cannot argue that it is a matter which we are discussing in advance of public thinking.
In this year, 1965, almost four million women, members of well-known organisations, have voted quite decidedly and after careful discussion in favour of a change in the abortion law. Several noble Lords have informed your Lordships that in March last the National Opinion Poll showed that nearly three-quarters of the people in this country were in favour of reforms in this sphere. May I remind your Lordships that the desire for reform does not appear to exclude any particular religious denomination? The plain fact is that Britain is about the only non-Roman Catholic country where there are no

1211
clearly defined grounds for legally terminating a pregnancy.
It has been said to your Lordships this afternoon on more than one occasion that the doctors find the present law far from satisfactory, and it would be true to say—I say this with great respect—that most of them are just as ignorant on the subject as the average lay person. Certainly they cannot get much guidance on therapeutic abortion from their textbooks and it is not surprising that, because of the absence of a clear directive, many doctors feel confused. The present law is a bad one, for many reasons. Apart from being perhaps the law that is most broken, it gives, as is so often the case, a clear advantage to the person with money, for she can arrange an abortion under the best conditions, while the ordinary woman has only a back-street abortionist. If I may say so, again with very great respect, the existing law cannot claim much respect, if any at all.
The result of self-induced or back-street abortions can be seen in our hospitals. It may take up to three weeks to get such a patient right, but it takes only two or three days if the operation is done by a skilled medical practitioner. Abortion is now the second most common cause of maternal death in this country. As many of your Lordships will know, there is in existence an Emergency Bed Service which provides doctors in London with hospital beds for acute emergencies. In 1962 the Emergency Bed Service was called upon to find beds for 5,734 abortion cases. This represented an increase of 40 per cent. over the average figures for the previous eight years.
If we may consider for a moment the economics of the situation, we find that the cost is colossal. One consultant has calculated that about £175,000 worth of National Health Service bed space a month—I repeat, a month—is occupied by septic abortion cases. In this connection we have to remember that 90 per cent. of the women are married, the highest incidence being among the 35 to 40 age group. More than half the women who died from abortion in 1962 aborted themselves, and more than a quarter of the mothers who died in this way had four or more children.
Abortion is a growing social problem. It has been said this afternoon (I have no
1212
way of knowing whether it is true) that there are about 100,000 illegal abortions each year. What we do know is that 80 per cent. of the women involved already have two or more children. It is not a case of trying to avoid parenthood or its responsibilities. Another point which we have to bear in mind is that doctors are under heavy pressure from married women patients, and the extent of this pressure is realised by very few of us. Between May, 1955, and April, 1956, under the auspices of the General Register Office the practices of 120 family doctors having between them a total of 383,000 patients, were analysed. I am sorry about these statistics for I know that your Lordships have heard a vast number of statistics to-day. The practices were spread over England and Wales, and I think it may be claimed that they represented the practices in England and Wales as a whole. It was estimated that in England and Wales about 70,000 women consulted their doctors about abortion in the course of a year. I stress that these are the women who consulted their doctors. We have to bear in mind that a vast army of women do not do so; either they abort themselves or they are aborted by another often in a most primitive fashion.
Those of us who have worked for some years in the sphere of marriage breakdowns, know only too well the tremendous strain that an unwanted pregnancy places on many marriages. I have known in such cases wives who have gone to pieces and been unable to cope and whose mental condition deteriorated to the point where they were no longer able to function adequately as a person, a wife, or a mother. I know that this does not apply to all women faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but it happens to far too many in our society to-day. The extent to which some women will go to terminate a pregnancy must speak for itself. Doctors, clergy, marriage counsellors and social workers know from personal experience that many wives are unable to resume a normal relationship with their husbands following an unwanted pregnancy. Often the opening words of many husbands seeking help to save their marriages are, "Since the birth of our last child my wife does not want anything

1213
more to do with me". It is not just the wife who suffers; it is the whole family.
This Bill in its present form may not meet with the approval of your Lordships any more than it meets with my own. It may well be that it would be wise for your Lordships' House to consider imposing some safeguards, particularly in respect of Clause 1(c). That is the paragraph which concerns me more than the other three, and which takes account of the social conditions in which the woman is living. I should like to know who is to assess these social conditions, for I doubt whether the average doctor would have the time to do so. So far as Clause 1(c) is concerned, I hope that this House will be able to say that the skill and experience of the trained social workers, perhaps those from the Children Department, can be brought in. I say this because in Czechoslovakia, where the law allows abortion for social reasons, it has led to its use as a substitute for contraception. I am not opposed to Clause 1(c), but I think that its implications need looking into very carefully. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will decide not to withdraw this Bill. I hope that your Lordships will support it. I believe the matter to be urgent, and I hope that, with the wisdom that prevails in this House, a really effective and useful Bill may emerge following the Committee stage.
7.0 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, with definite reservations. In principle it will make clear to all and sundry what the law is, and I trust, in particular, it will make clear to young people that it is possible to have a pregnancy terminated legally, in certain circumstances, and hence avoid the dangerous practices which many resort to in back-street abortions.
I should like to make a few observations on the clauses of the Bill. On the next stage, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I suggest that we should consider the opening words of Clause 1, which I believe ought to read:
"It shall be lawful for a registered practitioner to terminate a pregnancy in good faith with the agreement of a duly qualified colleague who is not a partner or a relation of either the doctor or the patient."
This addition, I believe, would greatly strengthen the hand of the registered practitioner, should his action be brought
1214
into question, and would also be of assistance in persuading parents to agree to a termination, should they find it difficult to give their assent. It would also add a degree of caution to the doctor in deciding the action which he should take.
In Clause 1(a), I believe that it would be wise to amend the words "serious injury" to "serious and permanent injury". I am advised that this is the law as it is interpreted by the medical profession to-day. It is my opinion that paragraph (b) is highly desirable and long overdue. On the other hand, paragraph (c) I find far too wide, impossible to amend, and hence should be deleted. In any case, the principle is covered in the last words of Clause 1(a).
On Clause 2, I am told that it would he medically advisable, after the fourteenth week, to terminate the pregnancy by an abdominal operation, entailing a considerably increased risk to the mother. I am not quite clear why this clause is inserted, unless it is for the very good reason of religious considerations. I approve of Clause 3, if my first Amendment to Clause 1 be adopted, thus providing for a second opinion. Clause 4 brings in the need to have the parents' permission for any operation in the case of minors, but here again I believe that my amendment to Clause 1 would at least be helpful. I think we shall have a very difficult next stage of this Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, so that there is no more delay in doing what we all wish to do—to put this Bill on the Statute Book.
7.5 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am going to be very brief, as all the things that have been said by previous speakers have covered most of the points that I can think of, but I should like, if I may, to go from the particular to the general. What worries me about this Bill is its implications in the wider sense. Here we are having legalised abortion. What will it be next?—euthanasia, then sterilisation will be added en passant, and man, in all his arrogance, will have allotted to himself that function which those of simpler beliefs have considered to be until now the prerogative of the Almighty. Surely it can never be anything but morally

1215
wrong, and therefore, one hopes, legally wrong, for man to solve his problems by death, whether it is death at the beginning, in the middle or at the termination of his life span. It seems to me that Hitler tried to solve some of his problems that way. That is the reason why I object to the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.6 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I think that noble Lords who listened with interest to the last speaker and to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, would do well to cast their minds back to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with its deep humanity, in which he recited the individual cases that have come before his own judgment as one of the most distinguished Judges in the land. I could not do better than recommend to them to read in to-morrow's Hansard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord.
Whatever our approach may be towards this Bill, whether theological or legal or social, it must be agreed that the one active involvement in every case must be the medical, and it is from the medical angle that I want to approach this Bill—in other words, from the receiving end. I remember vividly from early days as a newly qualified doctor, doing my first resident post as house surgeon at Westminster Hospital, in the old days when it stood in Broad Sanctuary, just opposite the Abbey. Late one night a single girl of nineteen was admitted as a gynæcological emergency case, with a fulminating septic peritonitis and a very high temperature. The peritonitis followed a clumsy perforation of the uterus by an instrument used by a criminal abortionist. For most of the time she lay almost moribund, but in her conscious moments she was fighting desperately for life. A colleague and I, who were looking after her case together, were able to get very few details of her history, but neither legal nor theological considerations could enter our minds. All we could do was help her in her fight for life. A police constable called at the hospital every day, but had to be kept away from the bedside, as she was far to ill to give evidence.
1216
After seven days, she died, and I recall vividly how both of us, having to face our first inquest, went over the treatment of her case and wondered what else we could have done to save her life. That was 38 years ago, long before the advent of antibiotics. Since then my colleague, who was a devout Catholic, went out to the Far East and served for twenty years as a medical missionary.
All I am able to do now is to give my support to the Second Reading of this Bill. Just over a week ago, in discussing this Bill with a medical friend, who is the senior gynæcologist of a large London hospital, I was startled to hear her say that for every one patient admitted to her hospital for a legal abortion, no fewer than fifty cases were admitted for operation for the results of a criminal abortion. It is just because I want to see these figures completely reversed—that for every 50 cases where a lawful medical operation is performed, under proper aseptic conditions, where the mother can stand a good chance of full recovery and will be enabled to have healthy children in the future, only one case has to be admitted for the effects of an illegal abortion, with the risk of the mother being left maimed and mutilated, often unable ever again to have a child, however much she may yearn for it—that I hope to see this Bill given a Second Reading.
In many ways, as we are most of us agreed, this is a bad Bill, and I hope to see it reshaped in Committee and improved beyond all recognition. I hope that this House, with all its weight of legal wisdom and theological guidance, will allow this Bill to go forward to its Committee stage, and bring all its collective influence to bear on the subsequent discussions.
There are many provisions in the Bill, as it now stands, which I feel bound to query. First, the legalising of abortion on social grounds without specifying what those social grounds are may be all very well in countries behind the Iron Curtain, but to us this provision constitutes almost a reflection on our Welfare State. Secondly, the Bill permits the carrying out of an abortion by a qualified doctor in his private surgery. I feel that these abortion operations should be carried out only in a recognised hospital, with proper aseptic precautions and with the approval of at least two, or even three, hospital

1217
consultants. This is now done in many other countries and would contribute more than anything else towards stamping out the criminal trade of the back-street abortionist, as well as removing all suspicion of having a doctor perform the operation for financial gain. Thirdly, I feel that much more ought to be done in this Bill to clarify the medical indications permitting a legal abortion to be carried out.
What then should be done in the vast majority of cases where the pregnant unmarried girl or the elderly mother says: "I must get an abortion done, because I do not want to have the baby"? Here I feel there may be many cases where that abortion could be rightly refused. No doctor, if this Bill is passed, should ever be under compulsion to carry out an abortion. This Bill is only permissive. We in this country are not living to-day in a Communist State. Any doctor is fully entitled to adhere to his own religious or doctrinal beliefs and to refuse to carry out this operation. Many an unmarried mother who has had her request for an abortion refused has later felt profoundly thankful for the gift of her child. Often, where the child has not been adopted, it has proved not only a source of comfort and happiness to her, but has given her a new sense of purpose in life, and proved an enormous help to her in her own social fulfilment.
As Chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, I am able to speak on behalf of many of our members who are the parents of a mentally handicapped child. Members of our Society are to be found in both Houses of Parliament. The Society comprises over 350 branches all over the country, and has a membership of nearly 40,000, still rapidly growing. Many of these parents, whom I am privileged to know, are the salt of the earth. It is quite impossible to express in words one's admiration of the courage and fortitude with which they face their problems. Over and over again a mother has spoken to me in terms such as these: "I have five normal healthy children and one mentally handicapped child. That one child means more to me than all my five other children put together. I feel that this child was entrusted to me by God to be specially loved and protected from the cruel world outside."
1218
But not once have I ever heard a mother wish to have a second mentally handicapped child of her own. On the contrary, they always pray for another child to be normal. They sacrifice to urge on the work of research into the causation of mental deficiency and its prevention, so that other mothers may be saved from the ordeal that they have had to endure. And it is just because I believe that this Bill can prevent many a mother from giving birth to a mentally or physically handicapped child that I hope it will be given a Second Reading. We need only recall the thalidomide babies, or the blind, deaf and mentally handicapped children, born to mothers who have had German measles, to realise how much is at stake.
Indeed, I can hardly conceive of any justifiable grounds for rejecting the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that it would be wasting the time of this House to occupy itself with a Committee stage of a Bill framed on these lines. I cannot conceive of the time of this House being more usefully occupied than in dealing with this subject at the Committee stage of this Bill. The more the subject is discussed, the more it is freely brought into the open, the more usefully, I think, will this House be able to feel that it has devoted its time.
Of those legal authorities who contend that the law is satisfactory as it stands to-day I would only ask; since when has it been considered good law to sweep a problem away under the carpet; to turn away from the difficulties of interpreting the Common Law; to leave it to the particular background and religious outlook of the presiding judge, who has to pronounce on matters where he knows the Stature Law to be at fault? Is that really considered to be good law?
Those who oppose this Bill on religious grounds, and whose opinions I deeply respect (I have my own religious reservations on abortion, perhaps as strong as those of some other Members of your Lordships' House); I would ask: is it really the essence of true religion to pass by on the other side; to cast not only the first stone, but to continue to cast stones upon those who stand desperately in need of our compassion and medical aid? Is it not rather the duty of all the

1219
Members of this House to join together in trying to stamp out of our midst the cruel trade of the criminal abortionist?
The tragedy of our present law, as it stands to-day, is that barely one-tenth of the abortion iceberg is seen above the surface: at least nine-tenths of this trade is allowed to flourish in secret and succeeds in escaping the law. This abominable traffic is now alarmingly on the increase, as reliable sources testify. Those of us who reject the Second Reading of this Bill, whether on legal or religious grounds, are merely giving the green light to the criminal abortionists to continue to conduct their trade underground, as they are able to do at present.
One of the great virtues of your Lordships' House is that it stands immune from electoral blasts and the clamour of the hustings. It can, and does, express its own mind on social reform, freely and fearlessly. It can give a lead to public opinion as, to its everlasting credit, it has already done on more than one occasion in the recent past. I hope that this House to-day will set its seal on so much good work already accomplished, and will bring a new ray of hope to many of our fellow citizens who are in dire mental and moral distress, by according to this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, everything I was going to say has already been said, but I should just like to say that I am very much in favour of the Second Reading, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will yield nothing of his principles in Committee. I am very much against the provisions in this Bill being discussed by any other Committee than one of your Lordships' House, because this is the only place where any question can be put to the vote, and the only place where anything can and will be done about this very urgent and most important matter.
7.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, at this late hour, I shall be brief. This is a most distressing subject, and obviously there are many causes for the desire to have an abortion, as we have heard this afternoon. But there is one thing which is always a common factor with any woman wishing to have an abor-
1220
tion or to terminate a pregnancy, and that is that the woman is desperately wishing for it and in need of having it done. An abortion or a termination of pregnancy is usually difficult to arrange; it is unpleasant and expensive, and there must be very strong and urgent motives which will drive a woman to wish to have it carried out.
Therefore, I think the first object of this Bill, as has been so well said before, is to relieve the distress of thousands of women who, for one reason or another—whether they cannot cope with more children; whether it is the young girl who has a job which she could not keep if she had an unwanted child, or whether it is someone frightened of bearing a deformed, mad or abnormal child—cannot face having this child. Certainly this Bill will help to relieve this distress. But what is, I think, far more important is the question of the unwanted child. The unwanted child is in a most difficult and unpleasant position, pyschologically and in every way; and although it is perfectly true that in some cases adoption works very well, in other cases it does not. There is always a psychological difficulty for the child who will eventually find out that those whom he regarded as his parents are not the real parents, and that the home he thinks is his home is not. I do not think that adoption is an answer. In any case, we certainly do not need an increase in population.
There are two valid arguments against abortion, the first being the religious. I would ask those who sincerely believe, from a religious point of view, that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy to show a certain amount of tolerance. After all, there is nothing in this Bill, which is purely permissive, to force, or even encourage, anyone to have an abortion. It merely allows. Just as, for instance, the Mohammedan believes sincerely that to drink wine or spirits is an evil and a sin, so that it would be wrong to try to encourage him to do so, we should surely consider it very ungracious behaviour if the Mohammedan minority in this country tried to induce this whole nation to refrain from drink. I think that it is the same position, though it is rather a trivial example, perhaps. But I ask people who have sincere religious beliefs on this subject to remember that this Bill is not going to interfere with

1221
those beliefs or their habits at all: it is merely extending a right to other people who think differently.
It has been suggested that terminating a pregnancy is psychologically upsetting to a woman, but I would suggest to your Lordships that it is even more upsetting to have to cope with children who are unwanted. A great amount of delinquency comes from broken and unsatisfactory homes. This is, I think, an important argument on the other side.
I do not want to keep your Lordships longer, but I want to say one final thing which I am sure we all ought to be agreed on, and that is that we should like to take this operation of terminating of pregnancy out of the back street, out of the hands of the semi-qualified practitioner, from the midwife who has learnt a little, and to bring it into the hospital, where people can be decently and properly cared for and looked after. This would eliminate risk, eliminate expense and largely eliminate the distress of the woman. I hope that your Lordships will face these facts, and will give a Second Reading to this extremely promising Bill.
7.27 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I rise rather late at night to make but three points to your Lordships. Before I start, perhaps I may answer one point which has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, opposite. It really is rather understating the case to assume that the objections which have been expressed this afternoon, very largely by members of the Roman Catholic Church, to which I myself adhere, are only religious objections. There are objections based on the natural order. The sanctity of human life is there, whether you happen to be a Mohammedan or a Roman Catholic or a member of the Church of England.
I was walking down Knightsbridge the other day when I saw a crane at work, with a great weight at the end of it, bashing down the old Knightsbridge Barracks. I thought, "Here indeed is an anology". It is so easy with a few aimed blows to destroy an edifice, which has taken years of painstaking labour to erect. The delicate and intricate connection between the moral law and the law of the land is just such an edifice.
1222
I am afraid that this Bill is just one such well-aimed blow.
The first point I wish to make to your Lordships concerns the present state of the law. As we have had a certain amount of repetitive argument in the course of the evening, let me say quite boldly that this is one of the most reactionary suggestions which has been put before your Lordships for a long time. I put it before your Lordships, not because I think you will approve of it as a reactionary suggestion, but because I think it may free us from what the Socialist apologists in the old days used to call the tyranny of customed thought. My suggestion is that the Statutes, as interpreted in the cases to which allusion has been made this afternoon, have gone slightly awry.
The law at present is not what Parliament meant when Parliament framed the Statutes. Mr. Justice Macnaghten found what he deemed to be a loophole in the law. He widened it to a breach, and subsequent cases have widened the breach still further, so that any of your Lordships could drive through it a horse and cart or an abortionist his limousine. The error, to my mind, which Mr. Justice Macnaghten fell into—and I am treading on dangerous ground, because your Lordships are fully aware that I am not learned in the law—is that he failed to realise the importance to the case he was hearing (or he failed to instruct his jury in the importance of it) of the ethical principle of double effect. That principle is a principle whereby we can ascertain the moral propriety of an act from which there are going to flow several consequences, some good and some ill.
The act must be submitted to four tests, and can be held to be morally sound only if it passes all four of these tests. The four tests are pretty obvious, but I am afraid it will take a number of words to explain them. First, the action itself must be morally neutral. Second, the evil results must flow from the good results; in other words, the end must not be held to justify the means. Third, the intention of the person doing the act must be to secure good results and not to secure indirectly the ill results; and, fourth, the ill results that occur must not be so grave as to outweigh the benefits of the good results. This principle is not just something culled from the moral theologians.

1223
It is enshrined, if I am not mistaken, in the English law. I do not know whether it is enshrined in Scottish law, but I suspect that it is.
Perhaps I may refer for a moment to an example to justify that remark. I would refer to the example, in 1957, of Rex v. Adams, which was tried before Mr. Justice Devlin, under the veil of which old-fashioned terminology your Lordships will recognise the identity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin. He carefully instructed his jury in the principle of double effect, and I think that instruction must have made much easier for them what otherwise would have been a difficult decision. Your Lordships will remember the principal matters of the case.
A certain doctor was facing grievous charges that he had administered such drugs and in such quantities as to secure the early demise of certain of his patients. Clearly that as an action satisfied three of the four conditions which I have just mentioned. The action itself, the prescribing of the drugs, was morally neutral; the early death of the patients seemed to have been agreed between the two sides in the case to have flowed as a consequence from the relief of pain—if it had been the other way around, it would have been euthanasia; and the fourth condition was fulfilled as the cutting short by a few weeks, or even months, of the life of an incurable, elderly patient could not be weighed in the balance against the relief of suffering for the time that remained to him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I should like to tell him that I was engaged in that case, and I really cannot recognise it from that description.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I am not for a moment attempting to quote the words of the learned Judge. I am merely explaining, in my own words, if I may, the principle of double effect as it seems to me to have influenced the Judge in his direction of the jury; and the jury had to decide upon the third point, namely the motive of Dr. Adams. I am not trying to summarise the learned Judge's summing-up, but am merely showing the application of this one principle to that case. However, the jury of course returned a verdict of not guilty.
1224
and Dr. Adams was acquitted. I may not have satisfied the noble and learned Viscount on the Front Bench that the principle of double effect was so very prominent in that case, but I do not think he will disagree with me when I say that the principle does have a bearing upon English law and certainly upon medical ethics.
Take a case in the immediate sphere which we are discussing this evening. A pregnant woman is found to have an advanced cancer of the womb. The surgeon recommends, and performs, a hysterectomy. How does this fit in with the four conditions which I have just mentioned? Clearly, it passes all four with flying colours. The action itself, the removal of a diseased organ, is morally acceptable. The ill-result, the death of the fœtus, follows consequently from the good result of the removal of the cancer. The surgeon's motive, clearly, is above suspicion and the death of the fœtus weighs only equally in the balance against the life of the patient. It would be very much otherwise in the case of an ordinary abortion where, although the motive of the surgeon may be above suspicion, none of the other three conditions is fulfilled.
If Mr. Justice Macnaghten had had that principle in mind, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that he would have put a slightly different interpretation on the repeated use of the word "unlawfully" in the 1861 Act. He merely said, and unexceptionably, that as the Act used that word "unlawfully" Parliament must have visualised circumstances in which abortion could be lawful. It is my submission to your Lordships that Parliament in 1861 visualised nothing obviously so complicated as a hysterectomy but operations in which an abortion occurred indirectly, though that operation was not itself an operation for abortion. The same would be equally true of the 1929 Act, Section 1 of which simply says, "thou shalt not abort a viable fœtus", and the proviso says "unless you have to do it for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother". That seems to me to indicate that Parliament had in mind the principle of double effect, so that no one would be subjected to prosecution if he had, in fact, performed an operation which resulted in the death of a fœtus, solely and in good faith to preserve the life of the mother.

1225
Mr. Justice Macnaghten treated the proviso as a mere exception. That was the loophole he found in the law, and from thence he extended preservation of life to mean longevity, and your Lordships know how it has been widened from that. But in my view the intention of Parliament, when it passed those Acts, has been given a twist in an unfortunate direction by the legal decisions. And, of course, it is a quirk of our legal procedure that when a judge puts too rigorous an interpretation upon an Act in a criminal matter, so that the man tried before him is found guilty, the man may appeal; but if the judge puts too lenient an interpretation on the Act, and the man is found not guilty, the Crown cannot appeal. Therefore, a succession of cases can only, and must always, have the effect of watering down a strict principle which Parliament then put into an Act.
My Lords, it seems to me—and this is my first submission to the House—that it is not absolutely essential that we start to reform the law concerning abortion on the basis of codifying the present Case Law or giving statutory effect to the decisions which we have been discussing. However, I have trodden on grounds of the moral theologians, and I am no theologian: indeed, I am not particularly moral (mea culpa!). I have also trodden on the grounds—with only one slight objection from the noble Viscount on the Front Bench—of the English lawyers, although I am no lawyer—or indeed English (Deo gratias!).
In my second submission I have to tread even more warily, because I am proposing to touch on one or two medical aspects of this matter. I have been surprised at the amount of medical discussion which has dropped from the lips of noble Lords, none of which coincides with the information which I have got from men of medicine whom I have consulted. The general impression I have is that, whereas thirty years ago, or even rather less, there were many conditions which were recognised as indications for therapeutic abortion, there are now very few, if indeed there are any. Thirty years ago there were, for example, many cases of tuberculosis. In those days tuberculosis was a much greater scourge than it is now, and from the point of view of pregnancy it was considered a terror; the
1226
slightest sign of pulmonary tuberculosis in a pregnant woman was considered an indication for abortion. But this is no longer so. The tuberculosis is treated, the pregnancy goes to term and a healthy baby is probably delivered. Cardiovascular conditions have been mentioned, and the noble Viscount on the Cross-Benches has made it quite unnecessary for me to go into the difficulties that arise in those conditions, for he gave us an excellent example where abortion would plainly have been indicated to less learned men than those with whom he is privileged to work, but in fact the correct treatment for the case was to treat the condition and allow the pregnancy to go to term.
No one has mentioned so far rhesus factor incompatibility. This, until very recently, was considered, and may well still be considered by some doctors, to be an indication' for abortion. But the increasing knowledge of all these complicated, highly intricate matters concerning the composition of the blood is rapidly making even that out of date. I venture to hope that in a few years' time, not only from the advance of science but from the advance in the arrangements available for coping with difficult cases, rhesus factor incompatibility will no longer be considered by anyone an indication for abortion. Lastly, one noble Lord mentioned the case of extreme forms of morning sickness. This, I understand, is now considered to be largely a psychiatric disorder rather than a pathological one and if taken in the early stages will respond to psychiatric treatment. Here, again, if it is properly treated—and it should be properly treated; we are not talking about countries far overseas; we are talking only about this country, where proper treatment is available—there is no therapeutic reason for abortion.
In certain cases which are purely psychiatric there may well be many doctors and psychiatrists who would advocate abortion. But it appears from all I have been told by doctors that the psychiatrists are beginning to catch up with the gynæcologists and in a few years' time most of these conditions will be susceptible to treatment without termination of pregnancy. That being so one would think that any new Bill to amend the law concerning abortion would seek

1227
rather to restrict, according to the new knowledge of the medical profession, the grounds upon which abortion can be performed. But what do we see in fact? Here is the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with this Bill, seeking widely new grounds. So the third point I would submit to your Lordships is that these new grounds are not justified.
First of all, if the medical and psychiatric indications have fallen or are falling quickly out of vogue, surely the new grounds which we are now being asked to consider, the socio-economic grounds, will yield to treatment in the same sort of way, and in a few years' time it will be recognised, I hope, that it is for the housing officer or the welfare officer or some such official to treat a case where in the present day and age abortion might by some doctors be recommended. The improvement, in fact, in the social and economic conditions of our people will parallel the improvement in the art and skill of the medical profession, in ruling out social and economic indications for abortion.
Secondly, as has been stressed my many noble Lords, doctors are not sociologists. However skilful they may be in their own profession, they do not have the necessary knowledge—of course in practice they see a lot of social conditions, but they do not have the necessary knowledge—and specialists may not have the experience of social conditions, to make a sound opinion. Yet every one of the paragraphs in Clause 1 opens with the words "in his opinion". There is another side to that particular coin; namely, that it is very unfair to the doctors to put them in the position of having to make such decisions.
Thirdly, one overseas example has been quoted—there has been more than one, but the one I have in mind is the example quoted to us by the noble Baroness opposite, the example of Russia. She reminded us that in 1920 the laws concerning abortion in Russia were liberalised very widely, far more widely than this Bill seeks to do. The results were so horrifying—she described them, and she is a supporter of the Bill—that within a comparatively few years the legislators started producing a series of amendments which went on and on over the years, until now the laws concerning abortion in
1228
Soviet Russia are roughly speaking as strict as they are over here.
Then in Scandinavian countries the same sort of liberalisation (that is the nice word to use) of the abortion laws has had the same effect of increasing the number of abortions performed to a degree that has horrified the Government and the medical profession. In Sweden, I think I am right in saying, the law itself has not been changed but in recent years the officials charged with executing the law have tightened up their regulations and succeeded in reducing the number of abortions performed. In Hungary (I think Czechoslovakia was mentioned) we have had the same sort of story. Since the war, and under the Communist régime, the abortion law has been liberalised, and the result again has been precisely the same: an enormous increase in the number of abortions, and the population of Hungary, I am told, has stood still since the end of the war.
Lastly, of course, there is the in some ways rather exceptional example of Japan, where in the year 1948 contraception, abortion and sterilisation were all legalised by the same law. At first abortions had to be approved by a sort of panel, I think it was, of doctors, but within four years these panels were so overwhelmed with applications that the Diet passed a special law allowing what is now proposed in this Bill, abortion to be done on the "say-so" of one doctor. In each of those four countries the same terrifying statistic has turned up after only a few years—the number of abortions was actually running ahead of the number of live births. That means—and I see not the slightest reason to suppose that this country will be any different from any other country—that we can look forward to something like a ten-fold increase in the numbers of abortions being performed every year in this country.
Fourthly I seem to read something vaguely familiar in these grounds which are now proposed as grounds for abortion—we have seen them before somewhere. I suspect we have seen them—and this ties up with what a number of other noble Lords have said—in the propaganda of the Family Planning Association. These are the same arguments one after the other: "The young girl must have contraceptive instruction because

1229
you know what boys are like nowadays!"; "Married women have so many children that they must use contraception because it will prevent them from having any more." The Family Planning Association have always argued that the use of contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions, but in fact a very considerable proportion of applications for abortions comes from girls who have been using contraceptive techniques and have been too inefficient in their use, or perhaps there is something wrong with the technique itself; or, particularly in the case of the young unmarried, they have been too tipsy to use the thing properly. So, far from decreasing the number of abortions, the use of contraceptives may well increase it. From such statistics as are available, namely, those in the United States and Sweden, it may be seen that resort to abortion has gone up measure for measure with the practice of contraception. Therefore, it is my submission to the House that this Bill would lead to a very great increase in the number of abortions, far more than its promoters can possibly realise.
My Lords, the time is now very late. I must draw quickly to a close; I have already spoken for longer than I intended. The Abortion Law Reform Association is avowedly humanist and non-Christian. Those of us who are Christian may think they are in fact anti-Christian, although they would not say that themselves. This Bill is a humanist Bill. It springs from the line of thinking which supposes for some reason or other that a woman has the power of life and death over her own offspring. The same line of thought in ancient times led Greek mothers to expose their unwanted babies on the cold hillside, or the Canaanite mothers to offer their babies in fire to the idol Moloch. But there are those of your Lordships who would not be prepared to see the matter in such harsh terms of black and white; who would not think in terms of the sun of Christian ethic which has illuminated the law of the land for a thousand years, as against the humanist night we are now being invited to approve; who might not think in terms of human life sanctified by God as opposed to legalised infanticide. To those of your Lordships who do not see the matter in such hard terms, but look at it in a more
1230
phlegmatic way, may I suggest that the prudent question to ask yourselves is whether we shall wait for the thoughtful and careful examination of this problem by the British Medical Association, or whether we shall yield to-night to the propaganda of a pressure group.
7.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I hope I shall not make a major speech at this hour of the night. I wish to try to make as crystal clear as I can what is the attitude of these Benches both to abortion in general and to this Bill in particular. We are here, as I see it, confronted with a choice between, on the one hand, the obvious humanity which inspires this Bill, the desire to reduce the sum of human misery by relieving a certain class of individuals of a heavy and great load of unhappiness which they carry by reason of fear or anxiety occasioned by their pregnancy. But, on the other hand, we know that it is our duty as legislators to do nothing which would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of cheapening the value set in our society upon human life.
What we have really been discussing the whole of this afternoon and evening is the value which we are to place upon human life, because whatever an unborn baby is or is not, at least it is certain that it is not a mere inconvenience to its mother. It is not to be considered on the same level as a grumbling appendix or a wart upon the nose. It has some connection with membership of the human race and the question is: What relationship has it? Is it a member of the human race, the proper possessor of all the rights which are inherent in humanity—and particularly that basic right, the right to live? If it is a member of the human race with a right to live, at what stage did it become so? There is a continuous, unbroken development of the fœtus from its conception to its birth in the gradual formation and separation of its limbs and organs, so that it makes it impossible for us to fix a point at which the unborn baby becomes a member of the human race. Therefore, it seems to me that it is entirely rational to say that the fœtus becomes a member of the human race at the moment of its conception when this continuous process first begins. There is a continuity

1231
between the unborn fœtus and the born baby. This, as I understand it, is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and is not at all irrational. At one time, when I was younger, I held it myself, and if one holds it it follows, an an unavoidable conclusion, that all abortion must be treated as a form of murder or homicide.
However, there is another way of approaching this problem. It is possible to say that the fœtus, the unborn baby, is not a member of the human race in the ordinary sense of those words, but that it has a potentiality of so becoming; and it is because of this potentiality which conveys to the unborn baby a right to its own fulfilment that we have no grounds for frustrating the right of the potential to actualise itself. But since the fœtus has only this potentiality of humanity which is not yet fully real, because it is in the process of turning that which is potential into that which is real, the rights of the mother who has already passed from the potential to the real, and who is on any showing a full member of the human race, take precedence over those of her unborn baby. So where there is a direct and unavoidable clash between the interests of the mother and of her unborn baby, the mother takes precedence over the baby.
From this it will be clear to your Lordships that our attitude is that we support the principle which underlies the first clause in this Bill, which would legitimatise abortion where the interests of the mother vitally require it. Where there is a grave threat to her life, to her physical health or to her mental health, we maintain that abortion may be legitimate.
For my own part, I would go even further. The phrase in the clause about the strain of their upbringing is certainly obscure, but I take that to mean that in considering the vital interests of the mother one should not exclude either the duties of the mother towards the living members of her family. I understand that what lies behind that phrase is that the total environment of the mother, including the rights of the already born children to the care and protection of the mother, should be taken into account as one factor in reaching a decision as to whether the threat to the mother and her environment is so severe as to override the rights of the
1232
potential human being present in the baby.
From this I think it will be clear that we do not approve of the grounds listed in the other paragraphs, but we do think that most of the very distressing cases which have been mentioned in this House in the course of this debate would in fact be covered and could be brought under paragraph (a), and I think that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, made the same point.
So we consider that this is a Bill which in principle we support, because we think that the law of abortion does need clarification, and indeed in some directions actual extension. We believe that if this were done it would have an effect upon the number of illegal abortions, primarily because if the law were thus clarified and extended, any woman fearful and anxious about her pregnancy would be able to go and talk to her doctor about it without any shame and without any fear. The doctor would also be able to discuss the problem with her without a shut-in mind, because however clear the present law may be to gynæcological expert consultants, I am convinced that it is by no means clear to the ordinary general practitioner with whom the ordinary woman comes into contact.
I think it would be a great advantage if a woman could go and talk to her doctor about her problem. If that were done, I suspect that in nine cases out of ten the doctor would be able to explain to the woman that there were other solutions to her problem than abortion, and much better solutions to her problem than abortion. We envisage some provision whereby permission for an abortion would be referred to a sort of consultative body attached to each hospital, to which a woman would go and meet with a gynæcologist, a psychologist, a sociologist, a social welfare worker. Her problem could be thoroughly discussed and all the alternatives put before her, and if then it were finally decided that nothing but an abortion could preserve her life, her physical or mental health or her family, then so be it. So I shall vote against the Amendment, precisely because I think the law needs clarifying and extending.
What to do about the Second Reading of this Bill, I am not quite so sure. It

1233
seems to me that it would be almost impossible, and incredibly tedious, to get this Bill into an acceptable shape in the Committee stage on the Floor of this House. I should much prefer, if it were possible, that it were referred to some body which could consult with doctors, with lawyers, and with social workers, as well as, perhaps, with the clergy. That body could then produce a new Bill, so drafted as to be acceptable to the majority opinion in this country; a Bill which would be proof against any abuse in the direction of making an abortion available on demand.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would even consider asking some of us, perhaps, to help him to draft another Bill. The Committee of the Church of England for Social Responsibility has already one draft in print. It is not for me to say whether or not it is a good or satisfactory draft, but it is there and it could serve as a base for work. Anyway, I am prepared, I think, to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I very much hope that, when I have done that, I shall never see the Bill again.
8.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should not like this debate to go past without adding my support to this Bill, and expressing the hope that my noble friend Lord Silkin will get his Second Reading. It seems to me that, although there are no doubt many flaws in the Bill as it stands, the principle is clear enough and, on the whole, it has received the support which it deserves from the great mass of the speakers who have taken part in this very interesting debate this afternoon.
I was much impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate who has just resumed his seat, putting a balanced view in that one must take into consideration the interests of the family as a whole—the health of the mother, the upbringing of the other children, as well as the possibility of the fœtus not having a real human existence when brought into this world—when coming to a decision. Obviously, these are all matters of substantial importance. I was reminded very much of a most impressive speech which I once heard the very reverend Dean of St. Paul's make, when he said that really it is not life which is
1234
sacred; it is the personality of the human being which should count.
Obviously, in many of these cases for which my noble friend Lord Silkin is trying to provide, you are going to wear down the personality of the mother until she becomes just a drudge. You are often going to produce a malformed or mentally defective child who has no real prospect of ever becoming a real human personality. You are going to interfere with the upbringing of the other children. It seemed to me that all this was implicit in the most interesting speech which the right reverend Prelate addressed to us.
I think that we ought to give this Bill a Second Reading, despite its defects, if only for the purpose of establishing the principle and showing that your Lordships' House, like the majority of our fellow citizens in this country, as is shown by the polls that have been taken, are behind this movement. This is a Bill which is drafted in such a way that a great deal of it can, if necessary, be removed in Committee. I am not suggesting that we should be too extreme in that respect; but, to my view, even if we got only the first clause the Bill would be of the greatest value.
Cases of this nature which have been before the courts in which learned judges have summed up to juries are very few in number. The summing-up in the Bourne case is different in important respects from the summing-up in the Newton and Stungo case, and those are the only two cases which lawyers have on which to base their advice to clients, and with which the medical profession has to do its best. It was quite clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that even the people in Harley Street are far from clear as to the law; and it seems to me highly important that both lawyers and doctors should be clear beyond a peradvanture in regard to these very important matters. This crime, after all, is a very serious crime, and can bring discredit and ill-fame on many people. So, as I say, even if we got only the first clause of this Bill, it would be a great move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be able to consider all the suggestions that have been made. I was very much Impressed with the proposal that there should be at least two doctors brought in on this sort of occasion. I agree with

1235
the view that to rely on one doctor, often possibly not a man of the highest practical experience in his profession in this type of case, is not altogether right. This Bill could obviously be improved a great deal. It could no doubt to a considerable extent be cut down in Committee in such a way as to make it generally acceptable to the great majority of your Lordships. I think the great thing that we should do this evening is to give it a Second Reading, in order that its principle may be established.
8.13 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are about to vote on the Amendment, subject to the final speech by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. All I want to say on the Amendment, having listened to the speeches in support of it, is that the views of those who support the Amendment are quite irreconcilable with the views of those who support the Bill. There is a very deep difference in respect of religious conviction and many other factors. I do not think that the noble Earl would claim to speak with any particular authority on the specific provisions of the Bill itself: that is a matter upon which we can all judge. But on this one question as to whether the views of the supporters of the Amendment can in any way be reconciled with those in support of the Bill there is no doubt at all, and the real issue in front of your Lordships is just this. If this Amendment were carried, then we should carry on as we are to-day, with the present unsatisfactory position of the law, with these enormous numbers of illegal abortions taking place and everything that flows from it. I do not want to pursue this point because I dealt with it in my opening speech, but the real issue is: are we to go on as we are—which practically every speaker has admitted is an unsatisfactory situation—or are we to amend the law in some form? I shall say a few words on that in my concluding remarks.
That is all I want to say. The issue before us so far as the Amendment is concerned is very simple. It is whether we go on as we are, without altering the law, or whether we approve the Second Reading and amend the law in the manner laid down by the Bill subject to any Amendments that may be decided by the House in Committee.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I just say this? I shall vote against the Amendment if it is put to the Division, not because I am in favour of the contents of the Bill but because a vote for the Amendment can only be understood as meaning that one is not in favour of any change in the law in the present situation.
8.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, there are a certain number of pregnant women who will be reading this debate. For their sake, I want to say something on a medical question. I assure your Lordships that I have very good authority for what I am about to say, and I should be exceedingly grateful if this part of my speech, if nothing else, were reported, since it may serve to help pregnant women. There has been invented, and there is in common use, a substance called gamma globulin, and it is available for the prevention of rubella in exposed pregnant women. On the basis of 14,054 returns from general practitioners in the years 1954 to 1961, the incidence of rubella after home exposure to the virus was only 1·27 per cent. in women so protected. And I want to stress that it is exceedingly important that any woman in pregnancy who is exposed to rubella should immediately go to her family doctor and ask for this chemical. That statement, at any rate is non-controversial, and I hope that it will be useful.
Now for the debate. I will not attempt to sum up at any great length. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, held out this invitation to Roman Catholics. He, in effect, advised them to retire to a Red Indian reservation where their sensitive consciences and peculiar beliefs will be respected, but to leave alone the sense of what the country should do in matters of right and wrong. I am sorry that we cannot adopt that position. We cannot say, "Am I my brother's keeper?" We have our duties to the State, and on this occasion our duty will almost certainly be to go down to defeat, although we shall have with us a few persons who think well of our arguments. I beg that our case may be judged on the arguments that have been presented, rather than on our particular religious convictions. My Lords, it is rather difficult for us, because when we express views which we and

1237
other people think are quite logical and sensible, those views are often discounted in advance, and men say, "Oh!, he has got to say that". That was what Newman called, "poisoning the wells of truth".
I beg your Lordships to tell me, if you must, that my arguments make nonsense, but give me judgment. Do not give me prejudgment. I will not repeat those arguments. It is very largely a matter of what you mean by voting for a Bill. If by voting for a Bill you mean no more than voting for a Resolution, that is one thing. But to-night we are, in fact, voting on a Bill which has been almost entirely condemned by almost every speaker. We can, of course, follow the advice that has been given to us to vote for an enormously long and complicated Committee stage to get this Bill right—or as right as possible. But I suggest that it would have been kinder to this House if an originally respectable Bill had been presented to it.
It will be said that the authors of this Bill did not have the advantage of Parliamentary draftsmen to help them. But what is a Parliamentary draftsman for? In my understanding, you go to a Parliamentary draftsman and you say: "This is what I want to do. Will you please supply the right language in which to put it?" I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—and I hope that he will take no offence—quite knows what he does want to do, especially in the "social conditions" paragraph.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I want to assure the noble Earl that I do know what I want to do; and if I am at fault it is in not being able to express it in the best possible language.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Very well. But if the noble Lord had been able to express his meaning a little more
clearly, there would have been much less to criticise in the clause.
I must not keep your Lordships for very much longer. I cannot withdraw my Amendment. I do not suppose that I should be allowed to do so; but I will not withdraw it in any case. We may as well divide. But I am dividing the House because I consider that this is a bad Bill and one which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will still withdraw. I am doing this out of respect to your Lordships; but I am also dividing the House because I am convinced in my views by what my theologians tell me about the life that is in the womb, be it quickened or be it only fœtal. There I may he differing from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I am aware that in that we represent different theological traditions, although there is some support also for his tradition from antiquity.
For my part, I think it would be interesting to ask, not a philosopher or a theologian to answer this question, but a biologist. I wonder what a biologist would say. I think he would say this: "Our science advances by categorisation. We divide living things into genera and species, and then into subspecies. That is how we get on. That is our scientific principle." I think that if I were to ask him whether the fœtus is human, the biologist would reply: "What species does it belong to if it is not human?" However, my Lords, I merely suggest that that question may possibly be explored. I do not want to make a point of it, because under two clauses of this Bill the quickened fœtus and even the viable fœtus, may be destroyed. That seems to me to be a very terrible thing.
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Audley, Bs.

Haddington, E.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Iddesleigh, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Balerno, L.

Byers, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Blyton, L.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Airedale, L.

Brain, L.

Champion, L.

Archibald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Arwyn, L.

Burden, L.

Cohen of Birkenhead, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Segal, L.

Denham, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sherfield, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Silkin, L.

Ferrier, L.

Merthyr, L.

Sorensen, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mitchison, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Gifford, L.

Monson, L.

Stonham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grantchester, L.

Morrison, L.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Grenfell, L.

Newall, L.

Terrington, L.

Haire of Whiteabbey, L.

Norwich, V.

Vernon, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Wade, L.

Henley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Waverley, V.

Hobson, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Wellington, D.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Royle, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

St. Just, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Sandford, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Kindersley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House is now ready to decide whether it will give this Bill a Second Reading. I think the Bill has been accepted in principle by everybody who has spoken, except those who have definitely come out as opponents. Everyone has recognised that there is a need for an amendment of the present law, and most speakers that there is a need for some extension of the present law, even as it is understood by the lawyers.
There has been a certain amount of criticism of the terms of the Bill, and I accept that they could be very much improved. Much of the criticism is, I think, perfectly justifiable. I believe that none of it is criticism which could not be met by amendment in Committee, although I admit that it might be somewhat cumbersome to go through the Committee stage with a considerable number of Amendments, whether or not they were eventually accepted. However, I believe that at the end of the day, although the Bill would be improved in its language and many things made clear which are not clear at the moment, basically, the Bill would remain very much as it is.
Nevertheless, I am impressed by the suggestion that we might try to get a Bill approved by general agreement, and I wish to make this suggestion to the House. If your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading to-day, I am willing to discuss with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and anybody else who would look at the thing seriously, even the right reverend Prelate the Bishop
1240
of Exeter (the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark was much too critical) and see whether we could, very quickly, approve a fresh Bill. If we could agree upon a fresh draft, it would very much ease the procedure of this Bill through your Lordships' House, and if we could achieve that, it would be much easier when it gets to another place.
Therefore, I am prepared, if the House will give this Bill a Second Reading—I hope an unopposed one—not to press for the Committee stage until after the Recess. By that time one would hope that an agreed Bill might be prepared and, if it were, and if it were acceptable to all concerned, I should be very willing to withdraw the existing Bill in favour of that new Bill, and rely on my noble friend Lord Shepherd to give me the assistance which such a Bill would deserve when it is sponsored by such responsible persons as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the noble Lord, Lord Brain—to say nothing of myself.
There are four points on which I recognise that there is room for amendment or clarification. The first is the question of getting a second opinion in some form or another. We need not discuss now what kind of second opinion it shall be, but I think it is the general opinion that a second opinion would be very desirable. Secondly, there is a need to clarify what is meant by the expression "social conditions" in the Bill. I know what I meant, but apparently nobody else does, and it is therefore desirable that we should incorporate in the Bill something that everyone can understand.
Then there is the clause which limits the time in which an abortion can take

1241
place, under two of the classifications, to 16 weeks. To my surprise, that seems to be unacceptable. I thought I had conciliated those doubtful about it by putting in a period, but I am gladly prepared to leave it out. The last point is the question of rape and sexual offences and how they should be dealt with by the medical profession or whether they should be dealt with at all by them. Certainly there are many cases in which an abortion ought to be permitted in connection with sexual offences, but I recognise the force of what has been said, that it would be wrong to ask the doctor to constitute himself a judge in these cases.
Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
These are the kind of things which I think we ought to look at again, and I am perfectly prepared to discuss them with the noble and learned Viscount, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, if he is willing to do so, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter, and see whether we cannot produce something, preferably before Christmas. With that understanding, I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
8.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Just, L.

Airedale, L.

Haire of Whiteabbey, L.

Sandford, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Shepherd, L.

Balerno, L.

Hughes, L.

Sherfield, L.

Blyton, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Silkin, L.

Brain, L.

Kindersley, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burden, L.

Listowel, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Byers, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Merthyr, L.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Cohen of Birkenhead, L.

Mitchison, L.

Terrington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Monson, L.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wade, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Morrison, L.

Waverley, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Wellington, D.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Norwich, V.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Raglan, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rhodes, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Gifford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Audley, B.

Haddington, E.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Iddesleigh, E. [Teller.]

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.