Sitting of 13 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPORT ENCOURAGEMENT
10.5 a.m.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage exports by extending the purchase tax relief available to bona fide tourists to the United Kingdom.
My object in seeking to bring forward this Bill is to encourage exports by giving incentives to tourists to spend money in Great Britain. The Chairman of the British Travel Association, in his annual report last year, had this to say:
"… 2,776,000 visitors came to Britain from abroad, an increase of 13 per cent. over 1964. The money which they spent here—including fares paid by them to British carriers—amounted to £321 million, an increase of 4 per cent."
He went on to say that
"… tourism has established itself as our fourth largest earner of foreign currency—and, as far as American dollars are concerned, the largest of all. The foreign revenue we derive from tourism now ranks with that earned by the 'classic' tourist countries, France and Italy—countries which were engaged in a world-wide policy of advertis-
2
ing their attractions long before the British Travel Association was founded. Our foreign revenue, in fact, exceeds those of two other well-established tourist countries, Switzerland and Austria, which can also claim a long history of tourist promotion."
Later in his report the Chairman points to the fact that by 1970 he estimates that there would be 5 million visitors to this country and that the opportunities for expansion in the tourist trade were almost limitless. He goes on to say:
"This will be done in the face of considerable difficulties due to our geographical position. We are one of the northern countries of Europe, and the main trend of tourist traffic is always to the south. We lack the powerful magnet of the Mediterranean sun, which confers on all those countries bordering the Mediterranean a special tourist attraction."
I submit that we have an advantage which some of those other countries do not possess, and that is in the variety and quality of our goods. Many of them are subject to Purchase Tax and are, therefore, more costly than they need be. At the moment the only way in which Purchase Tax may be avoided is to complete a P.T. 40 and then the article has to be sent back to the boat or plane. The articles may not be taken out of the shop for use in the country without payment of Purchase Tax. At this point I should declare an interest, because I shall have to quote from my personal experience to show how sales are lost. As the House may know, in my spare time I run a tailoring business, and we do a substantial export trade, much greater

3
than the sales that our export rebates show.
We do a very substantial business with the Continent, and it is worth saying that for clothing it pays foreigners to come to this country to buy their clothes, because not only are they cheaper but the quality is better than in any other country in the world. All too often customers are passing through, perhaps on their way to the United States, and they may want to take the clothes with them, or they may be visitors from America and wish to use the clothes while in England. They may be going to the Continent and would like to use them there, leaving for America via Genoa.
All too often the customer says:
"If I cannot take these things with me I will have to leave it until I return"
which may be in two or three years. This is magnified dozens of times throughout the West End and the country. It is an old saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We cannot afford to let one single franc or dollar go out of our hands. The French have a system whereby specified retail shops give a discount of 20 per cent., provided payment is made in travellers' cheques. This is in effect a relief of sales tax, and I wonder if we cannot do the same.
My Bill seeks to do this and to give to bona fide visitors to this country who pay in travellers' cheques or foreign currency, on production of a passport and on completion of an appropriate form, relief from Purchase Tax on any article which may then be taken and used in this country. There would be a tremendous stimulus to foreign visitors to buy British. I can almost hear people saying to their wives, for instance, "Wait till you get to Britain to buy that cashmere sweater because you will get a 10 per cent discount".
There is another reason, subsidiary, perhaps, but important nevertheless. Under the Companies Bill which is now in Committee, all traders must disclose their export turnover. A man who sells a cashmere sweater from a shop in Stratford-on-Avon or Princes Street, Edinburgh, contributes to the export drive in
4
just as big a way as if he had sold the article in Paris or New York, and he does so without any expenditure of foreign exchange. It is right and fair that those who actively seek to do this should have credit for their exports and also should have the export rebate.
One store in Regent Street, by no means a very large one, has told me that it did over £170,000 worth of foreign export business with visitors to this country last year. The visitors paid in travellers' cheques and foreign currency, but they had to pay Purchase Tax as well, so the store got no credit for the exports. They were treated as home sales and did not show in the export rebate figures.
I am advised that to achieve this objective would require only a fairly modest amendment to Section 18 of the Purchase Tax Act, 1963. I am advised, also, that there are no international complications. I am convinced that we cannot afford not to make this simple adjustment to the existing regulations. It would give a tremendous stimulus to overseas visitors to spend more of their money in this country. It would encourage our traders to set themselves out to sell to visitors in this country, and it would make a considerable contribution to our foreign currency earnings. It would end confusion and frustration. It is right and fair to do it. I am sure that it would be profitable. I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Weatherill, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. David Webster, Sir Gerald Wills, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Hector Monro, Mr. Anthony Buck, and Mr. Cranley Onslow.

EXPORT ENCOURAGEMENT
  EXPORT ENCOURAGEMENT
  A Bill to encourage exports by extending the purchase tax relief available to bona fide tourists to the United Kingdom, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th April and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

POLICE PENSIONS (LINCOLNSHIRE)
10.14 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
These amending Regulations make a small Amendment to the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966, in consequence of the Lincolnshire Police Amalgamation Scheme, 1967. The amalgamation scheme was approved on 4th February and comes into operation on 1st April next. There are at present in Lincolnshire three police forces with one chief constable. They are the police forces of Parts of Holland, Kesteven and Lindsay. On 1st April, the police forces for these three divisions and the police forces for Grimsby and Lincoln will be amalgamated.
Police pension matters in the existing separate forces for the three divisions of Lincolnshire have up to now been managed through what was known as the Lincolnshire Joint Police Superannuation Fund, and the Police Pensions Regulations have made special provision in respect of this arrangement. This special provision is contained in Regulation 96 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966. The whole of Regulation 96 refers to the special circumstances existing in Lincolnshire. I should mention that this arrangement has been unique in that no similar arrangements operate in any other group of police forces.
On amalgamation, the combined police authority—the three divisions of Lincolnshire, Grimsby and Lincoln—will administer police pensions matters for the newly created force so that the existing arrangements in Lincolnshire will cease to have anything other than historical significance. But in these changed circumstances it will be necessary, for the purposes of the Police Pensions Regulations, for the former separate forces for the three divisions of Lincolnshire to be treated as though they had been one force. The amending Regulations now before the House make the necessary provision by substituting a new Regula-
6
tion for the existing Regulation 96 in the 1966 Regulations.
This amendment has been agreed by the Police Council for Great Britain.
10.17 a.m.
Sir David Renton: I thank the right hon. Lady for the explanation which she has volunteered for this short and simple amending Regulation, but I have one question to put. We know that there are a great many amalgamations of police forces to follow. Will there have to be an amending Regulation following each amalgamation, or is this a special case? If it is a special case, what makes it so? What makes it different from all others? There is nothing on the face of the amending Regulations or in the Explanatory Note to make clear why the amalgamation of these Lincolnshire forces puts them in a category different from any other type of amalgamation.
So that we may have the position clear for the future, will the right hon. Lady be good enough to explain the point?
Miss Bacon: I thought that I had explained it, but I shall try to make the matter clear. There will be no need to have other amending Regulations for other amalgamations. The reason for there having to be this amending Regulation for Lincolnshire is that Lincolnshire is unique inasmuch as the County of Lincoln now has three separate police forces with one chief constable.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966, before him, he will see that Regulation 96 is concerned solely with Lincolnshire. This is so because of the special position in Lincolnshire. There has been the Lincolnshire Joint Police Superannuation Fund bringing together the funds of the three separate forces in a way which is not done in any other part of the country, and there had to be that special Regulation in the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966. The present amending Regulation merely makes the necessary amendment in respect of that special case. Because of the amalgamation of the three parts of Lincolnshire, with Grimsby and Lincoln, the original Regulation No. 96 will no longer apply. This is a substitution for the original Regulation 96. It is a unique case because of the special

7
circumstances previously existing in Lincolnshire.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.

ROADS (PARKING PLACES)
10.20 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move,
That the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1967, dated 14th February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
At the moment, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport makes and amends designation orders for schemes which charge for street parking over the whole of England, except in Greater London, where the Greater London Council took over the Minister's powers in 1963. In Scotland and Wales, the respective Secretaries of State make these orders. The Minister concerned makes these orders on the application of local authorities.
These powers were first given to the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956. They were re-enacted in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In 1965, a Statutory Instrument transferred similar powers to the Secretary of State for Wales when the Minister of Transport ceased to be responsible for highways in Wales.
In 1960, parking meters were still something of a novelty in this country, and it was felt that orders introducing meter schemes should still be made by the Minister and approved by Parliament, even though all other orders to control parking, both on and off the street, are made by local authorities. But Parliament clearly regarded this as an interim arrangement only, because in the same year a provision was built into Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act to enable the Minister to make an order transferring her functions at any time to local authorities.
8
Charging for street parking is now much more widespread. It has become a recognised means of controlling parking where demand is very high. My right hon. Friend considers that it is no longer necessary for her to go on making these local orders. It involves the Department in a great deal of detailed preparatory work, to no real advantage to central or local government or to persons affected by the scheme.
My right hon. Friend therefore proposes to make use of Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, to make this Order. Its effect is to transfer to local parking authorities in England, Wales and Scotland the Ministers' powers to make orders creating or amending schemes involving charging for street parking. In England and Wales, the local authorities to have this power would be county boroughs and county districts and in Scotland county councils and town councils.
My right hon. Friend would, however, keep control of the essentials. She would retain her powers to approve the type and design of meters, to receive objections and to hold public inquiries where necessary. She would have new powers to consent to orders before they are made and to vary or revoke orders. Where the parking authority was not also the highway authority for a road to which an order related, it would have to obtain the highway authority's consent before making the order.
This is a step towards getting a better balance between central and local government. Except for orders relating to trunk roads, these parking meter orders are the only ones actually made now by the Minister. Local authorities already make all other orders dealing with parking and loading, including the provision of off-street parking places where charges are made. They are only required to submit orders to the Minister that affect a trunk road or if an objector claims that they deny reasonable access to premises. These safeguards will not be affected by this Order.
The proposals should save a good deal of time and work for both central and local government without prejudicing individual rights. At the moment, the Minister prepares the details of each scheme, advertises it, receives all objections, and finally lays the order before

9
Parliament. All this involves a great deal of time and effort on the part of the Department. Many of these objections could be resolved satisfactorily by the local authority itself.
It is the remoteness of the present system from the individuals concerned that often gives rise to quite unnecessary difficulties and delays. In many cases, a simple explanation of the effect of the scheme is all that is required to satisfy an objection, and this can be done much more effectively at the local level.
Under the new proposals, unresolved objections would still be put to the Minister. The difference will be that the local authority would prepare and advertise the scheme and receive all objections in the first instance. The local authority would revise the scheme if necessary in the light of objections, and only then would refer the order and any unresolved objections to the Minister. Having considered the objections—and held a public inquiry if necessary—my right hon. Friend could then consent to the scheme, subject to any variations she might think fit.
In her speech of November last year to the Town and Country Planning Association, my right hon. Friend said that she would get rid of her control over the details of traffic regulation orders if in return local authorities produced effective traffic plans.
"If they need wider powers to enable them to do this",
she said,
"I will seek to get them in my new Transport Bill. Much of this requires legislation, long-term planning, administrative change. Is there anything we can do now?"
This is something which we can do now, within existing legislation.
Under Section 5(1) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, parking meter orders may include comprehensive controls on parking, waiting, loading and unloading. By transferring her powers to make these orders to local authorities, my right hon. Friend is, therefore, making it easier for them to plan and carry out comprehensive parking policies. I hope, therefore, that the House will now approve the Order.
10.26 a.m.
Mr. David Webster: The whole House will, I think,
10
agree with the essential basis of what the Parliamentary Secretary, with considerable clarity, has told us is the intention behind the Order. It looks much more clear than the introduction to the Order, which refers to about five different Statutes, including the London Government Act, 1963, and the Minister of Land and Natural Resources Order, 1965, which takes us back to a little bit of history which was rather brief.
We come back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), when Minister of Transport, said on Second Reading of the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Bill when discussing the Clause in question. My right hon. Friend said:
"At present, I can authorise only certain selected towns to be what I call parking-meter authorities and, when I do that, each scheme that they put forward has to be approved by the Minister. Frankly, I do not see why a Minister of Transport should approve a scheme in, say, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham; he has not the necessary local knowledge. Therefore, by Clause 5, I am taking the power, at any rate, to push the whole business of parking on to the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 899.]
That being the intention of my right hon. Friend, it would be unlike me to disagree with him about this.
I am glad to see that one of the first consequences of the efforts at nationalism in Scotland and Wales that we saw last week is a step of devolution on to the local authorities. It is perfectly right that they should be the people who, knowing the local conditions, should ask the Minister for the right to proceed with an order.
The Minister's reserve power—the right to refuse or to vary according to whether she thinks fit—is reasonable enough. The right to hold a public inquiry if the Minister thinks fit seems to me to give the right to hold a public inquiry only to the Minister. I wonder whether it is possible for a local authority to ask for a public inquiry and whether—I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland present—there is any difference in the Scottish enactment, as there often is of a minor kind, in this respect.
We are simply extending what has existed for six years in London to the rest of the country, and this seems to me reasonable. There has not been a great deal of objection to the way in which

11
this procedure has been carried out in London, although there are people who by instinct regret the taking away of another right of Parliament to scrutinise a charge on the citizen. In this case, however, the process being the speeding up of traffic, we feel that it is necessary to take this course.
On the other hand, one comes back to the anxieties that were referred to in Standing Committee on the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill when the former Mr. Ede moved an Amendment to ensure that when a local authority was not a highway authority, consultation should take place. This anxiety was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary of that time, and it has been referred to by the present Parliamentary Secretary today, who has said that it is essential for consultation to take place. That is the matter about which one would have the greatest anxiety. However, the House being content on that subject, I would thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1967, dated 14th February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.31 a.m.
  Mr. David Webster: Is there a Minister from the Department of Education and Science present to explain how the Bill now stands?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Webster: In that case, Mr. Speaker, is it possible for me to ask for an explanation of the present situation in connection with the Bill, so that the House may know what is going on?
  Mr. Speaker: It is possible for the hon. Gentleman to ask for it, but it is not for the Chair to give it.
  Mr. Webster: This is an extraordinary situation, Mr. Speaker, and we need your guidance. Legislation is being put through the House with no Minister here to explain it to us. I would beg to move that the House adjourns while we wait for the appropriate Minister to come to explain this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): As is customary on consolidation Measures, I am present to give the House any assistance that I can. This is a pure consolidation Measure. It has been considered by the Joint Committee, which has reported that it is pure consolidation. It raises no new point of law, and it was considered by the House on Second Reading. In my submission, there are no points which arise on Third Reading. The only issue before us is whether it is desirable that the law should be consolidated in the way proposed. We have heard no arguments to the contrary in this debate.
  Mr. Webster: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his clear explanation, and congratulate him on his versatility in giving us a lucid view on education when he is not a Minister in the Department.
  I should like to know whether the Government's interference in any negotiations at present before the Burnham Committee will affect this Bill. The House would not wish to allow this type of legislation to be rushed through when there is difficult and dangerous interference with precedent in the way that the Government have clearly gone against the original intention of the reconstitution of the Burnham Committee about three years ago—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, we can discuss what is in the Bill. We cannot discuss the reconstitution of the Burnham Committee.
  Mr. Webster: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the present negotiations on teachers' salaries require that an element of remuneration and superannuation—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This cannot be discussed on this Third Reading. This is a consolidation Measure, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed, without Amendment.

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL [Lords]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
    The debate having been concluded, Mr. SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
    Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Death Grant
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Social Security if she will take steps to remedy the situation whereby a death grant cannot be paid in respect of a person who during lifetime has been permanently unable to pay insurance contributions because of physical or mental incapacity.
    The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 6th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). —[Vol. 742, c. 1034–5.]
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very cruel anomaly which causes serious hardship to the relatives of handicapped people? Can she not do something about it in advance of the general review of social security benefits?
    Miss Herbison: I am very much aware of the difficulties that can arise in such cases. At present, if a person who has accepted responsibility for the funeral is in receipt of supplementary benefits, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can make a payment towards the funeral.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of the death of a 22-year-old spastic in Brixton who was not insurable and who had had to live on National Assistance since the age of 16, his parents had to pay the whole cost of the funeral, although they were in very humble circumstances? There cannot be many of these cases. Cannot something be done to help this tragic category of case?
    Miss Herbison: This is the sort of case about which my hon. Friend asked in his Question. We have examined the matter and have come to the conclusion that under the contributory system it would be difficult to find a solution, but we are trying to find a solution in some
    16
    other way. If the parent is in receipt of supplementary benefit help can be given.

    Publicity
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security what steps she is taking to give publicity to the achievements of her Department and its future plans.
    Miss Herbison: The work and achievements of my Department are always fully described in Annual Reports, which are presented to Parliament and are reported in the Press. Major new changes such as the introduction last year of the new schemes of supplementary benefits and of earnings-related benefits are given wide-spead national and provincial publicity through the Press, radio and television, and by the use of posters, leaflets and talks. Matters arising from the review of the social security schemes will continue to be brought forward as they become ready and will be given publicity in the usual way.
    Mr. Roberts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but will she consider taking additional steps to increase television and newspaper advertising, so enabling a clearer picture to be obtained of the improving status of pensioners and others in receipt of social security benefits?
    Miss Herbison: I will send my hon. Friend particulars of all that we have been trying to do for the last two years. He will see that efforts on publicity have been very wide indeed.

    Pensionable Age
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Social Security if, in order to achieve greater equality between men and women, she will take steps to reduce the pensionable age for men to 60 years.
    Miss Herbison: The question of pension age is only one of a number of issues which have necessarily to be examined in the course of the major review of the National Insurance schemes.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that equality between men and women is a two-way process and that it is high time this anomaly was

    17
    removed? A man aged 60 has to wait five more years for his pension, although his expectation of life at that age is considerably shorter than that of a woman of the same age?
    Miss Herbison: I agree with much that my hon. Friend has said. From today I shall be beginning to earn increments on my own pension, whereas my colleagues will have to wait for another five years. But before changing one of the basic qualifying conditions for pensions we have to take into account the many complex issues that would arise, and also the far-reaching consequences in the financial, economic and social spheres.
    Mr. Risdale: Can the right hon. Lady say what the cost would be of reducing the pensionable age for men to 60?
    Miss Herbison: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question, I shall be glad to answer it.

    National Insurance Contributions (Stamped Cards)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Social Security what conclusion she has reached about the merits and demerits of the stamped card system for National Insurance contributions.
    Miss Herbison: The future of the stamped card system needs to be considered in relation to our plans for benefits and any decision must await the outcome of our review of the National Insurance scheme.
    Mr. Longden: Can the right hon. Lady say when this is likely to be?
    Miss Herbison: Not yet. As I have explained in the House time and time again, as each part of it has become ready we have brought it forward. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that as we go on to earnings-related pensions and insurance many of the advantages of the stamped card system will disappear.

    Family Allowances (Value)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Social Security to what figure the 10s. rate of family allowance paid in respect of third and subsequent
    18
    children would require to be increased to restore the purchasing power to the level at which it stood when the 10s. rate was originally introduced.
    Miss Herbison: On the basis of the Index of Retail Prices, 13s. 7d.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I wish the right hon. Lady many happy returns of the day, but does not she agree that these figures offer a clear indication of at least one course she can take to deal with the serious problem of malnutrition among larger families, about which she has recently had a good deal of evidence?
    Miss Herbison: The figure that I have quoted—and for the 8s. allowance the appropriate equivalent would be 12s. 6d.—shows clearly that something must be done for the children, particularly those of the low wage earner. I have told the House on many occasions that we are urgently considering the matter.

    Supplementary Benefits (P60 Form)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will divorce the administrative procedure for the payment of supplementary benefits from the necessity to produce a P60 form.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): My hon. Friend's Question is based on a misunderstanding. The production of a P60 is simply a great help to us in getting earnings-related supplement paid without delay.
    Mr. Moyle: Will my hon. Friend consider making sure that this is more widely understood? People with a P60 form must pay Income Tax and, if a person's income is too small to warrant a P60 form, it is more difficult to claim social security benefits. People whose incomes are too small for them to pay Income Tax are the very people who want security benefits.
    Mr. Pentland: As we have been doing, we shall continue to do everything possible to make this more widely understood. It is already widely known throughout the country. If there are any other possibilities we shall gladly consider them.

    Shop Assistants
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Social Security what are the numbers of self-employed shop assistants at present compared with the numbers at some convenient date in 1965.
    Mr. Pentland: I regret that this information is not available, but shop assistants working more than eight hours a week would not normally be classified as self-employed for insurance purposes.
    Mr. Moyle: Will my hon. Friend take steps to make sure that this information becomes available? I have been led to believe that the number of self-employed shop assistants is increasing, and such persons do not qualify for unemployment benefit or industrial injury benefit.
    Mr. Pentland: We have no information on that point, but if my hon. Friend can provide specific instances where hardship is involved we shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Biffen: Although the hon. Gentleman may not have any information available, the development of self-employment in the service trades was widely forecast by hon. Members on this side of the House at this time last year. Cannot the hon. Gentleman have a sample survey made to see what grounds the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) has for asking this Question.
    Mr. Pentland: A sample survey is currently being undertaken, but analysis of National Insurance cards exchanged in the summer months shows a diminishing number of self-employed persons in the distributive trades in recent years. This is probably associated with the growth of self-service firms.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the Minister give us any information as to the scope of the survey and when we are likely to see any result from it.
    Mr. Pentland: Not at the moment.

    Unmarried Mothers
    Dr. Grayasked the Minister of Social Security what instructions had been issued to her officers on the policy to be followed in dealing with unmarried mothers who apply for and remain on
    20
    Assistance while their children are under school age.
    Mr. Pentland: Supplementary benefit is paid in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend without requiring the mother to register for work and is continued so long as it is needed. Special attention is paid to welfare needs and steps are taken, where necessary, to get the putative father to meet his responsibilities.
    Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that some unmarried mothers allege that moral attitudes are displayed by officials in dealing with them, and that these officials try to persuade them to divulge the name of the father of the child and also to return to work while their children are still young? Does my hon. Friend agree that any of this should happen? If it is happening, will he condemn it?
    Mr. Pentland: Here again, if my hon. Friend has any facts with regard to this matter, we shall gladly look into them, but I can assure him that it is untrue that claims to supplementary benefit from unmarried mothers are discouraged. They are dealt with normally in respect to the assessment of benefit, and when the mother is looking after dependent children under 16 years of age our officers are instructed not to make registration for work a condition for the receipt of benefit.

    Social Benefits (Report)
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make a statement on her policy with regard to universal or selective social benefits, in view of the report of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a copy of which has been sent to her.
    Miss Herbison: The various social security schemes for which I am responsible combine elements of both universality and selectivity. The Government will continue to bring forward measures arising from their review of social security as and when they are ready to do so. Due note is taken of any studies carried out in this field.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this report states that more than half of the £6,500 million

    21
    which is spent on the social services goes to those who do not really require it and that half the people themselves think that they do not deserve the money? Is not any policy wrong which results in those who need the services least getting as much as those who need them most?
    Miss Herbison: I have read the whole report and, as I said, due note is being taken of it. But there are many other factors which one must take into account before deciding on greater selectivity of benefits.

    Family Expenditures Survey (Pensioners)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Social Security what action she proposes to take to correct the imbalance reported in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February 1967 for pensioner group of households, averaging one and a half persons per household, which shows an excess of expenditure (150s. a week) over income (137s. a week).
    Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply on 6th March to the hon. Lady, the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward).—[Vol. 742, c. 184–5.]
    Mr. Ridsdale: As many pensioners now have to eat into their savings, does the right hon. Lady think that it is fair that such pensioners should pay an education charge on the rates? When will the Government honour their election pledge to take teachers' salaries off the rates so as to prevent these pensioners having to pay this charge?
    Miss Herbison: The question of the cost of education will be answered if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. On the question of pensioners eating into their savings, the supplementary benefits which began on 28th November have made possible much more generous treatment of capital, so old people now do not have to eat into their savings at the same rate as they had previously under the hon. Gentleman's Government. Also, if old people have quite large savings it is not wrong to expect them to use some of them in their retirement.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Lady aware, however, that the Answer which she gave to me was unsatisfactory? Is she aware, with regard to people with small savings, that her answer about large savings does not fit in with the Answer which she gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport)? Is she aware that, with an ever-increasing rise in the cost of living, the anxiety of people with small savings who have to dig into those savings is terrible? When will we get one of these reports on which people have been sitting for such a long time?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Miss Herbison: On this occasion, we did not wait for reports. We have already dealt with this question of elderly people. If old people have no other source of income, they can have £800 of savings and still get the full benefits of supplementary pensions, so the improvements which we have given to old people are considerable.

    Earnings-related Supplement
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Social Security why the earnings-related supplement to flat-rate unemployment benefit does not apply to those who return from working for a period abroad, even though they maintained their voluntary contributions to the National Health and Pension Scheme.
    Mr. Pentland: Entitlement to earnings-related supplement is not secured by the payment of flat-rate contributions but by the amount of an employee's reckonable earnings in the relevant Income Tax year. Earnings, including those of employees returning from work abroad, count for this purpose, and for liability to pay the graduated contributions needed to finance the supplement, only if they are earnings from which tax is deductible through P.A.Y.E.
    Mr. Ridsdale: But as the hon. Gentleman has already admitted that this is possibly unfair and an interim measure, would he please do something for these people before the Social Security Review reports?
    Mr. Pentland: As both my right hon. Friend and I have often said, we recognise that there are certain imperfections

    23
    in the earnings-related supplements scheme, as it is an interim scheme, and all relevant factors will be taken into consideration in the Review.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Social Security what study she has made of whether Article 101 of the Treaty of Rome would enable the European Commission to enforce the harmonisation of social security systems with the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.
    Miss Herbison: Article 101 was taken into consideration together with all other relevant provisions of the Treaty of Rome in our studies of its social security implications. The Article gives the Commission no direct power to enforce the harmonisation of social security systems; decisions under this Article rest with the Council.
    Mr. Macmillan: What consideration has been given to the fact that in the United Kingdom the main burden of the social security finance falls on the taxpayer while in the E.E.C. it is on the employer and hence on goods? Will this, in her view, lead to an indication of a decision by the Commission that this could interfere with competition, to use the words of Article 101?
    Miss Herbison: I do not think so, because I understand that in Germany in 1964 the scheme of family allowances was transferred from employer-financing to Exchequer-financing and nothing at all was done at that time by the Council.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Old People's Homes, Gateshead
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Health if he will give loan sanction for the additional two old people's homes in Gateshead in order that the complete programme of six homes may be built and the present former workhouse accommodation be demolished.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): Yes, Sir. The county borough council were so informed on 1st March.
    Mr. Randall: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that
    24
    his decision will help the local authority in improving the conditions for the old people of Gateshead?

    Drugs (Costs)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost of drugs used in National Health Service hospitals for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966, respectively, and the proportion of total hospital expenditure which these costs represent.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): £16 million, £.17·8 million and an estimated £18·9 million in the three years 1964–65 to 1966–67; representing 2·94 per cent., 2·96 per cent. and 2·89 per cent., respectively, of total hospital expenditure.
    Mr. Fisher: Against the generally rising trend in prices overall in this country, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it really is remarkable that prices of pharmaceutical supplies for hospitals have actually been falling?
    Mr. Robinson: I would have said that the figures suggest that as a proportion of total hospital expenditure there was a remarkable consistency in the three years, which I agree is not by any means unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Manuel: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there could, nevertheless, be savings if we had scientifically based pharmacists within hospital regions, where they could be attached to larger hospitals and be of use at the same time to smaller hospitals?
    Mr. Robinson: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is proposing, but I do not think that there would be a saving if we were to abolish dispensing by chemists. That would not be the case according to my information.
    Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm, so that we can get this matter into perspective, that his Department's figures show that the use of new drugs since 1955 has saved, in bed costs alone, about the equivalent of the whole hospital drug bill?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not like to confirm or deny that statistic without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will place a Question on the Order Paper, I will be glad to answer it.

    Cervical Cancer Sceening Facilities (Crawley)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the provision of cervical cancer screening facilities for all women at risk in Crawley.
    Mr. Snow: A limited service for women at risk should be available in Crawley next month.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of the very high proportion of women in the younger age group at risk in new towns like Crawley for whom screening can be particularly effective in preventing the development of cancer, is there some action which my hon. Friend can take to ensure that in areas like this greater priority is given, remembering that the women of Crawley have had to wait a very long time indeed for even this very limited service?
    Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend has been examining the position in new towns very actively and my hon. Friend may be pleased to know that, although there are difficulties about accommodation and technical services, it is hoped to expand this service towards the end of the year.

  HOSPITALS

    St. Teresa' Hospital, Wimbledon
    Sir C. Blackasked the Minister of Health what is the cost per day to the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board of the beds paid for by the Board in St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital, Wimbledon.
    Mr. K. Robinson: £4 12s. 11 d. per bed in 1965–66.
    Sir C. Black: How does that figure compare with the average for maternity beds under the National Health Service?
    Mr. Robinson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman how it compares with the average in that part of London covered by the South-West Metropolitan Region. The comparison should be per case and not per week, and the comparison is £57 4s. 8d. at St. Teresa's compared with
    26
    £49 8s. 10d. in cases in the South-West Metropolitan hospitals providing full medical and surgical services.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are these figures based on a stay of equal duration? In view of the fact that this hospital is acknowledged to render very good service, will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider his decision to withdraw National Health Service support?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. The average length of stay at St. Teresa's is 12 days, compared with nine days in the other
    hospitals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] As to the merits of the case, I should prefer to deal with those when we reach a later Question on this matter.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is adequate maternity provision in this part of south-west London?
    Mr. Robinson: I should prefer to deal with that also on the later Question.
    Sir C. Blackasked the Minister of Health what is the estimated cost per day to the National Health Service of the new maternity beds at Roehampton which it is proposed to bring into service in place of the maternity beds at St. Teresa's, Wimbledon, which are at present paid for by the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.
    Mr. K. Robinson: About £6 per bed.
    Sir C. Black: Why is it sensible to give up beds which are admitted by the regional hospital board to be perfectly satisfactory and which cost the National Exchequer much less and to replace them with beds which, in the light of the information which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, will cost the Treasury much more than the present beds?
    Mr. Robinson: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the cost per case, which is the relevant statistic, will be less.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On which of these Questions will the right hon. Gentleman answer on the merits of the case?
    Mr. Robinson: On Question No. 25, to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Royle):
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Health if he will instruct the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to continue paying for beds at St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I agree with the regional hospital board's decision to terminate its contractual arrangements for maternity beds with St. Teresa's at the end of 1967, when the new maternity unit in Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, is planned to open. The board has offered to contract with St. Teresa's for beds for other purposes, and I hope that the hospital will accept this offer.
    Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is most unsatisfactory, as, indeed, have been his last replies to my hon. Friends? Is he aware that there is great local concern about this decision—a decision which not only appears to be unnecessary but which, in view of the replies which he has just given, seems utterly extravagant? Will he ask the regional hospital board to look at the whole position again?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman has cost in mind, then nothing would be more extravagant or, in my view, unreasonable than for the National Health Service to continue to spend something like £70,000 a year subsidising maternity beds in a private hospital for which there is no longer a National Health Service need.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of what he just said, there is very considerable local feeling in favour of this hospital and that many women who have attended this hospital have commented favourably on the service they have received? Will he not at least consider the possibility of putting off his decision for a year?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I know that this hospital has provided good service to the regional board, but the fact is that there will no longer be any need for the contractual use of these beds after the end of this year. It has been the policy of successive Ministers—and it is my policy—that maternity units should, wherever possible, form an integral part of a district general hospital. This is in the interests of the safety of mothers and babies.
    Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Gentleman spell this out and say categorically that he is completely satisfied that at the end of this year there will be adequate maternity provision in this area of south-west London?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I am completely satisfied about that. Already the confinement rate in this area is 80 per cent., which is considerably higher than the Cranbrook-recommended figure of 70 per cent. In addition to the Roehampton beds, there will be 10 further beds at Queen Charlotte's Hospital allocated to this area for mothers from Richmond, and 12 beds will also be provided at the Kingston Hospital.
    Sir C. Black: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a few months ago the St. Helier Hospital sent a notice to doctors in the area informing them that certain categories of maternity cases could not be guaranteed places in the hospitals in the area, which does not indicate that there is any sufficiency of beds or that there will be such a sufficiency in the area? Is he also aware that it must be a very long time indeed since such indignation has been raised in the district over this matter and that, for example, about 2,000 people on a recent Sunday afternoon attended a meeting in a local hall—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, we cannot have too long a supplementary question.
    Mr. Robinson: I do not accept what was said last year as being a guide to what will happen when the new unit at Roehampton, which is a teaching, professorial unit—designed to teach doctors as well as midwives and nurses—is open. I am aware that there is considerable local feeling about this matter, but there is nearly always local feeling when any hospital unit is closed down. This one is not being closed down; there is merely being a termination of the contractual arrangements.
    Mr. Royle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Expenditure
    Mr Fisherasked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost of running National Health Service hospitals

    29
    for the year 1966; and how this compares with expenditure under this heading for the years 1965 and 1964, respectively.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The cost is estimated at £652 million in England and Wales for 1966–67, compared with £600 million in 1965–66 and £544 million in 1964–65.
    Mr. Fisher: In view of this rising trend in the cost of the hospital service, could the right hon. Gentleman say what his plans are to contain this rise in future? Would he also comment on an estimate that I have seen; that the cost of the service this year is likely to exceed £900 million?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better await the publication of the Estimates for this year. The real development of the hospital service has been at the rate of 2¾ per cent. per annum in the last two years, compared with 2 per cent. in 1964–65 over the previous year, allowing for a non-recurring amount of £4 million. This is the containment—if the hon. Gentleman prefers to use that phrase—of the development of the hospital service.
    Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that the cost of treatment in some of our newest hospitals is estimated to be £70 a week as compared with £30 a week in some of our older hospitals? As a saving of 1 per cent. in hospital expenditure would amount to £8 million a year, would he tell the House what he is doing to intensify management efficiency studies to see if economies can be brought about?
    Mr. Robinson: We are constantly endeavouring to achieve greater efficiency in the hospital service and work study is expanding all the time.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR

    Immigrants
    Mr. Weatherillasked the Minister of Labour if he will give priority to the granting of work permits to young people of British descent who wish to join their families now resident in Great Britain but are unable to do so as a result of immigration controls.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): The immigration control already
    30
    makes due allowance for claims to admission based on British descent or family unity, and I do not think it would be appropriate, in addition, to grant priority on those grounds when issuing vouchers.
    Mr. Weatherill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many young children of people of Anglo-British descent—if that is the right term to use—are kept apart from their families as a result of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and that we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the Anglo communities throughout the world who helped us in the past to run and sustain our Empire? Does he not think that some consideration should be given to these people of British descent?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Consideration is, of course, given, as I have indicated. Those under the age of 16 are allowed to come in without any difficulty at all. Special dispensation is generally given to those between 16 and 18, and up to the age of 21 this is also given if they are dependants. If they are not dependants but are already in employment, then it would be unfair to other Commonwealth citizens who have applied for vouchers if we gave them priority in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman is asking for priority to be given.

    Wages and Salaries
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated number of wage and salary settlements that have been concluded to operate during the period of severe restraint; how many of these were notified to his Department; and what were the numbers of employees involved.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Twenty-one major settlements involving 1,300,000 workers have been reached since 1st January, 1967. Of these five, involving 550,000 workers, specified dates of operation during the period of severe restraint, but in two cases which have not satisfied the severe restraint criteria the date is being deferred until after the end of the period. All the settlements were notified to my Department.
    Mr. Biffen: But is it the hon. Gentleman's proposition that these covered all the settlements that had been concluded?

    31
    Do they, for example, include the 42 settlements of which I have notified him in Written Questions Nos. 17 and 18 today?
    Mr. Hattersley: We have no reason to assume that any significant number of settlements concluded during the period have not been notified to my Department.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour, under which Section of the Prices and Incomes Act, currently in force, he has informed the Association of Salaried Staffs, Executives and Technicians that they have a duty to inform his Department of pay increases which are thought to fall without the criteria for severe restraint.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Association has not been so informed, although they are no doubt aware of the contents of paragraphs 37 and 38 of the November White Paper (Cmnd. 3150).
    Mr. Biffen: A White Paper is a White Paper, but will the hon. Member confirm that there is no statutory obligation whatsover on Mr. Clive Jenkins and the Association of Salaried Staffs, Executives and Technicians to notify either the hon. Gentleman or his Ministry of any wage settlement they conclude?
    Mr. Hattersley: My Ministry has constantly reiterated that there is no statutory obligation. Fortunately, most parties to wage bargains have agreed that they have some other duty and obligation to keep my Ministry informed.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the hon. Gentleman agree to publish a statement of the Government's definition of "national interest"?
    Mr. Hattersley: The definition of "national interest" differs according to people's standards. I have no doubt that my definition and the hon. Gentleman's are quite different.

    ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA (UNITED NATIONS)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate exploratory discussions with member States of the United Nations who have in the past provided forces for United Nations peace-keeping to find out if they
    32
    would take part in a United Nations force in Aden or South Arabia.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 6th March, it would be more appropriate in the first place for the recently appointed United Nations Mission to South Arabia to consider the possibility of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the area.—[Vol. 742, c. 1049.]
    Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Gentlemen on this side fully support Her Majesty's Government's intention to withdraw from Aden in 1968? But will he also accept that we believe that it is very important that a United Nations force or presence should be established after the period of withdrawal, and that it is urgent that discussions to this end should begin at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. But the first step is for the United Nations Mission to reach South Arabia. If the United Nations Mission, following its visit there, were to recommend that there should be a United Nations presence in South Arabia, either civil or military, Her Majesty's Government would certainly give the recommendation most serious consideration.
    Mr. Doughty: Is the Minister of State aware that we have a treaty obligation with this State when we withdraw to enter into a defence agreement to see that law and order is maintained there, which is something that no United Nations force could ever do?
    Mr. Thomson: The allegation that we have broken a pledge to South Arabia because of our refusal to conclude a defence agreement after independence has been made very frequently in this House, but it does not gain conviction by repetition.
    Mr. Whitaker: Would it not be an admirable idea to get the United Nations to be responsible for the defence of the Persian Gulf as a whole?
    Mr. Thomson: As I think I told my hon. Friend in regard to an earlier Question, that is a different question from that on the Order Paper.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: What will happen if the United Nations are unable to put a force into Aden for safety?
    Mr. Thomson: As I have just explained to the House, the first step is for the United Nations Mission to go there, study the situation, and see what recommendations it feels disposed to make.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what request he has received for British participation in a United Nations force to maintain law, order and the territorial integrity of the South Arabian Federation after the departure of British national forces in 1968; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. George Thomson: None, Sir.
    Sir F. Bennett: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remark just now that if such a request were made Her Majesty's Government would give it serious consideration, since our main reasons for not leaving a small force behind are said to be economic, why is it cheaper to keep a British soldier in Aden wearing a blue hat rather than a khaki one?
    Mr. Thomson: I think that the House should await the arrival of the United Nations Mission and see what it reports. If the Mission were to make a recommendation as to the usefulness of some United Nations presence, Her Majesty's Government, in the light of their well-known policy of supporting the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, would obviously give it serious consideration, but that would be a different matter from the kind of defence commitment and defence expenditure involved in our present military installations in South Arabia.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon, but is it not obvious that a United Nations force would be regarded as impartial and would avoid the suspicions which an ex-colonial Power such as ours naturally excites in this region?
    Mr. Thomson: One of the reasons for our decision about the defence installations in South Arabia, apart from the question of expenditure raised by the hon. Member opposite, is that we have always taken the view that we should not seek to go on maintaining installations
    34
    in an area where we did not enjoy popular consent for them.
    Mr. Royle: In view of the mounting chaos and the letter from Mr. Bayoomi-in The Times last week, will the Minister of State make arrangements for the Federal Government to be given adequate arms and equipment to defend themselves from both external and internal aggression when they receive independence after the end of this year?
    Mr. Thomson: The details of the help we are giving the South Arabian Government to build up their own forces have been given on a number of occasions. I think that these arrangements are generous and consistent with the ability of the South Arabian Government to make the fullest use of the help being given.
    Lord Balniel: If the right hon. Gentleman has not initiated discussions with the United Nations, has he initiated discussions with Aden's neighbouring States to try to get them to play a part in guaranteeing territorial integrity there after independence?
    Mr. Thomson: The first thing here is for the United Nations Mission to go. A very important factor in the political viability of an independent South Arabian State will be its earliest possible recognition by the United Nations organisation, as well as recognition by other countries both in the region and outside it. But the first step is to make a success of the United Nations Mission.

    HUNGARY AND ROUMANIA (BONDED DEBTS)
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the position concerning negotiations about the Hungarian and Roumanian bonded debts; and whether the recent visit of Mr. Kosygin and the Prime Minister of Estonia to this country, which brought about an agreement concerning Baltic bonds, has affected discussions about the repayment of these other debts by countries allied with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. George Thomson: Exchanges are continuing about the Hungarian bonded debt. On the Roumanian bonded debt, I have nothing to add to my reply on

    35
    30th January. There is no connection between these negotiations and those with the Soviet Government.—[Vol. 740, c. 13.]
    Sir W. Teeling: If Mr. Kosygin, coming here, sees that it is quite practical to pay off Baltic bonds and come to some kind of agreement in order to pay them, why cannot we persuade the Hungarians and Roumanians to do the same? The French, the Germans and the Swiss are doing so. The right hon. Gentleman told me recently that the whole idea was to have some kind of a package deal for the Roumanians. I gather that half of the package deal was dealt with a few days ago, but what has happened to the rest?
    Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government have tried to make progress on all these debt questions since then, and we hope to report progress we have been able to make on the Soviet debt question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this matter I know, that he must not take the length of the discussions on the Hungarian debt to mean that there is no prospect of a successful outcome.

    PRINCE SIHANOUK OF CAMBODIA
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider inviting Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia to make a State visit to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. George Thomson: Recommendations for State guests are made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen and are under constant review.
    Mr. Royle: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his reply. Does he not agree that, in view of the importance of Cambodia both geographically and economically in South-East Asia at the present time, he should give very careful consideration to advising Her Majesty to issue an invitation in the very near future?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. We attach very great importance to our good relations with Cambodia, and we were very glad that our diplomatic relationships were improved recently when our
    36
    ambassador at Phnom Penh presented his credentials, and when the Cambodian Chargé d'Affaires arrived in London after an absence of some time. The hon. Member should also know that it was hoped that Prince Sihanouk would have been able to dine with Her Majesty while in France earlier this year and that it was only because of an unfortunate conflict of engagements that he was unable to accept the invitation.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a State visit, whatever its other merits, might be regarded rather badly by our allies in S.E.A.T.O., who might feel that the solidarity of the organisation was in some doubt?
    Mr. Thomson: It is important that we take all steps we can to improve good relations with countries in that region, whether they are in alliances with which we are associated or not. Some useful steps have been taken. The question of a State visit has to be given very careful consideration along with many other matters. I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the earlier cryptic Answer I gave.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Her Majesty's Government do not accept the proposition that it is impossible for us to be friendly with people who are not friendly with our allies?
    Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend has put the point I was making very much more succinctly than I did.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Television Annunciators
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received on the installation of television sets in various rooms used by Members; and what reply he has sent.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I believe my hon. Friend is referring to the closed-circuit television system of annunciators which have been installed as an experiment in the new Star Chamber Court building.
    The only representations received since the commencement of this experiment

    37
    have been for the installation of television annunciators in Members' Desk Rooms in Old Palace Yard and also at 54, Parliament Street. To make such installations would at present create a number of difficulties and it is thought that we should await the end of the 12-month experiment in Star Chamber Court before extending the system further.
    Mr. Hamling: In view of the fact that the new television sets seem to be subfusc imitations of the old annunciators, will my right hon. Friend seek to provide facilities for hon. Members to see the new annunciator system in action?
    Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend means the one we already have in the Star Court Chamber, the answer is that he can see it in action already. I am not sure what he means.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling)? Since the closed circuit television system is not proving very popular, does not my right hon. Friend think that this is an opportune time to allow hon. Members to see the new telex annunciators?
    Mr. Crossman: I think that, on the whole, it is best that we should have this 12-month experiment and judge the situation at the end.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the disgraceful suggestion I have heard that there is to be a secret party vote on decimal coinage on Wednesday night in Room 14, which is no substitute for a free vote in this House, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for that meeting to be televised so that we can all be in on it?
    Mr. Crossman: I was asked about television annunciators and not a television system.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, shortly before Christmas, this House, on a free vote, decided to disallow the experiment of closed circuit television in these premises? Is he further aware that it was a source of considerable adverse comment by many hon. Members on both sides when we returned after the Christmas Recess
    38
    to find that, lo and behold, we had closed circuit television all over the place, presumably for the purpose of duplicating the annunciators? Why were they put there? Why—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long enough question.
    Mr. Crossman: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) is deliberately seeking to confuse the issue, but the problem of televising the proceedings in the Chamber is quite different from the problem of letting ourselves know who is speaking in the Chamber when we are outside it. It is to the latter point that I am referring.

    Members' Facilities
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received on changes made in facilities for Members and members of their families in the Palace of Westminster; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Crossman: None, Sir. I am, however, aware that the new Members' Lounge is not entirely satisfactory, but it is intended to make considerable improvements to it later this year.
    Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend consult his wife on this matter? Is not he aware that this room must he about the tattiest in the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Crossman: I am aware that it is not entirely satisfactory, but I suggest that it is not so much my wife I have to consult as the wives who come from all over the provinces and who need somewhere to rest—which is something they have not got now. We are trying to make this room a reasonable place for them to rest in.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members have the habit of taking off their shoes and that in many respects this is very disagreeable?
    Mr. Crossman: I always feel that one can learn something new at Question Time. I have learnt something new today.

    Financial Statistics and Estimates
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Lord President of the Council if he will request the Services Committee to consider the appointment of a Parliamentary accountant to assess, at the request of hon. Members, the presentation of financial statistics and estimates submitted to the House by Ministers in answers, questions and in speeches.
    Mr. Crossman: The Library Sub-Committee is at present engaged in an inquiry about long-term plans for the Library, and the question of the addition of a Parliamentary accountant to the Library staff to help Members might well be considered in connection with this inquiry.
    Mr. Mills: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presents Government figures for expenditure, based on the comic proposition of prices at 1964 levels? Is he aware that the Defence Secretary also produces figures in an equally comical way? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this in consultation with the Committee in order to provide some method by which Ministers can be stopped from juggling with published figures?
    Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman's Question on the Order Paper was a serious Question to which I gave a serious Answer. His supplementary question was not serious.

    Scottish Agriculture (Specialist Committee)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Lord President of the Council why he will not move to appoint a specialist committee on agriculture for Scotland similar to the one for England and Wales.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a specialist committee for agriculture for Scotland similar to the one appointed for England and Wales.
    Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. I would prefer to see how the existing experimental Committees work before considering change or additions.
    Mr. Rankin: Whilst not thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a widely held view in Scotland at the moment, due to a recent electoral upset, that Scottish interests at Cabinet level do not receive the same treatment as English interests, particularly in regard to development and planning? Is he further aware that his reply just now provides some proof of that view?
    Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that the fact that two Scottish hon. Members have been added to the Agriculture Committee should have satisfied even those who on our side of the House are most deeply concerned about the events of last week.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given no answer? I raised this matter during our debate on procedure before Christmas and, thanks to pressure from other hon. Members, two Scottish hon. Members have been added to a Committee whose review does not cover the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. This is an extraordinary situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Committee's remit could be extended to cover the administration of agriculture in Scotland?
    Mr. Crossman: The Committee has its terms of reference for the rest of this Session and I believe that it would be a mistake to disturb them half-way through. The question of whether further specialist committees should be created is for consideration when we come to the next Session.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might assist the existing Committee in its consideration of British agriculture if it was able to bring before it members of the Scottish Department?
    Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to consider that but if I remember rightly the terms of reference are about the English Ministry of Agriculture and not the Scottish Department.

    Visitors (Hansard)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made by the House of Commons Services Committee with the

    41
    plan to enable a visitor to the House to address an envelope in the Post Office in the Central Lobby and pay an inclusive fee, thereby ensuring that on the day following a copy of Hansard is posted to him which covers the day on which he listened to the debate.
    Mr. Crossman: Order forms for the obtaining of copies of Hansard are on display at the entrances to all the Galleries. Any visitor who wishes to obtain a copy which covers the day on which he listened to a debate can take one of these forms for posting to the Stationery Office.

    Questions (Provisional List)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to refer to the Services Committee the possibility of posting each day in the No Lobby, before the Question hour, a provisional list of Questions to be answered together.
    Mr. Crossman: No, Sir.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not a fact that there is at present a provisional list which is circulated to Ministers? Would it not be a convenience for hon. Members on both sides of the House if an additional copy of the list were posted in the Lobby?
    Mr. Crossman: When I saw the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I considered it very seriously. I think that, on balance, the answer is "No", because it is only an informal list, which may be changed at the last moment. But hon. Members should know that anyone interested can speak to the Second Clerk Assistant behind Mr. Speaker's Chair during Prayers or at the Table during Question hour. This information can, therefore, be obtained by hon. Members.
    Sir Knox Cunningham—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Winnick— Question No. 42.

    Television Facilities
    Mr. Winnickasked the Lord President of the Council if the television facilities for televising the Commons have been dismantled.
    Mr. Crossman: No facilities for televising the Commons have ever been in-
    42
    stalled, except temporarily for the last Opening of Parliament.
    Mr. Winnick: Would it not have been wiser to have kept even these facilities, as sooner or later common sense will prevail and our proceedings will be televised?
    Mr. Crossman: That is a matter of opinion. Until next Session we are bound by the decision which the House reached in its recent debate on procedure.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee which reported on this matter to the House is still in existence and that it would, presumably, be competent for our Committee to consider the new situation which would arise if and when an experiment were held in another place? Can he also say what the Government's view is on how that experiment is to be paid for?
    Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the report from another place on the possibility of an experiment, but I do not imagine that any financial difficulty will arise. I know how resourceful are the members of our own Select Committee and they will always do what they want, considering their terms of reference.
    Sir S. McAdden: Will the Lord President of the Council use his influence to try to save his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) from his own enthusiasm? Has not the hon. Gentleman reliably been reported in the Press to have been seen in this Chamber poking his tongue out and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A foolish question.
    Mr. Mendelson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, who are always so keen on maintaining the sovereignty of the House of Commons should seem to take no notice at all of a decision reached by the House on a free vote? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will accept that vote and will not move on this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: This is a Question about dismantling.
    Mr. Crossman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although I need

    43
    not give it. The decision will be maintained. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) that minorities have their right of hope, if not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will realise, of expectation.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

    Homeless Families
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of increasing interest in the problem of homeless families, he is taking action to co-ordinate the activities of the central and local government services involved.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): The Ministers concerned issued a joint circular to local authorities on 31st October, 1966, giving detailed guidance on the ways in which local services should work together to meet the needs of homeless families. The authorities were asked to report to the Minister of Health by 31st March, 1967, on the action they propose. Any necessary further action will be taken in the light of their reports.
    Mr. Shaw: I welcome that Answer. Will my right hon. Friend understand that this is a most urgent matter? Can we expect action as soon as he gets a report?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: This is very urgent. We are expecting an important report and we shall act on it as soon as we can when we receive it.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    British Museum
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future of the National Reference Library of Science and Invention with a view to eliminating the uncertainty of the Trustees of the British Museum as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): The provision of a new building for the Library is a matter for the Minister of
    44
    Public Building and Works, with whom I am in close touch on the various problems which arise. The question of the space required is under review by a working party representing the Museum, the Treasury, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and my Department.
    Dame Irene Ward: Why, when I put the Question down for answer by the Minister of Public Building and Works, was it transferred to the right hon. Lady, if she has no responsibility?
    Miss Lee: Perhaps the explanation is that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is responsible for fabric and my Ministry is responsible for content. The hon. Lady is well known to have an interest in both, so there is always a doubt about whether such a Question from her should go to one or other Ministry.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered the criticisms of the Government contained in the 1966 Report of the Trustees of the British Museum; why Her Majesty's Government have failed to meet their obligations; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Report reveals encouraging progress in staffing, acquisitions and physical reconstruction and improvement. The next few years should see considerable further developments. On the question of the fulfilment of Her Majesty's Government's obligations, I would point out to the hon. Lady that the net vote to the Museum has almost doubled between 1963–64 and 1967–68. The plans for the new Library approved in 1964 were subject to consultation with the authorities concerned. A protest has been received and this is now being considered.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisons (Execution Apparatus)
    Mr. John Leeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is to be done with the execution gallows from Her Majesty's Prisons at Pentonville and Wandsworth.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The execution apparatus at Pentonville and at all other

    45
    prisons except Wandsworth has been destroyed.
    Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever may be the position about the death penalty for murder, the death penalty remains the penalty for high treason and that it may be necessary at the end of the Rhodesian rebellion?
    Miss Bacon: In theory, the death penalty is still retained for treason, arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards and piracy with violence. However, for more than a century there have been no executions in peace time for offences other than murder.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Could this apparatus be made available to the Patronage Secretary?

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Lance-Corporal D. Wainwright (Compassionate Leave)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has satisfied himself that 22779047 Lance-Corporal D. Wainwright, now serving with Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, in Aden, and a constituent of the honourable Member for St. Helens, can afford the air fare, £63, to the United Kingdom, so that he can be with, his family whilst his wife undergoes a major operation at the Military Hospital, Aldershot; and whether he will reconsider his decision not to meet the cost of Lance-Corporal Wainwright's flight home.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): For reasons which I have explained to my hon. Friend, compassionate leave would not be justified in this case.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that leave has been granted, providing that Lance-Corporal Wainwright will pay his own fare home from Aden? Is he aware that Lance-Corporal Wainwright's first application was rejected outright on the ground that he could not be spared, but that on the second application he was allowed compassionate leave provided that he paid the £63 fare home? Is not this a disgrace and is it not time the Department stopped shilly-shallying and treated Servicemen with justice?
    Mr. Boyden: Compassionate leave is allowed only in cases where a soldier's presence at home is considered to be essential. In this case I am very pleased to say that, after an exploratory operation last Thursday, Mrs. Wainwright was discharged from hospital on Saturday. I understand that a major operation will not now be necessary. The matter was given very careful and sympathetic consideration.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people think that the Services take a very compassionate view of most of these applications, but that in some cases like this, unfortunately, the details get into the papers and the Services, perhaps wrongly, are given a bad name?
    Mr. Boyden: I can speak quite objectively about this matter. I have been at the Ministry of Defence for only two months. I have been very impressed with the care taken by the staff to look into all cases and I give my personal attention to all the details of every compassionate case which comes on my desk.

    Polaris Submarines (Missiles)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of replacing Polaris by Poseidon missiles in the four new Polaris submarines.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): None, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Can it be assumed that the Government have no intention of adding to the already enormous cost, of more than £300 million, of the Polaris submarines, which are likely to be obsolete when they come into commission?
    Mr. Foley: I cannot accept the premises on which the question is based.
    Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend give a clear answer and say whether it is the intention of the Government to do this or not?
    Mr. Foley: To do what?
    Mr. Heffer: What it says in the Question.
    Mr. Foley: The Answer which I gave originally was, "No, Sir."

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Rhodesia (Currency Restrictions)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present currency restrictions placed upon British visitors to Rhodesia.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): As announced by the Treasury on 1st December, 1965, no facilities for travel to Rhodesia are allowed except for approved official or business purposes.
    Mrs. Knight: What possible right has the Treasury to withhold permission for people to spend their own money and their full travel allowance to visit their own relatives in Rhodesia? Is it not overbearing and arrogant to treat people in this way?
    Mr. MacDermot: Not at all. The exchange control restrictions, of which these are part, are a very important part of our sanctions policy.
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will increase the allowance for personal gifts to residents of Rhodesia to an aggregate of £50 from any one donor per annum.
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bell: Why not? Is not this also very harsh? Is it not the case that when the £50 was laid down it was considered that there was an emergency which would last rather a short time? Now that it is dragging on, ought not the allowance to be put on an annual basis, which is surely what the Government originally had in mind?
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. For the reasons which I gave in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), the longer this goes on, the more important it is that we should enforce these provisions. In cases of genuine hardship it is always possible to give special treatment, but as a general rule we ought to maintain this limit.

    Leasehold Reform
    Sir H. Lucas-Toothasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the introduction of the Leasehold Reform Bill has caused a heavy
    48
    depreciation in the value of property held subject to long leases, and that in cases where the owners of such property had died before the introduction of the Bill but whose executors have not yet been able to realise such property, an estate may be seriously prejudiced; and whether he will take steps to grant special relief in such special cases.
    Mr. MacDermot: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the Minister aware that it is grossly unfair to levy taxes on the basis of a valuation which the Government themselves have seriously depreciated? Cannot he give an undertaking that this matter will be dealt with?
    Mr. MacDermot: I can give an undertaking that the matter will be looked at, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot go further than that. There are arguments both ways on this.

ROADS

  Pedestrian Crossings and "Stop" Signs
  Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware of the considerable delay in approval being granted for all types of pedestrian crossings and "Stop" signs to be erected; and if she will devolve upon local authorities decisions on these local matters.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Applications for pedestrian crossings and "Stop" signs are dealt with as quickly as possible, but delay sometimes arises because of the need to obtain a good deal of detailed site information.
  Control over these measures was withdrawn from local authorities some years ago because zebra crossings and "Stop" signs had proliferated to a degree where their value was impaired. But we are watching the situation carefully and will consider whether the time is yet ripe for a change.
  Sir B. Janner: Will my hon. Friend realise that it is extremely important that this matter should be dealt with expeditiously? As the local authorities are in

  49
  a position to deal with other matters, why not this?
  Mr. Morris: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that these matters are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, but it is also important to decide on a national standard for the establishment of these sites. For that reason the procedures are dealt with as they are now.
  Mr. Webster: Can the Minister say what he considers is a reasonable time in this case?
  Mr. Morris: What is a reasonable time would vary according to the number of inquiries which have to be made. The police have to be consulted; the local authorities have to be consulted; statistics of traffic have to be obtained. In order to come to a right judgment all these matters have to be taken into account.
  Mr. Molloy: But this is the very point. As my hon. Friend said, the police have to be consulted. The local authorities do not consult themselves: the borough engineer does it as to 90 per cent, of what is done by the local authorities. Surely, in the interests of efficiency and reasonable speed not only in getting these matters put on the local statute book but introduced in practice, this responsibility should be given to the local authorities?
  Mr. Morris: I think that if my hon. Friend was listening to the Answer which I gave he must have heard me say that we were watching the situation carefully, and whether the time is right for a change, and also canvassing some of the problems my hon. Friend has mentioned. We want a speedy decision, but at the same time we want to avoid undue proliferation, which occurred some years ago.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether any application has been made by the Minister to answer Question No. 57?
  Mr. Speaker: I think the answer to the hon. Member is, no.

  ADEN (SERVICEMEN'S CHILDREN)
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for the reception of children of British Servicemen flown out to Aden for the Easter holidays.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): These children will be joining Service families who are already covered by security arrangements on the spot. There are about 3,000 children in Aden at the moment and the temporary addition of about 400 to that number will not add significantly to the security problem.
  While the decision whether or not to bring out their children must be for individual parents in the light of their individual circumstances, I think that they would be wise to take account of the High Commissioner's advice when reaching their decision.
  Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that although the children of British civilian families and those of Service families may live in very different conditions it is very bad indeed for the morale of the British community if the military authorities appear to be in public conflict with the advice given by the civil authorities? Surely he should do more than merely ask them to take the advice—but heed the advice—of the High Commissioner.
  Mr. Healey: With respect to my right hon. Friend, the High Commissioner was giving advice to civilian families, often living in insecure areas, but his advice was not that they should not have their children out, but to take the background of not and terrorism into account in considering whether they should have their children out there for Easter.
  Mr. Powell: Are we to take it, from the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the advice of the High Commissioner, that he is dissociating himself from the advice alleged to have been given by the Army commander, that so far as he is concerned there is no reason for Service families to alter any plans they may have made?
  Mr. Healey: No. The advice of the High Commissioner is absolutely clear to

  51
  the children of civilian families. These families are living in very different circumstances, some of them in very insecure areas, some in secure areas; for some it would not be easy to make alternative arrangements for their children in the United Kingdom at short notice; and some will have an early opportunity of seeing their children again, while others will not. I think that in the circumstances it is right to give the individual some right to decide what to do.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not downright foolish to send the children, in the first place, to such a danger area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that very deep concern is felt in this country over this matter?
  Mr. Healey: Yes, I am very well aware of the concern which is felt. It is always a difficult question, particularly when one is considering the morale of our forces, which, I am sure, we all have at heart, for the Government to decide that it is right that families should be interfered with, but we will, of course, keep the situation permanently under the most careful watch, and if it seems right to change the decisions we have taken so far we will change them.
  Mr. Goodhart: When the Secretary of State talks about secure and insecure areas would be consider telling the Service families what a secure area is? Would he say, for example, that Ma'alla, where so many Service families live, is secure?
  Mr. Healey: I am not prepared to say what is a secure area and what is not. It differs very much from one part of Aden to another, and even from one street to another.
  Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a difference of advice here? The High Commissioner's advice to the staff was against bringing out the children of civilian families, I take it; whereas the Army commander considers that so far as he is concerned no advice was needed. The Secretary of State has associated himself with the former. In that case, he is dissociating himself from the latter.
  Mr. Healey: No. With respect, that is a pedantic and totally unjustified remark.
  Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Army has accepted responsibility for the security of those who are its children, that it is highly important that we should not break up Service families when the parents are abroad, and that he should not allow himself to be "bounced" by these questions, or by the newspapers, into inter-ferring with this decision?
  Mr. Healey: I have no intention of allowing myself to be "bounced" by anybody. At the same time, the House must recognise that this is an extremely difficult and often a dangerous situation. The Government have a duty, as well as as a right, to keep it permanently under review, and at any time when it is right to do so to change the existing plans
  Lord Balniel: I accept this is a most difficult matter, but in view of the apparent divergence of advice from the civilian and the military authorities is not really urgent for the Government themselves to give as clear advice possible to the soldiers?
  Mr. Healey: With respect, there is: conflict of advice at all. The High Commissioner does not regularly get in touch with the British civilian residents there, to tell them what it is right that they should take into consideration. The G.O.C. often has, and does repeatedly. There is no conflict between their statements. I think that it is unjustifiable pedantry to assume that there is.

  MALTA
  The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): With permission, Sir, I should like to make a statement.
  We warmly welcome the statement issued by the Prime Minister of Malta yesterday evening.
  In this statement he said that, without withdrawing the objections that they have raised, the Malta Government have decided to let the revised British plan a; a whole go forward. He further stated to quote his own words, that
  "in the light of these considerations, the administrative restrictions imposed on the British forces will be withdrawn at once, and the Bill to amend the Visiting Forces Act will not be proceeded with."

  53
  Dr. Borg Olivier also stated that if it becomes evident that the hopes of an adequate expansion of employment are not likely to be realised, the Malta Government must then feel free to ask the British Government to review the position. We are, of course, always in close touch with the Malta Government.
  During my talks with the Prime Minister of Malta we agreed, subject to mutual acceptance of the package deal as a whole, that a Joint Mission should be appointed to report to both Governments on urgent steps to strengthen the industrial base in Malta and on measures for retraining and the creation of job opportunities. We also agreed to the appointment of a Joint Steering Committee to follow closely and report to both Governments on the progress achieved.
  We agreed that our two Governments would give serious consideration to the recommendations of both these bodies. I readily confirm that we would be ready to discuss such reports with the Government of Malta whenever they so wished.
  Like the Prime Minister of Malta, my right hon. Friend and I are glad that the danger of a tragic breach between Britain and Malta has been averted. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to the unbroken continuance of our longstanding and intimate relationship.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Heath: We are glad that a settlement has now been reached in the dispute between the two Governments, and pleased that the final proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put forward and the statement of the Prime Minister of Malta have made this possible. I am sure that the House and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman are also grateful for the part played in reaching a settlement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
  I asked last Friday whether the Secretary of State would take into account the anxieties expressed by the Government of Malta as to whether the recommendations of the Joint Mission could be put into effect sufficiently quickly so as to provide employment after the 18 months of the serious rundown began.
  The Prime Minister of Malta, in his statement, said that he claims the right to ask the Government to review the posi-
  54
  tion at that point. Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the British Government will give every request by the Prime Minister of Malta the most careful consideration?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I read in the newspapers about the action of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). If he played a part in helping to persuade Dr. Borg Olivier to come to the conclusion that he did, I am very grateful to him. His views have throughout been rather different from those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who expressed quite different views on Friday. I must say that, whatever part anyone has played in this, the decision was Dr. Borg Olivier's alone. He had to bear the burden and responsibility of it, and nothing should be done to detract from that.
  On the question of any approach to us by the Malta Government in 18 months or at any other time, in the light of the reports of the Joint Mission, we should, of course, be interested in anything that the Malta Government said to us and give the most serious consideration, as I said in my statement, to anything to which they drew our attention.
  Mr. Driberg: While reiterating today the tributes to my right hon. Friend which some of us paid to him on Friday in rather less happy circumstances, may I ask him one question? Did Dr. Borg Olivier at any time demand or insist that there should be no discharges until alternative jobs had been provided?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that now that we have reached a happy conclusion perhaps I should not make comments on what were detailed and private talks. Many things were said during the course of the talks, which, in one way and another, went on for about three weeks. I think that we had better leave it where it is.
  Mr. John Page: May I ask two questions? First, have any changes been made about the future of the Royal Malta Artillery since the talks began?
  Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman put in hand quickly a new appraisal of the dockyard dispute between Baileys and the other parties?
  I am certain that until this dispute is put on one side the dockyard cannot

  55
  make a full and proper contribution to the recovery of Malta's economy.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The rephased rundown involves keeping the Royal Malta Artillery in Malta for an extra two years.
  With regard to the dockyard, we made proposals which we think were realistic and, indeed, generous to Malta, but as litigation is pending between the Government and Bailey Bros. I think that I should not speak in any greater detail than that.
  Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not all of us are happy about the arrangements made with Malta? Is he further aware that Dr. Borg Olivier does not seem to have accepted anything? He said at London Airport at half-past two this afternoon that he did not quite accept all the British Government's proposals. Would my right hon. Friend tell the House, in the light of that statement, what the actual defence savings will be over the next eighteen months in question?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I have read reports on the tape about what Dr. Borg Olivier said. I prefer to rely upon what he said after great consideration in a written statement which he had the kindness to send to me before he published it.
  With regard to the basic saving in the rundown in Malta, the aim is to save about half the present cost of £12½ million per year, and we shall now achieve this after a period one year longer than under the earlier proposed rundown. In other words, it will be at the end of the fifth year instead of at the end of the fourth year.
  We shall also be saving about £15 million over the present rephased rundown compared with not running down at all. We shall, therefore, save even on the rundown that we shall be making. But the prime thing is that we reach our target no longer than one year later than was originally envisaged.
  Mr. Powell: What is the difference in the next financial year?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is very hard to work out sums like this. Say there had been a breakdown in the talks. The
  56
  amount of the stores that we had not got out, and which would have been left, the cost of rehousing the men here in a hurry, and so on, would have had to be put in. They are unknown things. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind a complete and sudden withdrawal of our forces.
  Mr. Powell: In accordance with the White Paper.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: In accordance with the original White Paper?
  Mr. Powell: The Defence White Paper Estimates.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It has cost us about £10 million of local expenditure as the cost of rephasing the rundown compared with the original proposal, but if we had had to do a withdrawal there would have been many other factors in the sum to be taken into account.
  Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the skill and patience with which he has conducted these negotiations have earned the gratitude of all who care for Malta? It has been a very good show.
  Mr. Fisher: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been less generous than he usually is? Would he not agree that it is very much more difficult to settle a problem when negotiations have already broken down than when they are still in progress?
  The decision by the Malta Prime Minister, which we all greatly welcome, owes a great deal to the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I have no reason to doubt that. If what I read in some of the newspapers this morning is true, certainly we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. But we should not express gratitude to him in such a way that we detract from the gratitude that we owe to Dr. Borg Olivier for a very difficult decision.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Because of the experience which my right hon. Friend has gained in the negotiations, and in view of the substantial sum which has been saved, will he hold himself in readiness to go to Singapore?
  Mr. James Griffiths: May I join in the tributes to my right hon. Friend for dealing with what all of us know has been a very difficult problem in Malta? I was a member of the Round Table Conference and know something about Malta's problems. May I ask whether the Joint Mission has any time limit set for its report? Will it consider, among other problems which will some day have to be faced, what level of population can be sustained in an economical and viable state in Malta?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. No one knows better than he does the problems and intricacies involved in conducting discussions of this kind.
  The Joint Mission will have very wide terms of reference. Nothing relevant to the way in which Malta can tackle its problems will be excluded. There will not be a time limit, but we expect the Mission to report fairly quickly. Then the subsequent work will be conducted by a continuing Steering Committee, which should consist of high officials from both sides. It is better to leave it flexible in this way.
  Sir W. Teeling: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Baileys. There is no doubt that nothing can be completely settled in Malta until we have got the Bailey question out of everything. Four years is surely a bit long. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether some agreement cannot be reached within the next few months? Otherwise, we shall get nowhere.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: We are aware of this and have gone into it in the most minute detail, but an agreement depends upon two people. Both need to move. I very much hope that some agreement can be reached. I do not want to say more than that.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: In bringing British forces home from the Far East, Aden, and possibly Germany, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government bear in mind that in the event of the Army finding difficulty, either with barracks or married quarters, they should give high priority to making full use of the existing facilities at Malta?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: This is more of a general defence question which should be directed to my right hon. Friend.
  Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman, both on Friday and today, has referred specifically to a package deal. Can he give an assurance today, in view of past misunderstandings—and I am being quite neutral—that the agreement, to which he has referred as a package deal, will be adhered to for its full duration, in the letter and spirit, whatever the change of economic circumstances here?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Certainly, on our part, and I have no doubt at all that it will also operate on the part of the Government of Malta. The whole situation is perfectly clear to both sides.
  Mr. Dickens: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
  "the terms of the revised defence reductions proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Malta Government and their implications."
  I will be very brief in giving you my cogent reasons for this request, Mr. Speaker. They are, first, that Dr. Borg Olivier's acceptance of the British Government's proposals is ambiguous and should be further clarified. Secondly, the revised terms involve the Government in needless additional defence spending, amounting to about £10 million, in Malta over the next four years—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not argue the merits of what he seeks to raise.
  Mr. Dickens: I will try to avoid doing so, Mr. Speaker. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend has given the House no indication of any equivalent Maltese concessions for mobilising their own considerable private resources on the island. Fourthly, there are wider implications affecting our overseas defence policy in Singapore and Aden, which will be greatly handicapped by these concessions made by my right hon. Friend.
  Finally, I need scarcely say that before taking this step I have given the matter the most serious consideration. I take this action from the most sincere motives, as I believe that this settlement is not

  59
  a fair one for this country or ultimately for Malta.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
  "the terms of the revised defence reductions proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Malta Government and their implications."
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, for having informed me this morning that he might seek to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9, after he had heard the statement. Even on the most generous interpretation of Standing Order No. 9, I do not think that the situation now qualifies as being, in the words of one of my predecessors, "… an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or foreign affairs".
  I do not think therefore, that I can allow the application.

  SINGLE WOMEN (DEPENDENT RELATIVES)
  3.54 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West): I beg to move,
  That this House notes the burden of maintaining dependent relatives, usually elderly parents, borne by thousands of single women, and that in carrying out a filial duty the daughter is performing a service which otherwise would have to be undertaken by social security and public welfare services; that this frequently involves many years of financial and physical strain; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action to lighten these burdens by providing new social security benefits, and urges welfare and housing authorities locally to assist single women in this situation with such help that they can go on caring for their relatives at home without undue stress.
  It is a matter of great good fortune to me to be selected first for the third time in two years in the Private Members' Ballot. On the last occasion I moved a Motion relating to the needs of mentally handicapped children, and today I have the pleasure of moving a Motion relating to the needs of another small group in our society who are often forgotten. It is a good thing that in this House we should remember those small groups in our society whose social needs are so often neglected.
  Today in social security we face the break-up of many of the old considerations relating to the Poor Law. I am reminded of the Minority Report to the 1909 Commission on the Poor Law which advocated the break-up of the Poor Law and the substitution of a system whereby individual necessitous groups in society ought to have their need considered in their own right. This is one of those groups. Society today is more and more identifying special categories of need.
  There is another point relative to this consideration, and that is the changing nature of the population. One hundred years ago it might have been said that one of the most necessitous groups in our society were children in need of care, and particularly orphans. I have in mind the fact that in 1857, in the Liverpool Workhouse, the largest single group was of 1,000 orphans. That situation has changed and we now face a society in which children are cared for but where old and ageing people are not

  61
  cared for as well as they should be. This is particularly relevant to this Motion.
  There is another general consideration, too, and that is the status of women. The first public speech that I ever made was over 40 years ago on the need for equal pay for women.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hamling: That was before my hon. Friend was born.
  Today, we carry on the struggle for women's rights. This is a continuous struggle. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has left the Chamber. Her mother was one of the pioneers in my home town in this sphere of women's rights. Today's debate is part of this struggle for women's rights in a man's world. How often a woman's career is sacrificed because there is a family to be cared for, and it falls to the daughter to do it and not the son.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security knows about this from personal experience. We in this country have a pattern of family life very different from that of peasant communities with extended families where the care of old people is part and parcel of the ordinary day-to-day family life. In the English family the young leave home, leaving the caring of the elderly to others, either to the State or perhaps with a sister who does not get married.
  This bears very heavily upon women, particularly professional women, because a great many of these women have to continue with their jobs, very often at salaries inferior to those of their male colleagues, and at the same time have to look after a house and an ageing relative. They have two jobs for the price of one. A great many working-class women do this, and I would say that very often the financial sacrifice and financial hardship is greater than that of the professional woman.
  Many women work for very low wages. I understand that the average wage for women is £9 2s., which is very inferior to that paid to men. They have to cope with this low income, and they have no money to spare. They are living in poverty, the kind of concealed poverty about which a great many people have become agitated recently.
  62
  I have to declare an interest in the debate in that I am a member of the committee of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. The National Council has drawn considerable attention to these needs since its foundation a short time ago. It began its work largely as the result of a survey of the co-operative estate, the Progress Estate, in my constituency in Eltham, in June 1964. It set out to discover the number of single women living either alone or with dependent relatives. Out of 1,100 families contacted, there were 100 single women, 83 of whom were interviewed. Of these, 65 lived either with one or more relatives or with a friend, and 18 lived alone. Even among those who lived alone, 14 had at some time or other looked after one or more relatives. I think it right to say that the people who conducted the survey were surprised at the large number of women who had to look after relatives or had at some time or other had to do so and who were themselves single.
  The National Council is here blazing the trail for the statutory authorities. Those of us with experience of the social services know how common it is for a private organisation to carry out social experiments and to find the facts, so that the statutory authorities can later on come in and help, in co-operation with the private charity or even on their own.
  There was another survey in my constituency last year, in New Eltham. This was a general social survey, but one of the facts discovered in an area covering about 11,000 people was the very large number of people living isolated lives. Thirty-five per cent, of the sample covered in the survey experienced some degree of isolation. This is part of a pattern which confirms that the extended family is always the first line of defence in time of difficulty.
  In the older working-class areas of this country we still have the extended family, but it is noteworthy that the extended family is disappearing. The older working-class areas are being broken up. Families are being broken up, as Peter Town send discovered in east London. It has been a familiar occurence in my home town of Liverpool for many years. In the London suburbs there is an enormous amount of isolation. It is all part and parcel of the problem of caring for

  63
  elderly people, and it underlines the responsibility which so many single women bear.
  What are the facts of dependence? In 1965, the National Council identified about 13,000 people who received National Assistance because they had to stay at home to care for sick or elderly relatives. Most of those 13,000 were women, and most of them were single. There was a sample inquiry in November, 1964, which showed that over 10,000 of the 12,000 discovered by the sample were single women. Over 5,000 of them were between the ages of 50 and 60, 3,500 between 40 and 50, and 1,500 between 30 and 40. We see, therefore, that there are many elderly single women looking after even more elderly people. To my mind, this connotes a double social problem. Very often, the people who are doing the caring will themselves very soon need care. At that time, over 3,550 single women had been in receipt of National Assistance for five years or more because they stayed at home to look after a sick or elderly relative or relatives.
  There is also the caring in human terms. There is the permanence of the responsibility. There is no let-up. There are no holidays, no eight-hour day, no five-day week. There is the sacrifice of friends, the sacrifice of independence, very often the sacrifice of marriage prospects. We talk about filial duty, but we should not batten on the filial duty of a few.
  There is the length of time in years during which the care is undertaken. Some of the elderly relatives live until they are 80 or 90, and they may have to be cared for over a period of 40 or 50 years. Many of the relatives to be cared for are muddled in their minds, they are sick, they are incontinent, they are crotchety, they are difficult, they are impossible.
  Dame Joan Vickers: They are human.
  Mr. Hamling: Yes, they are human, and that is why they are cared for. But they are still difficult. I should hesitate to lecture other people on their filial duty in this sort of circumstance.
  There are the financial burdens, too. There is the extra cost of fuel, the cost
  64
  of light, the cost of extra food, and all against a background of low incomes. The consequence is that the single woman doing the caring is very often not looking after herself properly. She is suffering from poor nutrition, which may well lead to bad health in her.
  What needs to be done? I shall not today say anything about Income Tax allowances, although I regard this as a promising subject for discussion on another occasion. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for that. I shall speak about changes in the social security system. There is a constant review taking place, and in the last two years my right hon. Friend has brought forward many useful reforms. It is a continuing review, and we very much hope that in the next few months or in the next year or two we shall have more reforms, and in this field as well. When the Beveridge Report was being considered, we all thought that the new scheme would be comprehensive. We used the phrase "from the cradle to the grave" to cover all sorts of eventualities.
  We now know that the Beveridge system was incomplete. There is a need for elderly, infirm or sick people to have more than a basic pension, because of their special health needs and their special social needs. There is also the need for single women to have an income of their own when they are asked to give up work in order to look after a dependent relative. They should not be dependent on the mother or father or any other relative. Very often, when this happens, they are still treated as children. It so often happens that there is a suspicion on the part of the parents that those caring for them are "spending my money". The single woman should have an income of her own. There is always the fear in the elderly that they will lose all their money. This is endemic in the state of growing old.
  The National Council has suggested that a continuous attendance allowance should be granted to single women doing this sort of social service. I call it a social service because they are, very often, doing a job for the community. If they were not doing it, it would fall on the statutory authorities, and the burden of caring might then be far more expensive than it ever is when a single woman cares. We have suggested that

  65
  £5 might be a reasonable figure. Everyone knows, however, that when elderly people go into homes or into hospital it costs a great deal more than £5 a week to keep them. The single women in this case are taking on a job which otherwise the community would have to do.
  We suggest that the continuous attendance allowance should be paid to the daughter and not to the relative who is being cared for. I know that under the industrial injuries scheme a continuous attendance allowance is paid to the person who is actually dependent. There is a difference here for the reason which I have stated. We would be paying the daughter for her care, especially if she gave up her job.
  Another point in that connection concerns the insurance stamp. When a single woman gives up work, very often she no longer pays the stamp. This means that when she herself becomes of pensionable age she has sacrificed her insurance rights; because she is carrying out a devoted task, she is penalising herself later. This is certainly something which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider.
  There are also the social needs on which I want to spend a few minutes. There is a need for special care to help women to keep relatives at home and not send them away to institutions. There is so often a deterioration when elderly relatives go into hospital or into a home, when they think that they are forgotten or have been cast aside. There is a physical and a mental deterioration. That is why we want to encourage people to keep their elderly relatives at home.
  There is a need to relate this care by single women to the geriatric services in the local neighbourhood. There is a need to assist single women with home helps and the district nursing services. There is a need so often to provide an incontinent sheet service to help the single woman with the burden of laundry. Then there is the need to give the single woman a little time off now and again. In Eltham this was provided by the National Council when it organised a holiday for many of these dependent relatives so that the single women could get a holiday themselves.
  There is a need for the housing authorities to provide sheltered housing schemes. I am aware that this is not the
  66
  responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, but it will be seen, if the House looks at the Motion, that not only do we expect my right hon. Friend to accept her responsibilities but we also urge other welfare services outside to consider what responsibilities they have in this field. Local housing authorities can assist by providing schemes for sheltered housing for single women—for example, two-bedroom flats with, perhaps, a resident caretaker or somebody near at hand who can go in when the single woman is away at work.
  Some people might think that this is not a very large problem—what are 13,000 people when viewed against some of the other problems—but I suggest that a great many other people who are doing this sort of work in our society have so far not been discovered. It may be that there is a need for somebody—I am not sure who—to carry out some sort of inquiry to find out just how big is the nature of this problem. I said earlier that these women are very often forgotten. I am very glad to think that this House today is not forgetting them.
  4.15 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), not only on being so lucky in the Ballot but on his excellent choice of subject and the very sympathetic way in which he put forward his Motion. I should also like to thank the Minister for being present this afternoon, because I know that she has experience of caring for people and therefore she is particularly understanding towards this subject.
  We might say that this is pioneer work which has been going on for only a comparatively short time. I should like to pay tribute to the Rev. Mary Webster, who founded the organisation which was started in the hon. Member's constituency but which has now spread throughout the country and now includes, I am glad to say, a branch in my constituency. If the Minister had had the opportunity, which some of us had last week, to attend the annual general meeting of the organisation in the Grand Committee Room, she would have been gratified to find that that room was more than filled with

  67
  people who really are worried about this subject and are interested in the problem.
  The approach by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West was, I thought, just the right way to get sympathy and to highlight the problem. He said that too little was known about the subject and that only 13,000 people are known to be affected. This debate today does highlight the problem and will bring it to the attention of many more people. As the Minister is always trying to find those who are in need, I hope that as a result of this debate those in need in this category will now know that such an organisation exists to help them.
  A reason why the Minister should welcome this debate is that so often when Motions are presented they call for the expenditure of further money, whereas the Motion this afternoon could represent a real saving. As the right hon. Lady knows, the cost of local authority homes and sending people to hospital is infinitely more than that of keeping people in their own homes, which has the added advantage of helping to maintain family life. Although we may not have the same splendid family support that we used to have, we in this country still value family life.
  Chaucer said:
  "What is bettre than wisdom? Womman. And what is bettre than a good womman? No-thing."
  Thackeray said:
  "When I say that I know women, I mean I know that I don't know them. Every single woman I ever knew is a puzzle to me, as, I have no doubt, she is to herself."
  We understand why many women are single—not only because of the First World War, but because many of them, from the very early age of 16 or even younger, have decided to devote themselves to a single relative, perhaps to help in some way their widowed mother or sometimes to keep house for their father.
  Washington Irving, who had an understanding of women, said that
  "A woman's whole existence is a history of the affections."
  This debate today shows a real history of affection among these many women who care for their elderly loved ones.
  This whole situation, however, is likely to be only a passing problem, lasting,
  68
  perhaps, only another 25 years or so, because the single woman is a dying race. The Registrar-General has said that by 1993 there will be 1,700,000 more men than women of working age. We shall not, therefore, have the women to undertake this work in the more distant future. I should have thought that it was advantageous now to spend any money we could in helping such people look after their relatives rather than building special accommodation.
  I have received a letter from a constituent of mine which sets out some of the problems and indicates how little they are realised and what little help can be obtained from the Welfare State. Part of that letter reads:
  "My mother is senile, immobile, deaf, almost blind, and extremely incontinent. My dear father is very ill indeed with heart trouble, high blood pressure, hardening arteries, and complete physical exhaustion. The doctor has been to see him today and said he is 'a very sick man', and that ' it won't be long'. He admits that he is a hospital case, but says he cannot take him in because he ' hasn't got a bed'. My dear father collapsed a week ago, and nobody has even been sent to wash him yet. He is a very heavy man ",
  and she goes on to say that she cannot move him herself because she is incapacitated.
  That woman gave up a good job in London and took a job at £5 less a week in order to be near her aged parents and to look after them. Until the organisation which I have mentioned was started, she had no idea that she could get any sort of home help. I am glad to say that I have been able to be of some assistance, and, thanks to this organisation, she now has home help. She had been told that because she was a daughter residing at home, and as she lived in a separate flat, she was not eligible. I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would contact her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and ask him to send a circular to local authorities to make sure that they see that everyone knows of the facilities which are available, because there is often considerable discrimination against single women.
  I wish to support what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said about a constant care allowance. It is already given to other categories of the industrially disabled, and I should have thought that it was quite a reasonable

  69
  request. It is not given at the moment, and it would be of tremendous help.
  The society to which I have referred has also had a gift from a charity to undertake further research, which means that the Ministry will not have to undertake the work to the extent which it might have had to do. When such an organisation tries to undertake research itself, not only does it show the great efforts which it wishes to make and the fact that it is recognised by a charity that such work is necessary, but it also shows that there are still independent people who do not rely on the Welfare State to start such services.
  There is also the problem that older people themselves are living longer. They need more nourishment and particularly more heating. I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady could say how far her officers have complete freedom to judge for themselves how much extra money they can give to keep such people with comfort in their own homes. I am thinking particularly of two elderly people who, because of their physical disabilities, are forced to live in two different rooms. They both need heating and lighting. Can the right hon. Lady ensure that each one is dealt with as a separate individual and given adequate heating for their individual needs and not necessarily for their combined needs, as is so often done at present?
  I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not mention Income Tax. I gather, therefore, that it would not be in order for me to refer to it. However, there is the question of a housekeeper's allowance, particularly in the case of a non-resident housekeeper, because there is not always sufficient room for a resident housekeeper in certain homes.
  We are particularly anxious that home helps should be allowed to be paid for, as and when they can be found, and paid for to allow individual single women to go away for holidays. It was stressed at the meeting the other day that very often the elderly people themselves do not want to go away because they have become used to their surroundings, but it is essential that the individuals looking after them should have the chance of a holiday of some kind. Therefore if it were possible, either through local councils, the Guilds of Social Services or the Red Cross, for arrangements to be made for
  70
  someone to go into such a family for, say, a fortnight every year, this would be a tremendous advantage. At present, that is being done for the disabled in quite large measure. In the Plymouth area we have a country home for the disabled where they can go while those who care for them get a rest. We should like to see a similar organisation for single women.
  In supporting the hon. Member for Woolwich, West in the very adequate speech which he made, I would say that the evidence has been forthcoming in just over one year of pioneer work, and it is not just a localised problem in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, but the work has spread throughout the country, as was seen at the recent annual general meeting.
  The general need has been found, and if we are to give some support to the aims of this body, the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, I hope that action will be taken quickly, because it is a need which may gradually die out. It may be that in future men and women will be looking after the elderly, because there will not be the single women available to do this job.
  If the right hon. Lady will see that additional allowances can be granted to make life easier for the people whom we are discussing she will do a really great service for the community.
  4.26 p.m.
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I welcome this Motion dealing with the plight of a certain section of women in the community, first of all, because it was moved by a man. In that way my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is a rare and unique type of man to involve himself in the isolated problems of single women.
  As we are endeavouring to point out in this debate, this is a much more general problem than is realised by most hon. Members. There cannot be many hon. Members who have not had correspondence from single women with dependent relatives seeking to find out what they can possibly do about their situation, and every hon. Member who goes on house-to-house canvassing is bound to come across these cases in his visits.
  It is only recently that some sort of body has been created to represent the

  71
  views of these neglected women. It is a new body, but it is one which is rapidly growing. The fact that it has been so successful in its first few months indicates the real need that there was for such an organisation.
  I was glad to note that my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening sentences the basic economic discrimination against women in the fact that they are not paid the rate for the job. Only 10 per cent, of women working today receive equal pay with men for doing the same work. Single women with dependent relatives are among the 90 per cent, of women who are discriminated against, when they have the same financial commitments as a married man. But how often does one hear a presumably intelligent man saying, "Surely single women do not have dependants"? That is the stock excuse for not giving women equal pay. We hope to explode this myth in today's debate.
  It is always assumed that women are kept by their husbands or, if they are not married, are independent career women with only themselves to think about. Completely overlooked are widows with young children, unmarried mothers and single women with dependants. These women are working at a cut price and are being exploited at their work.
  There is a false picture of a career woman as someone who is independent and carefree, often earning a large professional salary and with only herself on which to spend it. The fact is that the number of women earning over £1,000 a year is only 5·1 per cent, of those making an Income Tax return. The average net income for women is between £200 and £550 a year. This is simply not enough on which to support dependent relatives. I would urge the Government, through my right hon. Friend, yet again to introduce urgently legislation granting equal pay for women, because this is not a privilege but a right. Even a single measure such as has been mentioned, extending the housekeeping allowance for women, which now includes widows and divorcees, would go a long way toward relieving the burden on these women.
  There should never be any question of their having to rely on charity for support. As the terms of the Motion clearly state, these women are
  72
  "… performing a service which otherwise would have to be undertaken by social security and public welfare services …"
  The Government have a clear responsibility towards them. Their social problems are just as innumerable and insuperable as are their financial ones. We have to remember that "dependent relatives does not necessarily always mean parents. It could mean physically or mentally sick or handicapped brothers or sisters.
  In every case it is so often an unmarried daughter upon whose shoulders the burden rests. As a practising doctor I have met horrifying cases where it is the daughter who is left to carry the burden while a married son, with his family, is living only in the next town. Usually, he never comes to visit his parents or brother or sister who are dependent on the daughter, though he might come at Christmas time. It is very interesting that if there is a death in the house a whole shoal of relatives suddenly appear from all corners of Britain and even the world, people from whom one has not heard for months and years, and who have never offered to help.
  These people justify their behaviour by saying, "Oh, the daughter is best suited to take care of the parents, or brother or sister. After all, she has no ties. She has no qualifications to do any particular job of work. What else is there for her to do? How will she spend her time?" Often an aged parent rationalises in this way and says, "Well, I am giving my daughter a home", and feels no guilt that he or she is keeping the daughter housebound. Parents selfishly exploit their unmarried daughter, often without realising it. Very often the daughter is treated like a child for the whole of her adult life. She becomes submissive and resigned to her fate, and reaches the stage when she never expects to have a full life.
  There are thousands of these women all over the country. As has been pointed out, to deal with a demanding, temperamental or obsessional person, as many of us will become when we get old, is an even greater burden than dealing with somebody of ordinary middle age or dealing with a young person. We do not know how many of these women there are. A doctor sees only the women who are looking after sick relatives. He

  73
  does not see the ones who are looking after fit elderly relatives. The National Assistance Board sees only those in grave financial difficulties. The problem very often is being fought out behind closed doors, because a single woman has her pride which prevents her from seeking help. She feels that she is morally obliged to do what she is doing.
  We know that 10 per cent, of women over the age of 40 are single, that 10 per cent, of women in Britain are unmarried. But these are only estimates, and the Government have a duty to obtain statistics un this matter. The problem will increase and not decrease. We shall all live far longer than did our parents or our grandparents. Women live longer than men, but I will not go into the reasons for that. Medical authorities are discovering ways of keeping us alive longer. The tragic thing is that final illnesses, instead of lasting weeks, are now lasting months or years due to the new drugs that are being discovered. It has been shown that women have a greater tendency to chronic ill-health than men. Old men are either very well or very ill. Women, when they are old, very often seem to stagger on as chronic invalids.
  There is the increasing cost of domestic help. The wife of any hon. Member who has tried to obtain domestic help, resident or daily, knows that it is a battle. Domestic help is not something that one can find automatically, and one has to pay far more for this valuable form of labour.
  The Ministry of Health will not help the situation. In my constituency of Halifax the Minister told us that he could see no immediate prospect of a large increase in the number of geriatric beds to cope with the increase in the elderly populations. He wants to encourage old people to be cared for at home rather than in hospital. That is a very worthy aim, but we know that there is a chronic shortage of home help, of district nurses, and, particularly in Halifax, of family doctors.
  The burden will fall on these people and on single women, who will be asked to nurse their relatives at home. As any doctor knows, the chances of getting a sick elderly patient admitted permanently to a geriatric bed or into an old people's home is extremely difficult if there is, living with that person, a daughter who
  74
  is capable of caring for the patient. The immediate priority, quite naturally, is for old people who live alone. It is always assumed that somehow the daughter will cope.
  We have a picture of these women who during the day are wage-earners and in the early morning and the evening fulfil the multiple rôles of unpaid nurse, domestic help, and companion, often with interrupted sleep at night. This leads to mental stress and anxiety and often to a breakdown of their own physical health. They do not meet people of their own age. They are pursued by a fear that they will not be able to keep up their strength to cope with their job, and at the same time they wonder what will become of them when they too grow old.
  This type of woman often faces a lonely future. Who will care for her? With whom will she be able to live? What money will she be able to draw on in her turn? Her feeling of filial duty keeps her at her job, and until the organisation which has been mentioned was set up she did not expect help and never asked for any. It is for us, as Members of Parliament, to ask on her behalf.
  One thing which can perhaps be done is to set up some sort of organisation to allow these single women more free time and possibly the prospect of a holiday. I knew one woman who had not had a holiday for 15 years. The reasons given were varied—that the dependent relative did not wish to be left, lack of money, anxiety on her part about leaving the relative, or inability to find anyone to look after the relative.
  Perhaps it will be possible to arrange holiday homes for the relatives to stay at together with their daughters, or a relief service, or even a sitting-in service rather akin to a baby-sitting service. After all, many of these people are in their second childhood. We should provide something to make it possible for the daughter of the house to go out for the evening or to take a holiday.
  I think that we have shown that this problem is a Government responsibility, both financially and socially. It involves the Ministry of Social Security, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They cannot work in isolation. I hope that they

  75
  will take the example set to them by my political neighbour the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and co-ordinator of the social services, took this problem very much to heart and was extremely sympathetic. Above all, co-ordination between the Ministries involved is needed to deal with the problems which we have outlined.
  4.41 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on having put this Motion on the Order Paper. I congratulate him, too, on the many years of hard work which he has put into supporting the Rev. Mary Webster and her gallant body of voluntary workers in trying to bring to the notice of the House of Commons, the appropriate Ministers, and the country, the issues which he has so ably covered in his Motion.
  Perhaps I might, with respect, say a few words to the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), whose very sympathetic and knowledgeable speech I enjoyed very much. She spoke as though this association for single women with dependants had just been created. The hon. Lady is wrong about that, because this association which was started by the Rev. Mary Webster, certainly five years ago, is not a new concept or a new organisation.
  The problem is that a woman of the Rev. Mary Webster's capacity, knowledge and human sympathy has taken a o very long time to build up a general interest in the problems which she has been bringing forward, and I should like, in my opening remarks—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, who has so ardently and consistently supported her would agree with me—to say that it was the Rev. Mary Webster who saw the problem in its entirety and started in Woolwich and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, together with a remarkable band of voluntary workers, to create this organisation with a view to doing what could be done—as has been pointed out by the three hon. Members who preceded me—to find a way of helping the single women who undertake the very heavy and
  76
  arduous work of looking after their relatives.
  I am very proud to say that I interested myself in this organisation from the very beginning, partly because I went to a meeting which was arranged and organised by the Royal College of Nursing, and heard the Rev. Mary Webster putting the case. Of course, she was putting the case to interest the nursing profession in the problem which we are discussing. I then got in touch with her. I heard of the remarkable help which was being given by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, and from the beginning I have watched the growth of what has been done. I hope that one day the initial work and inspiration of the Rev. Mary Webster will be suitably acknowledged.
  I am very glad to see the right hon. Lady the Minister here, because I agree that she will take a tremendous interest in this whole problem because of her knowledge of it. I was very sorry indeed that I could not accompany the deputation from the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants which the right hon. Lady graciously received one day last week, but I agree with everything that has been said, with all the points of view which have been put forward, with all the different angles which have been brought to light, and with what has been said about all the different Ministries which can become involved. But I am bound to say to the right hon. Lady—and I do not think that she will disagree with me—that she has to fight the battle with the Treasury, because although it is true that vast expenditure is not involved in the Motion, in certain directions the right hon. Lady, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will all be involved.
  I am tremendously proud that I took the first deputation which was organised through this very important voluntary organisation to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, at that time, happened to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Conservative Party, which I am always honoured to serve. I tried to be very realistic. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has great charm, listened with tremendous interest to all that was said by the Rev. Mary Webster

  77
  and those who were supporting her on the deputation. When he had listened to everything, he said—and I think that this almost sets the seal on what has been said this afternoon—" All these issues which have been raised are issues which I have never had put to me before".
  I am not in the least surprised that my right hon. Friend had not heard about this before, because when I try to sum up the machinery of government I realise only too well—and I say this with great regret—that the kind of problems which are being discussed here this afternoon are always at the bottom of the priorities of any Government Department, except the Government Department over which the right hon. Lady presides. Certainly, when the Minister of Health produces what he requires at Cabinet level, when the Minister of Housing and Local Government produces what he requires, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is being pressed by various Ministers, this matter is at the bottom of the list. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like his Conservative predecessor, has never had to face these problems, because until the Rev. Mary Webster started her campaign there was not a co-ordinating body to argue with the Chancellor.
  This is a great weakness of government. It was a great weakness when my party was in power and it is a great weakness now. I suspect that in spite of the advocacy which the right hon. Lady will put forward this problem will find very few supporters when it comes to arguing about money at Cabinet level. It is, therefore, tremendously important that we should debate the matter now. It is slightly more difficult for a Government—whatever their political complexion—to dismiss the problems involved in a Motion once it has reached the stage of discussion on the Floor of the House and the Ministers concerned are faced with the problem of what they are going to do.
  Sometimes the question of departmental responsibility almost drives me mad. I agree with the hon. Member for Halifax that the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was 100 per cent, behind the suggestion being put forward today. Various deputations appeared before him. but he no longer has a position of responsibility, and I doubt whether the new
  78
  Minister has the same interest in this matter. His interests have been widened, and he has other responsibilities, whereas the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was able to concentrate on these problems. I am sick of the repeated answers given by the Government Front Bench about the everlasting review of the situation.
  We should not have to go on reviewing these matters when the ordinary backbencher knows that there is no need to do so. The issues that require solving are there to be solved. We do not need any more reviews. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not be forced into saying that this matter is under close and continuous review. We almost need a new dictionary to discover what the word "continuous" means in relation to Parliamentary procedure.
  As the right hon. Lady knows, the allocation of houses and the building of homes to accommodate families is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The housing shortage continues, in spite of the tremendous efforts made by all Governments. Sometimes, when a single woman is responsible merely for a mother or sister, and that single woman is working to support her relative, a local authority nevertheless will not allocate a house with two bedrooms. In the case of the single woman who is doing all she can to help her dependent relative by working, the Minister of housing should see that local authorities are given more guidance.
  Ministers should be more emphatic, and should see that elderly relatives are not required to share a bedroom with a single woman who are caring for them. I want to see a common policy adopted throughout the country, so that when people reach a certain age and are being maintained or looked after by single daughters, local authorities will provide them with rooms of their own.
  As for home helps, much depends on how many can be recruited. There is a great difference between areas. Some areas have lots of home helps to carry out the necessary work, while others have very few. We have never been told the make-up of the various areas. This problem requires careful consideration.
  I remember a single woman living in my constituency whose mother, by all accounts, should have gone to a mental

  79
  home. Her daughter was determined never to let her mother go there—and we can all admire such a woman. The daughter had a very good and reasonably highly-paid job, and she had also managed to accumulate a lot of savings over the years. As soon as she gave up her job to devote her life to her mother she had to draw on her savings to keep herself up to date in her stamped contributions, so as to be eligible for pension.
  One problem in social security concerns people who do not pay stamps because their incomes are too low. Many single women come into that category, and they present a great problem, in terms of making arrangements for their future lives.
  These are the problems which need examining. I realise the difficulty. In a large, overall scheme, there is little room for exceptions. This is a problem of a section of the community. In terms of overall departmental responsibility, it is difficult to find room for exceptions. This is what the Motion is about. We are trying to find how, in justice and humanity, we can find a place for those who do not conveniently fall into the categories which have already been laid down by Acts of Parliament.
  Taxation reliefs can be given and money found for constant attendance allowances, which is an important matter, but perhaps one on which we must approach the Chancellor. However, during all the years that I have been in the House of Commons and have taken part in debates on various forms of a new Clause—when we can persuade Mr. Speaker to call it—to deal not only with the special taxation reliefs for widowers and widows, but also for single women and bachelors with responsibilities which they try to meet, the argument against it has always been on the basis of money expenditure.
  But—this ought to appeal to the right hon. Lady—it does not matter how much money a widow or widower may have, he or she can still get taxation relief for a resident housekeeper. We have never been able to persuade any Government—I can hit both parties on the head—that this is not justice. I remember—
  Mr. J. T. Price: I will be very happy to reinforce what the hon.
  80
  Lady is saying, because I have, a number of times, made this same plea to Governments of both parties, who have always had a blind spot on it. Therefore, I support what she says about taxation reliefs.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful for that. I hope that, as a result at least of this debate, this kind of justice in our taxation system will be introduced in the Finance Bill which follows the Budget on 11th April.
  I remember also talking to a Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Coalition Government—Sir John Anderson, who became Lord Waverley. His explanation was that, at some time, this provision for widowers and widows had somehow slipped into a Finance Bill without anyone knowing and that, therefore, the Government would not extend it because it ought never to have been there.
  That, of course, is no argument. I should like the right hon. Lady to give me an assurance—if she can do so without transgressing on another Department's responsibility—that, when the next Finance Bill comes forward, she will have an argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, using all her charm, to persuade him to put at least this injustice right.
  I was delighted that the hon. Member for Halifax made the point that this Motion was introduced by a man. Men are very susceptible if one can get at them. The trouble is, one never can. We can see an example of that today when there are so few Members here; they rush out because they are terrified of being involved in something which they do not understand. I therefore hope that there will be a real result from the Motion, which I wholeheartedly support, for the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, organised by the Rev. Mary Webster with support of all parties and all types. This is a growing need in the country today.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) is wrong in her view that, because we are males, we take no interest in a subject of this kind. This is a quite unfounded allegation. I have been interested in this for many years—
  Dr. Summerskill: I pointed out that males who do take an interest are unique and rare; my hon. Friend falls into that category.
  Mr. Wilkins: That is the first time that I have been called unique or rare, but I am delighted to hear it from my hon. Friend.
  I want to state a further case of even greater hardship than either of the instances cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), to whose speech I listened with such interest and attention that I was reluctant to intervene at that time. He referred constantly to single women, as have almost all hon. Members except the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
  I speak from personal experience of a case which is in my hands at the moment and with which I am immediately concerned. This type of case can be even harder than anything mentioned this afternoon.
  This prompts me to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that, if she had been in the House longer, she would have known that we used to badger my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on every Budget about this, because we thought that something could be done in the Budget about it. Perhaps we may have a chance in the discussions on this year's Finance Bill.
  The case I wish to describe is of a married daughter of aged parents who has been left a widow with a house on which the mortgage is almost, but not quite, completed. There is therefore both the attraction and the necessity for her, as a widow, to try to retain this property and liquidate the mortgage. Her aged parents, who are both over 80, with one unfortunately becoming senile and "mental" though not "mental" enough to be put in an institution, were physically incapable of looking after themselves and the doctor said that they should live with their daughter. She is ready to have them and indeed now has them in her own house.
  However, this, of course, involves her in tremendous financial difficulty, because a part of her aged parents' pension must be used to maintain, at least for the time being, the property from
  82
  which they moved. They cannot just dispose of a property out of hand. It is not known what will happen or whether they will recover and be able to go back. At the same time, the daughter wants to maintain her own house.
  The hardship arises because she is a widow of over 50 and does evening work to help meet her expenses. But she can no longer do this and the time is bound to come when this employment will cease. I do not know what the answer to this is. I simply pose it as one of those problem cases which one might ask to be considered to see whether any help can possibly be given. If help cannot be given by the Ministry to a person in this situation, I suggest that my right hon. Friend ought to "get at" the Treasury to see what they can do, either by way of taxation relief or by some other means, so that these people might at least have some financial help towards doing an extremely difficult job.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), I am not in the least surprised at the warm concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) for single women and their relatives. I know him to be—if I might use a slightly un-Parliamentary term—an absolute lamb. He is just the sort of hon. Member who would be concerned for this section of the community.
  If I feel at all inhibited in discussing the Motion, it is because we should be stressing the positive side of the problem. The Welfare State throws a wide net over our people. However, the net has a wide mesh and many people fall through it. The woman who looks after a sick relative or a relative whose health is deteriorating has a great many problems to face. She receives the assistance of the district nurse, but the most sympathetic district nurse, while being able to deal with the medical care of the patient, cannot give assistance which should be given by the taxation authorities. A woman who is looking after an incapacitated relative is really often doing two full-time jobs at once. This aspect of the problem should be concerning us. In other words, we should be anxious to keep single women in jobs because we

  83
  should be concerned about what happens to them when the relatives for whom they are caring die.
  Under the Welfare State an extraordinarily large sum is paid out for people in geriatric units who would be happier in their own homes if they received domiciliary help. We do not concern ourselves sufficiently with the single woman who gives up her job to look after her parents and finds, after many years of taking care of them, that she has no work, no immediate family and many problems. This aspect should be concerning us as much as the problem of looking after the patient.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will give due consideration to this point because if this matter were handled properly the State would be saved a great deal of money. Ever-increasing sums are paid under the National Health Service for the care of geriatric patients. We should be sympathetic to the idea of giving considerable grants to enable single women to keep their jobs, to be able to pay people to do the domestic work involved —there should be laundry units, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West pointed out—and so that they can carry on with their practical work.
  The sort of women about whom I am concerned are often those with a highly developed sense of duty and, therefore, are probably doing important jobs like nursing and teaching. I hope that, in considering the terms of the Motion, my right hon. Friend will accept that there are too many arbitrary lines already drawn in the welfare services. We already say that the National Health Service requires a certain amount of money and that the local authority welfare services should be given a certain amount in grant, but there is not sufficient flexibility in the way in which this money is paid from one service to another. There is still too little co-ordination between the local authority and the Ministerial services.
  I absolve the Minister from having any unfeeling attitude towards this issue because hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that she is one of the most sympathetic and considerate Ministers we have. I am sure that she accepts that none of us is getting any younger. Indeed, I am looking forward to being an absolutely foul mother-in-law
  84
  three times over, and, in that respect, perhaps I should declare an interest in this matter. When considering the single woman, we should remember her need to stay at work. We need as many women doctors, teachers and nurses as we can get. The community loses if a woman possessing one of these skills is allowed to give up her job to enable her to give the domestic help needed to maintain her parents.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to realise that we are discussing a positive Motion. I appreciate that she may not be able to give categorical assurances today. Nevertheless, we hope that, when she is considering the matter, she will remember that, apart from a definite saving of money to be made by enabling single women to continue at work—more than that, the saving in people's happiness is a side of the Welfare State which should be receiving our concern today.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: So many rude things are said about Privy Councillors intervening in debates that I thought I would delay trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, until it appeared that most, if not all, of the hon. Members who wished to speak had done so. I hope that, by speaking now, I will not be thought to be prolonging the debate unduly, but after two-and-a-quarter years of enforced silence in this House on questions on which I have felt deeply, I wish to take what opportunities occur in future of speaking my mind on them.
  Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Houghton: I hope that, in doing so, I shall not embarrass my right hon. Friend, for whose capacity, zeal and combative qualities I have great admiration. The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) need have no fear on one count: so long as my right hon. Friend is there, these matters of social security and the social services will not be neglected.
  The National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants must be feeling proud of its sponsors this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who so ably moved the Motion, is one of them. My special hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), is also one of

  85
  them, and the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth is another of them. Any voluntary organisation with such a list of distinguished sponsors which can get three of them speaking in one debate is doing very well indeed. I cannot claim to be a sponsor of the National Council, but I admit that I was asked to be one and I believe that I made a speech when it was inaugurated in its present form.
  Many of us who have been going into the Ballot year after year without having drawn a place of any kind must feel envious of our hon. Friends—more envious still of hon. Gentlemen opposite —when they draw first place. We ask ourselves what sort of Motion we would move if this fortune came to us. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West that when this rare opportunity—an opportunity which comes once, if at all, in a Parliamentary lifetime—
  Mr. Hamling: Three times.
  Mr. Houghton: Even if my hon. Friend had come out lucky in the Ballot 33 times, he is to be congratulated on having chosen this subject for his Motion.
  Mr. Frederic Harris Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North-West) rose—
  Mr. Houghton: If the hon. Gentleman intervenes, it will be that much longer before his Motion comes on. He had better sit quiet and wait his turn, which will come before 7 o'clock if he behaves himself. If he intervenes in my speech he will probably rise at about three minutes to 7 o'clock, and I give him that warning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I come from neighbouring constituencies. We rarely speak in the same debate, but when we do we set a slight problem for our esteemed newspaper, the Halifax Courier,as to which of us should be reported the most and what it is we have said that will strike the eye of its readers. We both share in our constituencies a proportion of old people much above the national average, where the problem mentioned in the Motion is, and has been, conspicuous for many years.
  It was not accidental that the Spinsters' Association, which some of us remember, led by the late Miss Florence White, came from a textile area. In that area single
  86
  women had opportunities for employment denied to single women in many other parts of the country and who, therefore, did not throw themselves away on the first men who asked them to marry them. Many of these women have found that they have had to devote a great deal of their lives to looking after elderly relatives. It is for this reason that I take part in this debate.
  The National Council is a pressure group, and I believe in pressure groups. Although they necessarily take a narrow view of the wider problem, they concentrate attention on a feature of our social services and social need which might otherwise receive less than due regard. It is for the rest of us to put the whole thing in proper perspective and to look at the interests of particular groups in the wider context. I want to put this debate in the wider context, because the circumstances facing single women looking after dependants are a small part of the problems of women generally in social life and in the social services.
  My right hon. Friend has heard me say many times before what I am about to say, and I shall therefore excuse her if she goes out for a cup of tea. Social security is mostly about women—all sorts and conditions of women; single women, married women, separated, deserted or divorced wives, unmarried mothers. The social provisions and social problems that will arise in the future are enormous. Of the present 6½ million retirement pensioners, two-thirds are women. No fewer than 600,000 widow pensioners and those on allowances are under the age of 60. Out of a total of 7½ million people on long-term benefits, 5¼ million are women. Another surprising fact is that of the elderly in residential accommodation—Part III accommodation—nearly two-thirds are women. On the books of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, we find 120,000 women—separated wives, single and other women with illegitimate children, divorced women—costing over £40 million a year in social benefits. All women are vulnerable in nearly every form of society. The struggle for emancipation and equality is by no means won, not even in Britain. It surprises me in this articulate age that women will put up with so much. If only the women's organisations were today as vocal about the defects in the social services, in the

  87
  status, legal and social, of women, as they were years ago on the fundamental rights of women, we should get some of these things remedied far more quickly. There is more social insecurity amongst women than in any other section of the community.
  Our so-called Welfare State was built on pre-war thinking and experience, and reflected the conditions of 1939 and earlier. Beveridge could not foresee that one-third of the nation's work force would be women, and that nearly half of those women would be married women. In the days past of larger families and fewer opportunities for the employment of women there was always someone who could stay at home to look after the aged parent, the frail mother. It was usually the last to remain at home who got caught in this filial obligation, and in many cases they remained single for the rest of their lives.
  The boundaries of fundamental thinking about social security stopped short in the past at wives, mothers and widows. We see this in the structure of the social security scheme, which puts many millions of women at risk because their social security as of right depends on the contributions of their husbands. I frequently say that social security for married women in this country depends on a faithful husband or the National Assistance Board, and in many, many cases that is almost literally true.
  One can pretty well say that perhaps only the married woman is given full status in social and legal life in Britain —and that is lacking in many respects. Widowhood is a respectable condition. Separation, divorce or desertion is not a respectable condition. Nor is a spinster in a really respectable condition—at least she does not have full status. I know that I speak in the presence of hon. Ladies, but I also know that they do not mind plain speaking—they probably say the same thing themselves on the platform when urging what I stand for on the question of the full freedom of women and their proper place in society.
  Single women, when householders, are taxed as if they were teenaged girls paying an inadequate sum for board and lodging and spending a good deal of money on themselves. If they give up their jobs to nurse a sick parent and fail
  88
  to pay National Insurance they will be in trouble, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West has said. If there is a gap in their contributions, there will be a reduction in their own retirement pensions when the time comes. Many single women are in and out of insurance because of emergency calls to act as home help or day and night nurse to some bedridden relative.
  It has been said that brothers and married sisters are rarely called on to act in long emergencies like this; it is from the woman who is supposed to have no ties, who can give something up and go home at once, that an undue amount of self-sacrifice and devotion is expected. It is those women on whose behalf we speak today. They may work much harder in the home than ever they did in the office or factory, but they get nothing for it. They are treated as non-persons, as non-employed persons, and unless they pay their contributions as non-employed persons their own social security is at risk.
  Nothing has been said of whether the term "single woman and her dependant" includes a single woman with a child, but we must not ignore this aspect. The dependants of a single woman are not always elderly and frail parents. Unhappily, 70,000 illegitimate children are born each year. The single woman who has a child will not experience or hear much about the happiness and joys of motherhood. She may be grateful to the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child and to the adoption societies—they do splendid work—but it can be said, without being too cynical, that the wages of sin may not be death but they will not be enough to live on.
  We should not ignore this side of the problem in looking at the question of the single woman and her dependants. We must not be too prim about this. Elderly parents and sick relatives arouse our emotions, but not always illegitimate children. Yet this is part of the social security problem of women. We neglect the unmarried woman and her child, but in many cases that child is as much or more a dependant than is the elderly relative.
  But, getting back to those mentioned in the Motion, we must all recognise that single women over 40 are largely the

  89
  casualties of two wars. Their future husbands were killed or died of wounds or disease, and we hope that that will never happen again. But there are hundreds of thousands of older women who are as much war disabled as many men on war pensions. Because they remained unmarried they were still at home when parents became aged or frail. In many cases, these women had to turn down opportunities for marriage because they felt that devotion to their parents came first.
  Happily, as the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned, this is likely to be a diminishing problem. Not many women of the younger generation will have to endure the lonely and dull life of many spinsters of today and yesterday. It is not generally understood how significant it is that this the first generation of young men in this century who have not been sent to war. This is responsible for much manifestation of the social disturbance that we are grappling with and trying to understand. If we can keep the peace, we can expect the number of unmarried women to fall.
  But one or two little warnings should be given. First, the teenage girls should be warned that the death rate of young men in the early twenties is nearly 2½ times that of girls. That is the toll of the motorbike, of pot-holing, of mountaineering and other causes of violent death. Even in the thirties and early forties, when men tend to behave more responsibly, the death rate among men is more than 1⅓ times higher than for women. In the fifties, the death rate for men rises to more than twice that of women. That is when thrombosis and strokes mow down overworked, over-fed, and under-exercised men of late middle age.
  There is another factor which already tends to reduce the size of the problem in future—that is the relationship between males and females in the young population. Since men tend to marry women who are, on average, two and a half years younger than themselves, it follows that the young men born in 1947, which was a peak birth year, will be looking for girls born between 1949 and 1951. The chances of these girls getting married will be greater.
  Looking at the problem of provision for the single woman and her dependents,
  90
  there are, as my right hon. Friend will no doubt mention, some important questions both of equity and of administration. That is why I am not going to be dogmatic about what should be done or what can be done within the context of a reformed social security scheme. On the welfare side of this matter, the possibility of imprisoned women getting released for holidays and rest must still largely be a matter for the welfare services. I have great hopes that, when the Seebohm Committee reports later this year, an indication will be given to the Government and this House as to how the personal welfare services at local authority level can be improved and coordinated and made more effective and more efficient.
  Of course, one must not overlook the fact that some men also give up work to look after sick wives and children. We must not forget them. Further, single women are not the only ones who do this The National Assistance Board said, in reporting some figures that I saw, that a proportion of the women described as single are separated or divorced and, of course, widows can be called upon to undertake this task as well. We thus have a range of claimants for some consideration when they are called upon to do this work.
  Another thing we find is that a very large proportion of children in care at any time have been taken in care temporarily because of difficulties at home, perhaps sparing the father the need to give up his job because his wife is ill and there is no one to care for the children. This is another aspect of social provision. It should not always be necessary, and probably is not always desirable, that people should be dragged away from their normal jobs to go home and look after sick and aged people for whose care and treatment they may have no special qualifications. We have to keep that in mind.
  Finally, there is the problem of the test of qualification. This is the most difficult part. In benefits as of right, entitlement has to be very carefully and clearly defined because it is the Act of Parliament which will bestow entitlement. Discretion does not arise. One has to be precise and the more one has to be precise the more difficult definition becomes. But, if this is to be left to the

  91
  discretion of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, then there is greater flexibility. The officers can look at the whole circumstances of the case and not be hidebound by regulations, still less by Act of Parliament.
  I still dream the dream that it will be possible to introduce into the structure of our social services a guaranteed income scheme which will provide a universal and acceptable means test which will take care of a large range of social needs which, at the present time, are sometimes provided for unnecessarily by benefits as of right and inadequately by benefits by need and discretion.
  This, I believe, is going to be the fundamental question of the development of our social security scheme in future. We see it referred to time and again and only this weekend, in the Observer,there was a further reference to it. This, I believe, is the direction in which we have to go, otherwise we shall have this mounting cost of indiscriminately distributed benefits, for which full contributions have not been paid and never will be paid. If we could only find the means of adjusting benefits more acceptably to circumstances, we could get very much nearer to equitable and adequate provision in a great variety of cases.
  This is the end of what I want to say on this subject and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to stray a little widely of a Motion rather narrowly drawn. I have already made my apology and given my explanation but I hope that I have said something which may cause the House to think of some of the problems that were engaging my mind and the minds of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security and other colleagues in the Government in the last two years.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) would have excited our gratitude if only for the speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) which the hon. Member stimulated by this debate. We were all delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman, back in his place on the back benches, speaking with great enthusiasm. I do not propose to travel quite so widely, but I should like
  92
  to say how much I agreed with his concluding remarks.
  In what the right hon. Gentleman said there was room for a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House and I can only hope that as the months and years go by the ideas which he has dropped into the Government machine, and the iconoclasm and energy which he has shown this afternoon, will be reflected in Government action. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, too, will wish that.
  We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West for the specific matters which he has raised. I am sure that he is right in thinking that in our present circumstances there are what he called special categories of need and what the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) called holes in the net which should properly excite our attention. Like every hon. Member, I am pleased to note that so many of those special categories have special defenders among whom I would certainly include the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants.
  I have long believed that in our National Insurance system there is a prejudice against single people, most of whom, of course, are women. It is a prejudice against single people in both the sense of people living alone and in the sense of people who have not married. I have argued in the past that the basic scales, which provide that a single person in both supplementary benefit and in pension gets 60 per cent. of what a married person gets, are not fair ratios. I do not believe that a single household needs only 60 per cent. as much as a double household. I have been assured by the right hon. Lady that the figure is based on research, but I hope that she will forgive me if I still have my doubts.
  I want to confine my remarks to the category which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West mentioned. As he said, single people who look after dependants are beyond praise. There is nothing more depressing in one's constituency work— although one does it with great pleasure —than going round the wards of a geriatric hospital and finding there the many elderly people who are never visited. What a contrast that is with the situation, which the hon. Gentleman described, of the many people who, at great sacrifice,

  93
  are kept in their own homes! I fully agree that the State should do all it can to make it possible and even easy for single people to do this work.
  I very much agreed with the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter, who stressed the need for everything possible to be done to enable the single person to continue at work, preferably in full-time work. There will obviously be occasions when that is impossible and in those cases the person concerned must continue in part-time work, if that is possible. It is a characteristic of modern medicine—thank goodness—that many people, who only a short time ago would have been bedridden and medically almost forgotten, are now ambulant, able to do a bit for themselves and yet not able fully to look after themselves. In other words, there are now many more people who, with a little help but without constant attendance, can lead independent lives in their own homes.
  Given the right conditions there are many single women who could look after such people, but if a daughter gives up work altogether she is almost certainly storing up trouble for herself, a trouble which no State insurance scheme, however generous, can fully compensate. To begin with, she obviously reduces her income, but that is short-term. The trouble is that when the parent dies or has to go into hospital, the daughter's difficulties do not then end.
  If she is under 60, she will probably find that she has lost her ability to find employment if she has been out of work for a long time. The National Insurance Scheme specifically provides for that eventuality for a widow who is over 50 and accepts the principle that a woman who has long been in domestic work to that extent finds it difficult to get employment. But that principle is not applied to a spinster who, in effect, is in exactly the same position.
  Because she has not been earning over those years, she will find herself with little saved in terms of cash or possessions and, like other people who have been earning low incomes for a long lime, she will find that the circumstances of her life, the actual physical possessions, will be already run down before she starts on her retirement. Even apart from the economic and physical conditions of her life, if she has been cut off from ordinary
  94
  life for a long time and leading a very restricted life, she may find that she has lost some of the interest in life which a job would help her to keep.
  I want to quote to the House a quotation from a letter written to the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, for which I am grateful to the Council, written by a woman such as I have described a year after the death of the dependent relative. She writes.
  "What has been brought home to me in this last year of freedom (so-called) is that all those lovely things one vaguely dreamed of doing ' when it is all over' just don't materialise out of a hat. One just cannot pick up the threads where normal life left off years ago, and a frightening and perplexing period of rehabilitation has to be lived through "
  There is a tremendous case for trying to keep a single woman in employment, even though it is only part-time, so that she does not become dissociated and disconnected from life.
  To do this—and I now have what I hope will be some constructive suggestions to make—the first thing we have to do is to remove what can only be called the built-in prejudice against part-timers, a prejudice which runs right through our insurance system. This is something which has been made much worse in the last year by the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax. Over and over again from these benches we warned that if S.E.T. were introduced, it would be made more difficult for a part-timer to get employment, because if a part-timer works more than eight hours, there is the same S.E.T. and the same insurance stamp as if he or she worked full time. This is a concept from which we have to get away.
  Even before the introduction of S.E.T., the National Insurance system militated against the part-timer for the reason I have given. Yet we ought to be encouraging, and not discouraging, the single woman to do part-time work in these circumstances.
  Secondly, I think that we should look at the earnings rule as it applies to the dependant's allowance payable to a sick person—£2 10s. a week for the dependant looking after him or her. This particular allowance is subject to a really harsh earnings rule. As I understand, there is no gradation. As soon as the woman begins to earn she incurs this earnings

  95
  rule and loses the allowance. Surely that is highly inequitable. In the not very dissimilar case of the widowed mother, we have now—and we thought this was a very good thing done by the present Government—decided to remove the earnings rule, as, in the previous years, under the previous Administration, it was gradually relaxed. Why, then, is it necessary to have a rule of this character in this case? I myself do not see the reason for it.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West and others have referred also to matters of housing. I do not intend to follow them in great detail because I think that most of the points have been made, but, nevertheless, the importance of housing is absolutely critical, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his Motion when he refers specifically to housing.
  One of the most important sorts of housing which needs to be provided in the future is the sort of what one may call semi-independent accommodation attached to the family home. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) has pointed out that there will be fewer spinsters available for this work, and I would say that even today we should be providing the sort of accommodation where either the parents or a parent could live in a semi-independent way, because in that case, even although the daughter may come in on some occasions—may be available round the corner—nevertheless, it is the mother of the family who can just keep an eye on things. Or there may be a situation in which there is a warden available, at the push of a bell, if an emergency should arise.
  Then, as has been mentioned, there is the holiday home. Many local authorities already reserve in their old people's homes a certain number of places for old people in these conditions. I think that this should be done more.
  I would now mention a provision which has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but which helps enormously I visited recently in my own constituency a rehabilitation centre, originally started by the L.C.C. and now run by the Kensington and Chelsea Borough. There the elderly and disabled people, not only the physically disabled but also simply
  96
  the elderly, go, and are given useful work to do. They are taken in a special bus which takes account of their disabilities, and are taught to help themselves as useful members of society. As well as doing that, they are helping also whoever it was at home who was looking after them. We have talked already about domiciliary help, and about district nurses. All these services count.
  We have not said a great deal about tax reliefs, and I would say a little about that. I realise, of course, that this is primarily a Budget matter, but since it is my thesis that as far as possible we should keep these single women in work there is a direct relevance with Income Tax provisions. We should do everything, surely, in terms of tax relief to see that these single women are enabled to stay in work.
  To last year's Finance Bill we put down some Amendments to increase the housekeeper allowance, and I think that this is extremely relevant, to extend it to single people in full-time work and with dependants. I know that the right hon. Lady cannot answer about this. I know that she will be just as cagey about this issue as the Chancellor himself would be this afternoon, but I ask her, since she has a month for her charm and persuasiveness to work on the Chancellor— would not this be a really constructive way of helping the single women whom we are talking about?
  We also put down to last year's Finance Bill a new Clause to increase the dependent relative income limit. This is another means which would be possible, and I hope that perhaps the right hon. Lady's persuasiveness may be applied to that, too. We put down another Clause suggesting constant attendance allowance payable to a single woman herself—and this accords with what has been said in this debate. I think that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who particularly made the point that it was important that the single woman herself should feel she had an income, but I think that it is also true that the tax allowance should be applied to the single woman.
  We very seriously bring these considerations to the attention of the right hon. Lady not because we expect an answer now, but because we believe that in keeping a single woman in work it is

  97
  very important to look at the tax situation in which she is; and let no one suggest for a minute that this is something which applies only to the well to do. The tax begins to bite on a single person at a pretty low level.
  My final point refers to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West, discussed, namely, the National Insurance system itself. The Government should seriously look at this contrast. I have already referred to the attendance allowance payable to a sick person if he or she has a dependant looking after him or her. There is no such allowance payable, as I understand, to a retired person. This is a very important point, since in a very large number of the cases the hon. Gentleman referred to the person who is being cared for is, after all, a retired person.
  The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): The constant attendance allowance is payable only with industrial injuries benefit, not with sickness benefit. So it is payable to a fairly small number in the country at present.
  Mr. Worsley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I understood that constant attendance allowance was payable only with the Industrial Injuries Scheme, but that there was payable in the case of sickness benefit a payment of £2 10s. which could be paid either to the wife, if looking after a sick person, or to another dependent relative in the house.
  I think that I am right. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong. It is not the constant attendance allowance. If I used that phrase I was wrong, but I think that it is an attendance allowance which applies to a sick person and not to a retired person and that the Government might very seriously look at the possibility of extending what, I understand, applies to sick people to retired people as well.
  I know that there are great difficulties. We wish, of course, that there had been set up in the Ministry, a research unit which would have done these things. We have argued that before, and I shall not argue it again now, but what I urge is that the first priority, in dealing with this matter, should be to try to make it easy for the single woman to remain in work. I think that by putting the priority
  98
  there we shall be putting the priority in the right place.
  5.59 p.m.
  The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I want to join with all the others who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on his choice of subject when he was fortunate in the Ballot, and I should like to thank him for the most constructive way in which he dealt with the problem. I should also like to join all the others who have paid a very great tribute to the Rev. Mary Webster. I am certain she has highlighted one of the real social problems in our country today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is all for pressure groups. So am I. I think it important that these groups should be continually showing the need where need exists.
  I was also delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby took part in the debate. I knew long before I worked with him over those two years what a deep interest he had in all matters that affect women, not just single women and their problems that we are discussing today but women generally. It was like a breath of fresh air to hear him giving so vividly and so well his points of view on the many problems that affect women.
  In the time available to me, I should like to deal with the matters contained in the Motion. There is no doubt that for the single woman who has to care for an elderly father or mother, or both parents, or who takes on a responsibility for some other elderly near relation, the social problems involved are very great. I have the very greatest sympathy with these women, and with the case that has been made for them today.
  I sometimes think that if families would accept greater responsibilities than they do the position of single women would not be nearly as serious as it is. I had an elderly mother. It was a great joy to me to be able to ensure that she was cared for and had the affection and love that I should like to see all such old people having. I was fortunate in being a member of a very closely-knit family. The moral support, apart from anything else, that I got from my brothers was very great indeed.

  99
  But I also know of the experience of many of my friends. Many of them have to accept not only financial responsibility for their elderly parents, but all the other responsibilities, and the rest of the family sit back saying that those who are taking on the responsibilities have no other ties. I hope that the debate, if it gets any publicity at all, will bring home to people the moral responsibilities that families have for the care of their parents. They should not be left completely to the single daughter who so often has to carry the burden.
  I think that we might sum up the discussion in this way. What we are really asking today is how the community can best discharge the responsibilities that it is increasingly coming to accept towards old people who are in varying degree helpless or dependent on help, and how far that help should be in kind—we have, of course, provision in hospitals and old people's homes and by home nursing and home helps—and how far it should be in cash support, or a mixture of both.
  I was very interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody). I feel with her and others who feel that, if it is at all humanly possible, the single woman should stay at work. I believe that for many reasons but particularly from the point of view of the good of the single woman herself. If we have as our primary object keeping the single woman at work, we have to ascertain how this is possible within the present set-up or what can be done more than is being done now to make it possible.
  First of all, I would refer to the difficulties faced by the single woman who is at work. She carries out her own job during the day, and then very often during the evenings—and, indeed, during the nights and during weekends—she has the whole responsibility of the ageing parent or relative. She is trying to cope with two jobs. Very often when it comes to her annual holiday from work she uses the period to give relief for such domestic help as she may have, and allow her to have a holiday.
  I agree with those who have said that provision ought to be made to meet these cases. It might be provision in geriatric
  100
  units, as in some areas. Perhaps the ageing parent or relative could go to a home for old people for a fortnight or three weeks so that the daughter, whether in work or out of work, could have a complete break away from the problems that she constantly faces.
  I was interested in the reaction of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has always shown great interest in these problems, when an hon. Friend of mine talked about "difficult old people". Whatever age group one takes, one does not find every single person in it sweet and angelic, and that goes for the elderly also. From this point of view there are very great difficulties for whoever is caring for elderly persons. Single women bearing these responsibilities ought to have greater provision made for them by local authorities and the hospital services so that for a fortnight or three weeks they would be able to get away for a holiday completely on their own.
  There are other ways of helping. In the case of the single woman who is out at work and has a parent who needs to be cared for, we have various services available apart from the hospitals, geriatric units, and so on. There are the home nursing services. I know that in some areas they are very fully stretched. We also have the home helps; some areas are much better supplied with them than other areas are. Both the nursing services and the home help service can be of very great assistance in caring for old persons if their single daughters are out at work.
  If the old person is in need by supplementary benefit standards, extra help can be provided. If extra domestic help is needed in that person's home, that is taken into account and the Supplementary Benefits Commission can add to that person's weekly supplementary pension.
  Sometimes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, it is not the single woman who is faced with this kind of problem. There may be a married man with an invalid wife. No matter how low a wage the man may be earning, he can get no help at all from supplementary benefits for the care of his wife. If there is an ageing parent, however, who, because of her financial circumstances needs help, not only will she receive a supplementary pension, but

  101
  if there is a big cost for domestic help that cost will also be taken into account.
  The daughter caring for the ageing parent might be a professional woman, earning a very good salary, yet none of her income would be taken into account in assessing the needs of the ageing relative. There is not a family means test in this country.
  I hope that this debate will let the single women know what help is available. The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport raised the point that there may be two old people living together, requiring separate rooms, which will mean separate lighting and heating. Under the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, in the discretionary allowances, that double cost would be taken into account in assessing the weekly needs of that old couple. I hope that this kind of help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be publicised as widely as possible.
  There has been mention of the need for the co-ordination of various services. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Report that we would be expecting soon from the Seebohm Committee. Now that an old person is in receipt of supplementary benefits and we have a standard long-term addition, our representatives who visit the old persons do not have to spend such an amount of time on the smaller discretionary allowances that can be paid. Because of that, they have greater time available to give attention to the welfare needs of the person. In other words, they can let the old person, or the daughter who is taking some responsibility, know what facilities are provided by the local authority and voluntary organisations.
  I am hoping that my officials in the Supplementary Benefits Commission, just as the officials of the National Assistance Board did, will do their utmost to ensure that there is this measure of co-ordination and that whatever facilities are available are brought to the notice of the old person, the daughter, or the husband who is responsible for the care of the person concerned.
  I want to turn to the single woman who has to give up her job. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, even if one is willing to pay for domestic help, it cannot be found. Local authorities cannot find the necessary numbers of home helps. Sometimes there is nothing else for it but
  102
  that the daughter must give up her work and look after the ageing relative. When that is the case there can be great difficulties of isolation, and that is why I am so keen that the women should remain at work if they can. There are the difficulties of suffering a drop in one's income and having to eat into one's savings, and there are insurance difficulties.
  I wish to tell the House what facilities are available for these women. First of all, if they do not have an income from savings, then, in their own right, they can receive benefit from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. What is important is that those women who will be expected to go out to work at some time later in their lives, can receive, during the period when they are caring for the old person, an extra discretionary allowance in addition to their supplementary benefits, with which to pay their weekly National Insurance stamp.
  The introduction of supplementary benefits on 28th November last has also been a great help to many of those women who will have to give up work. Previously, if they had over £600 in the bank they could not get a penny under the old National Assistance scheme. Great changes have been made and they can now have up to £800 in savings, which will be totally disregarded. If that were all of the savings they had, they would then receive the full weekly supplementary benefit. That must make a very great difference to those women.
  Matters have been raised which do not affect my Department, and housing is one of the most important. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) spoke about the need to provide houses for old persons with two bedrooms, not just one. This is very important. I have always felt it wrong that, where local authorities provide houses for old people, they should provide them with a living room and one bedroom. For many reasons, particularly for the sanity of the daughter, who has given up her work to look after the aged person, an extra bedroom is a necessity.
  Whatever has been said in this debate on the subject of housing will be taken to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Different local authorities deal with this problem in various ways. One local authority, not far away from

  103
  my own, tries to ensure that its old people are housed by it as near to a close relative as possible. That is a very great help to these old people. Other local authorities have what one might call "sheltered" housing for old people. There is a resident warden, able to take care of them. This, too, is a great help for the daughter who has to go out to work, since it gives her peace of mind.
  On the question of taxation, I can say no more than a word or two. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), who made a most interesting speech, will not expect me to be able to give an opinion on his proposals this afternoon. I know that the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants has brought this matter very much to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that it is a question which, among all the other matters which he is examining, my right hon. Friend will take into account. I cannot guarantee what the result of his consideration will be.
  I know from my own experience, which was not such a difficult experience as that of many of my friends and many of those who write to the National Council, that there is a grave social problem here. It is one which we should be trying in every way we can to solve. We should search every avenue for ways to give help, and how best to give it, for the sake of all the single women, for the sake of the man with the invalid wife and for the sake of the old people themselves. We have to take them all into consideration in trying to find the best means of setting about it.
  All that has been said today concerning the affairs of my Department will be taken into account, and the rest will be passed to the Ministers concerned.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the burden of maintaining dependent relatives, usually elderly parents, borne by thousands of single women, and that in carrying out a filial duty the daughter is performing a service which otherwise would have to be undertaken by social security and public welfare services; that this frequently involves many years of financial and physical strain; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action to lighten these burdens by providing new social security benefits, and urges welfare and housing
  104
  authorities locally to assist single women in this situation with such help that they can go on caring for their relatives at home without undue stress.

  BURDEN ON RATEPAYERS
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the heavy and ever-increasing burden imposed on ratepayers as the result of the policies of the present Government; notes, in particular, that high interest rates, increases in taxation, and inadequate provision by way of general and rate support grant have accentuated the difficulties of local authorities and individual ratepayers; deplores the fact that rebates provided for individual ratepayers are, in part, being provided at the cost of other ratepayers and are, in any event, inadequate; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action to redeem their election pledge to give early relief to ratepayers.
  At the outset, I express my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and to all hon. Members, including the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security, who took part in the previous debate for their kindness in letting me have time to move and discuss the second balloted Motion today. It looked rather a tight fit at one stage. This is the first time in 19 years that I have been privileged to win a place in the Ballot, although I have gone in for it consistently on every occasion. Naturally, therefore, I chose one of my pet hobby-horses, the burden on the ratepayers, even if I have only got in, as I say, by a short head.
  This is a matter of vital importance, as I think you know, Mr. Speaker, remembering that you were always very interested in it, particularly at this time of year. My Motion
  "deplores the heavy and ever-increasing burden imposed on ratepayers as a result of the policies of the present Government"
  and it draws attention to the reasons for it.
  At the last two general elections, the Labour Party promised the country that, if it was elected, people would no longer be subject to further heavy increases in rates. In passing, I must say that it promised the same to the taxpayer, too. We all know what happened in that direction, and I expect it will happen again in the next Budget on 11th April.

  105
  In the past two and a half years, ratepayers throughout the country have had, on average, an overall increase of about 25 per cent. in their rates, which certainly justifies my description of "heavy and ever-increasing" applied to the burden shouldered by ratepayers generally. This year, fortunately—I am the first to admit it—there has been an all-out attempt by the Government and local authorities to stabilise the rates. I have no doubt that the Minister will make particular reference to that, but, of course, if the Government had done nothing this year, there would have been a tremendous outcry directed at the Labour Party, especially at a time when people's incomes are virtually all frozen.
  As far as I can tell, the domestic ratepayer, helped through the standard rate relief of 5d. in the £, will have to pay, on average, a very slight increase—not much more than 1 per cent., I expect the Minister will tell us—but we still have to remember that, in contrast to the domestic ratepayer, factories, shops and other non-domestic ratepayers will have to meet an increase of about 5 per cent. This is no mean increase, and in one form or another it will, without doubt, eventually be passed back to the public.
  In any event, at what cost have the Government done their stabilising act this year? No doubt, they will claim that for householders the relief has come in the main as a result of their scheme by which £23 million of domestic element has been set aside in the new rate support grant for 1967–68 for the benefit of the domestic ratepayer. I imagine that if none of the unusual circumstances of this year had obtained the domestic ratepayer would once again have had to meet an increased demand of about 1s. in the £, but, because of the 5d. support grant, it has been brought down to about 7d.
  What else has happened to close the gap? With great regularity last autumn, the Government instructed local authorities to hold down their rate increases by reviewing all claims for expenditure. This has meant that local authorities have cut back drastically on their spending commitments. My own town of Croydon has cut back by about £570,000, which represents about 7d. in the £ in the Croydon rate. Second, some authorities have taken the opportunity to reduce
  106
  the level of their rate poundage as a result of a change in the interest rates on consolidated loan funds. But this means that such authorities are really mortgaging their future, for, while there will be a reduction in the cost of loan charges in the early years of the loans in question, there will inevitably, and regrettably, be an increase in later years.
  First, on the subject of cuts, will the Government give a clear indication on some sort of global basis of what commitments have been cut and how many commitments have merely been rephased so that, in effect, sharper rate increases may be expected by ratepayers in April next year? I have no doubt that a good many authorities have been rephasing their capital schemes on which they had hoped to embark during the next 12 months. If the tempo of capital spending is permanently reduced, annual savings will be effected but if, in yielding to the Government's pressure, local authorities attempt in the year 1968–69 to push ahead again with their retarded schemes, then, as The Times said on 7th March, there could be some swingeing rate increases to follow in 1968.
  In anticipation of substantially higher demands for rates in the years ahead, I would also like to know from the Government why they have not honoured their pledge to the electorate in their 1964 election manifesto "New Britain ", which at page 14 categorically said that Labour would transfer a larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer. The same question came up today at Question Time. This might be just a case of passing the burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, but at least it would spread the burden. I would like to know why the Government have not implemented that promise. If it were carried out, it would certainly have a substantial effect on rates in general.
  I remember, too, when the Leader of the House indicated that the Government had in mind an altogether new system for rating finance. That was only a short while ago. This could well be the case, because in Labour's 1966 manifesto, "Time for Decision", page 18 stated that there was an area in which tax reform was urgently required in the rating system and that a Labour Government would introduce major reforms in local finance. I would like to know from the Minister

  107
  whether the Government have something up their sleeve for the near future. Those of us who are closely interested in such rating generally and its unfair effects upon individual ratepayers, with all its various anomalies, would certainly like to know what the Government have in mind. My Motion indicates how Government policies substantially increase the costs of local authorities.
  I would like to tell the Minister on a lower plane where some savings in cost could be achieved. I refer to avoidance of duplication that is occurring, particularly in London, in such matters as planning between the Greater London Council and the local authorites, such as Croydon. Croydon has complained strongly. It is a planning authority in itself and yet the G.L.C. gets involved in local details of planning rather than overall principles.
  I always said that that would happen when Croydon was pushed into Greater London. If time were available I could give plenty of chapter and verse for what I am saying. Some control might, of course, be necessary for the small local authority which was not able to be properly advised professionally. It is, however, absurd, in respect of land transactions by large towns and cities with long-established, experienced valuation departments.
  At a time when valuers are in very great demand, particularly as a result of the considerable work caused by the Land Commission Act, this duplication of effort should immediately be eradicated. If the Government looked into the matter properly they would find that there could be a great saving in manpower and that the efficiency of the country would be increased by much more rapid decisions.
  I sometimes wonder whether the public realise what big business local government is today. As we in the House know, local government expenditure is reaching something like 40 per cent. of the national budget. Adoption by the local authorities of more modern, commercial, streamlined administrative methods could bring about vast savings to the ratepayer. That is emphasised by the fact that about 6 per cent. of the working population is employed by local authorities.
  Some local authorities have been very farsighted in calling in management con-
  108
  sultants. I believe that Bromley and Bournemouth, for example, have done this and I gather that large savings have been achieved. It might be a very good idea for the Government to make similar recommendations to other local authorities, particularly the larger ones, and to have an all-out efficiency drive in this direction, which could easily reduce expenditure by about 2½ per cent., which would represent about £100 million a year. Such a target would be well worth striving for and I strongly advocate that the Government should pursue this course.
  My Motion also deplores the fact that rebates provided for individual ratepayers are often still far too inadequate and are, in any event, provided at the cost of the other ratepayers. Croydon, for example, has had to appoint 12 additional staff to do this work. Naturally, all this has to be paid for by the other ratepayers. In addition, however, the council has to bear 25 per cent. of the allowances which are given by way of these rebates, and this again has to be provided by the other ratepayers.
  All that the Government, in effect, have done in giving that easement to such deserving cases is to place the cost of those reliefs upon the other ratepayers. This is simply a juggling operation at their expense. Obviously, in the main, this relief should have come in total from the Exchequer. Again, therefore, it would have been on a broader basis rather than on the specific shoulders of the local ratepayers, which is very unfair. When this matter was discussed previously in the House, we on this side stressed that aspect of it.
  It is important to make the point that the abandonment until 1973 of revaluation for rating purposes, which was to have been carried out next year, was to my mind a retrograde step. If the rating system is to be kept at maximum efficiency, frequent revaluations are surely necessary to keep pace with changing values if we are to have any kind of buoyancy in the system. What has happened is that because of the Land Commission Act and the Capital Gains Tax, valuers in the Inland Revenue have had so much extra work that this postponement has become compulsory. In effect, the rating system is suffering on behalf of national taxation.

  109
  Another point is that over the years I campaigned to make nationalised industries pay proper rates, particularly for offices. This, I admit—and I am grateful to the Government—has been achieved, but it should not be the end of the road. It should be followed by all nationalised properties of an ordinary commercial or industrial character being separately rated in the normal way. Only by these means will there be rating justice to individual local authorities.
  Crown properties, too, of an ordinary character should be rated in the usual way and not made the subject of Crown distribution in lieu of rates. When the Post Office becomes a public corporation, I trust that all Post Office properties will likewise be rated in the same way as privately-owned properties. At present, Post Office properties are subject to contribution in lieu of rates. Again, I suggest that as in Croydon, the Government should take immediate steps to ensure that all local authorities see that council tenants who can afford to do so pay proper economic rents for council dwellings. If I were asked again what an economic rent would be, I would say that it was one which was not directly subsidised by other ratepayers.
  In all my years in the House I have campaigned for the correction of rating anomalies. I was for years the only Conservative Member who advocated the abolition of industrial derating, which we managed to achieve in two main bouts. The points which I have made tonight are at least worthy of the closest consideration. The Government may feel that in the present year they have bought time to avoid yet again a further substantial demand, particularly upon the domestic ratepayer. Unless, very soon, we have sight of the promised major reforms in local finance, we shall find that this is a temporary relief and will be followed, regrettably by dramatic increases in later years. Therefore, I request the Government in the strongest terms to redeem their pledges at the last two elections to give permanent, early relief to ratepayers and to face the issue instead of dodging it.
  6.40 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West
  110
  (Mr. Frederic Harris) has deployed his case very successfully and it is only courteous to him that I should rise now and not risk missing the opportunity of dealing with the points which he has made.
  On these occasions it is customary to congratulate an hon. Member on his success in the Ballot. However, this time I feel a certain amount of commiseration with the hon. Gentleman, because when he went in for the Ballot he was not to know how very successful the Government's policy had been in keeping down rates. He began his speech very fairly with a series of points where the Government had dealt with the problem, saying that it had worked and that rates had not increased in the way that he had feared.
  One particular point he dealt with was the share of rates borne by the domestic ratepaper. As he said, probably more than any other hon. Member he was responsible for forcing his party to take into rating the full value of industrial hereditaments.
  The position is that whereas in about 1955 the share of the domestic ratepaper was 60 per cent. and in the last year of the Conservative Administration it was 48 per cent., this year it was 47 per cent. and next year it will be about 46 per cent. That shows that we are succeeding in keeping down the share of the domestic ratepayer.
  As he acknowledged, one of the reasons has been the all-out effort of local authorities to keep down their expenditure. I should not myself have chosen this moment to have a debate on the subject, in case it looked as if one did not pay full tribute to local authorities of all parties for their wisdom and statesmanship in meeting the national need and doing this. They have done it, and it is something for which the Government are extremely grateful.
  In a time when the rate support grant was going forward, we had hon. Members opposite vying with each other in their prophecies of gloom. It was rather like Hexham prophesying its thousands and Chester its tens of thousands. One right hon. Gentleman opposite prophesied that we should see an increase of 10 per cent. However, the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) thought that that was pusillanimous stuff and said that it would be

  111
  20 per cent. I have not the complete picture, but it is not my fault that we are having the debate now and have to take the existing picture. As far as we can tell at the moment, general rates are going up by less than 5 per cent., and domestic rates are going up by less than 1 per cent.
  Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. Gentleman attributes something to me which was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). It was he who mentioned the figure of 20 per cent.
  Mr. MacColl: I will check my reference again, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that he was so intoxicated by the chase, when he thought he had the Government on the run, that he ventured a figure. In any event, I am happy to take the figure of an ex-Minister and a Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition.
  What is the position in Croydon? After reorganisation, rates went up by 1s. 6d. That was not our fault, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West criticised the last Conservative Administration for it. The hon. Gentleman said that they would go up again this year, nearer to 20 per cent. In the event, they went up only 10 per cent.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I did not say anything about the Croydon rates going up 20 per cent.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is obviously another of those who forget in the full heat of the chase. He said it during the Second Reading of the Rating Act. Croydon's general rate is going up by 3d. Because of the Government's policy the domestic rate will go down by 2d.
  Take the case of Harrow, which is another Conservative Greater London borough. There the rate is going down by 10d. In the case of Hemel Hemp-stead, which is an expanding borough, the position is unchanged. Those are all boroughs on behalf of whom there has been agitation in the House for something more to be done to keep down the appalling burden of rates.
  The other point about which the hon. Gentleman complained was the inade-
  112
  quacy of the rate support grant, and he asked what was to happen. Local authority expenditure was going up by about 9 per cent., and the Government took the responsibility of saying that that was too high in the public interest. They did not say that it would mean cuts and that services would go down, but that it would not be so easy to make improvements which we should all like to see. With the Government cuts, the increase was estimated at 4½per cent. The position now is that we are paying 1 per cent. more on this increased expenditure and directing those payments specifically to help domestic ratepayers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked if that did not mean swingeing increases next year. We shall increase the proportion which we are paying under the rate support grant next year, and we shall also double the amount which goes into the domestic element. That indicates that we are taking steps to deal with the difficult problems which arise from the fact that the burden on the local authorities is liable to go up as the social services and the population increase.
  The hon. Gentleman talked rather coldly about the rate rebate scheme and dismissed it as being of no particular value. However, let us compare it with the Act which the last Conservative Government produced. The hon. Gentleman may not know that there was one, but his Government introduced a scheme for rebates in 1964. Under that scheme, £212,000 was paid out to poor ratepayers in three years. Under our scheme £15 million has been paid out in one year, which is more than 60 times as much. That means that something like 1 million people on average are getting half their rates met out of the grant.
  I did not myself check the hon. Gentleman's figures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), who is a little more cautious before he ventures into this sort of discussion, took the trouble by means of a Question to obtain the figures of what was happening in London. Under the Tory Act, Croydon was paid nothing, and Harrow was paid nothing. Under our Act, Croydon is getting £130,000, and Harrow is getting £88,500. That is clear evidence of the effectiveness of our scheme.

  113
  The hon. Member says that it is a monstrous injustice that we are asking a local authority to pay 25 per cent. of the cost itself. We think of that as being reasonably fair. We think that in any scheme where the local authority is getting the advantage of a more just rate system it is only reasonable that it should pay a fair part of the cost.
  Again, what was the position under the Tory Government? Did the Tory Government pay 75 per cent. of nil? No. They paid 50 per cent, of nil. Either the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that nobody ever really thought that the Tory scheme would work or would produce any money, and therefore that was the reason why it had a low grant of 50 per cent., or it is irresponsible to criticise us, who have produced a very much more effective scheme—it is not perfect, but it is a scheme that is producing results—and are paying half as much again as a proportion of the figures. These show that we are not only succeeding in holding the rate increase but that we are increasing the proportion that is borne on central Government funds.
  Mr. David Winnick: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this sum of money which has been granted, more than £130,000, shows the amount of acute hardship suffered by those living on small fixed incomes prior to the Act being passed?
  Mr. MacColl: It does indeed show that. It also shows the number of people who were not getting the kind of help they needed. My only regret is that more people are not applying for the rebates. That is a problem that does arise, in persuading people to use the opportunities open to them.
  The hon. Member asked me about the long-term picture, about what was going to happen. We can say quite reasonably that we have produced an effective scheme in conditions of very great difficulty and in conditions of great economic crisis. Everybody is demanding reductions in public expenditure. One cannot open a newspaper without seeing calls for the slow-down of increases in public expenditure. When we take steps to slow down the increase in local expenditure, and to shift more of it over to the central Government, it does not lie in the mouth of the Con-
  114
  servative Party to blame us that we have not been able to do more. Of course, we would like to do more, but we are satisfied with what we have done. We have done sufficient to show the seriousness of our intention to do a great deal more as we get the opportunity.
  The position about the long-term future of local government finance is that it must depend very much upon the future of local government organisation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of education. That is a very good example of it. A lot depends on the size of the education authority in the future, and that is something which the Royal Commission is looking at. Upon that will depend the kind of local government financial scheme that we need. It has often been said in the House that the final answer to the reorganisation of local government finance must depend upon the position of local government reorganisation. These are some of the things that we have been able to do.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of high interest rates. Under the Housing Subsidies Bill, which has now passed through the House, the major item of capital expenditure is shielded by the new subsidy, which is based on paying the difference between the market rate and 4 per cent. That is the major part of local government capital investment. The adjustments which we made—they are complicated and technical, and I will not detain the House by describing them now—to the mortgage loans pools and the Consolidated Loans Funds by altering the rate to 5 per cent. from 3½ per cent. credited to local authorities, are of considerable help to local authorities, particularly in the field of housing, who use those two different methods.
  The quota arrangement for borrowing from the P.W.L.B. means that over half the local authority capital expenditure is financed at a rate of 6 per cent. or less. That particularly helps the small authorities, to whom the P.W.L.B. quota is of more importance and significance than it is to the large authorities.
  These show that against the background of great difficulties, all the evidence is that our policy is doing a tremendous lot to keep down the burden of rates, and this year we have had the smallest increase in rates for years.

  115
  It is quite true that in past years the argument has been advanced, and questions have been asked whether the rate is increasing in terms of compound interest. To get a picture of the sort of uncontrolled building up of the rate burden, 10 years ago the increase in rates per head was something like 19½ per cent. The first year of the Labour Government, when we were in difficulties, in getting our policy in order to cope with the economic and financial difficulties, the increase was 12 per cent. In the current year it is 10·8 per cent. I have no doubt that next year it will be very much less than that.
  Although I am very glad to have had this opportunity to put before the House the facts of the situation, the hon. Gentleman was singularly ill-judged in moving his Motion at this time, at the very moment when every day we see in the newspapers headlines snowing rate increases of nil or reductions.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: I should like to add my congratulations and those of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) for the-way in which he moved this Motion, and more particularly on the very long-drawn-out battle which he has fought on behalf of the ratepayers.
  This debate has possibly been worthwhile if only to give a moment of pleasure to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is so very rare that the Government think that they have a good case, that it is really a cause for congratulations, and my heart warmed to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in such a happy mood. I stress the fact that it was a "moment", because I am afraid that these moments of joy for ratepayers are very passing phases indeed.
  I had a most interesting letter from the Secretary of the Rating and Valuation
  116
  Association, who explained how this moment of pleasure had been brought about. He said that
  "Local authorities have entered into the spirit of the freeze."
  So one can see local authorities standing like icebergs, their expenditure frozen to the ground, really enjoying themselves "in the spirit of the freeze". But had the Conservative Party been in power, local authority expenditure would have been able to have been paid for out of the growth in the economy which always takes place during our periods of office.
  I have to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, even in this moment of ecstasy which he is having over the rate situation, that there are some matters of sleight of hand which very often mask the true picture. He has to realise that in this year 1967–68 there will be very severe drawing on balances by many local authorities throughout the country. In the County of Cheshire, where I live, there will be a rate increase of 3d. in the £, but there will be a drawing on balances also of about 3d. in the £ in order to stabilise rates. In another county, of which I have news, that is Derbyshire, the rate at the moment should have been 9s. 11½d., but they levied a rate of 8s. 6d. because they were drawing on their balances to an enormous extent to keep the rate poundages steady.
  This state of affairs is being brought about by the generosity of local authorities in meeting the present Government. I do not criticise them for that. They are doing their best in the national interest, but one must realise that their rate balances are being drawn on very heavily indeed.
  I have news of two very poor counties—
  It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business.)

  BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
  (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) to move the Second Reading of the Bill I have two observations to make. First, I want a balanced debate, and I shall be grateful if hon. Members will indicate to me in some way or other on which side they are on the question, so that I can see that the debate is fairly shared out.
  Secondly, I have selected the Amendment on the Second Reading in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever).
  I have also selected the two Instructions, that in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chatham), and that in the name of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). These cannot be moved until after the Question for the Second Reading has been decided in the affirmative.
  I am advised, however, that these Instructions encompass two of the main arguments against the Bill, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if both the Instructions were discussed during the debate on the Second Reading. After we have taken the Amendment to the Second Reading we can, if the Second Reading is carried, take Divisions on the two Instructions.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Hobden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before carrying on with the main debate. I would like to give the background to the origin of the Bill which is the brain-child of a local businessman. Speaking on a more personal basis, I never thought on the day about four years ago when this vast project was first introduced to Brighton Planning Committee, of which I was then a member, that one day I would be standing in this House moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
  The marina scheme was submitted to
  Brighton Corporation four years ago, and even though some heat has been engendered since then by ill-informed
  118
  critics, I have had no reason to change my mind about the Bill being in the best interests of Brighton and its citizens.
  More than four years ago Brighton appeared to be standing at the crossroads with regard to its development in the post-war period, and many people had become worried because they felt that perhaps Brighton was falling behind with modern development and had lost its sense of direction. I think it is significant that this concern was felt by people of all political parties, and of none, and that the same view was shared by officials at the town hall as well as by the ordinary man in the street.
  A few years ago before the Bill was first brought forward, or before the marina project was put before the town council, the position had begun to change, and certain businessmen had begun to have renewed faith in Brighton. As a brief instance, and purely as an aside, I mention the Hotel Metropole development which has helped to make Brighton one of the foremost conference towns in the country. At the same time, there were certain educational developments which gave us a new college of technology, a new college of education, and Sussex University, which put us among the foremost towns from the point of view of having a seat of learning.
  But all that was not enough, so when the marina scheme was put forward to the council four years ago many of us on the local authority—I was a member then and I am today—believed that here was a scheme which would assist Brighton, a town of many facets, to evolve another role in the second half of the 20th century.
  The marina scheme has been described by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's inspector who conducted a local inquiry as being an asset to the town as a holiday resort as well as being of financial benefit to the town. The Minister of Housing and Local Government accepted his inspector's views, and it is interesting to note that the Minister's comments in his letter conveying his decision to approve the marina scheme indicated that he thought the proposal to be "a bold, imaginative and attractive scheme ".
  I want to draw attention to the other reasons for which I and the supporters

  119
  of the marina scheme believe that it is essential that the Bill should go forward. First, there is the urgent need to provide additional boating accommodation on the South Coast. That these facilities are urgently required no yachtsman or boat owner would ever dare, or could, deny, and it is necessary to point out that ten years ago there were fewer than 100,000 people enjoying the sport of yachting and boating, whereas now there are more than 500,000.
  I want, too, to draw attention to the fact that the South Eastern region in which the marina will be situated contains the overwhelming proportion of people interested in yachting and boating, and it is also pertinent to point out that in almost all local yacht harbours there are long waiting lists. This is confirmed by the inquiry inspector's conclusions in paragraph 489 of his report where he says:
  "… because of the present unmet and ever-increasing demand for yacht moorings, the need to provide new harbours such as that proposed is now urgent and will intensify in the future."
  The inspector is obviously aware of developments in this matter, and it is my firm belief that within the next few years, as personal affluence grows, we are likely to have as much trouble with the boat as we have today with the car. I remain firmly of the opinion that if resorts such as Brighton get schemes off the ground now and provide for the future in this direction we shall go a long way towards alleviating serious problems in the years ahead.
  Here again perhaps I might put in another aside. It is meant to be jocular, but there is a certain grain of truth in it. There was a time in this country when the very thought of council tenants having cars outside their houses, or television aerials on their roofs, brought forth some criticism of them, but today everybody accepts that it is in order for council tenants to have television sets and cars, and in the area from which I come, and in the ward which I represent in Brighton, for the first time boats are to be seen parked in the gardens of council houses. It is obvious that as personal affluence grows this sport will extend to wider areas of the population, and therefore it will be in our interest to do something about it.
  120
  I wish to deal with the on-shore development in connection with the marina. The Bill provides powers which will permit the reclamation of about 35 acres of land. Let us consider this, because many hon. Members will have seen the brochure distributed by the Brighton Marina Company laying out the proposals for this site and its development.
  This marina will have a tremendous effect on life in Brighton during the next few years if it comes to pass. It will enable Brighton to enhance its position as a leading holiday resort. Apart from this development and the provision of an ice-rink, as oceanarium, and other amenities, there will be provision for 800 units of permanent residential accommodation.
  The main purpose of the marina scheme is to provide boating facilities, but no scheme to provide purely boating facilities would be a viable economic proposition, and therefore the marina has to be backed with other developments. Again the inspector acknowledges this in paragraph 491 of his report where he says that the evidence tends to show that the provision of a harbour and its ancillary buildings would not be an economic proposition without the proposed allied on-shore development.
  Some local criticism—small in volume —has endeavoured to show that this is not the ideal site for a yachting harbour. The Marina Company, at no little expense, has employed a firm of consultants and other experts to investigate that very position. Tests have shown that the site is ideal for the purpose—certainly more acceptable than the two previous sites suggested, in other parts of Brighton.
  Again, if we want confirmation of that point to confound the critics, paragraph 490 of the inspector's report states that
  "From the point of view of yachtsmen, the location of the present site would be a good one from virtually every aspect."
  There is not much doubt about that view, and if anybody still doubts the proposition that the site is suitable he should read the comments of Group Captain Haylock, an eminent authority on the subject—a member of the General Purposes Committee of the Royal Yachting Association and a past editor of Yachting World—retained by the Company in

  121
  support of the application at the local inquiry. The group captain is in hearty support of the application to build on the proposed site.
  Furthermore, the Brighton Fishermen and Boatmen's Protection Society, which includes all the professional Brighton fishermen in its ranks, supports the creation of the marina on this site, as does the Sussex Motor Yacht Club and the Brighton Cruising Club. I mention these organisations purely in relation to the marine aspect of the matter and the criticisms raised in that direction.
  I want now to deal with the marina on the basis of some of the more absurd and frenetic criticisms levelled by people who are nothing more than civic flatearthers. To listen to some of the more ridiculous critics, one would think that a group of greedy speculators had come along and in some act of brigandage had stolen the foreshore from Brighton's citizens without so much as a by-your-leave.
  Let us examine this allegation. The matter came before Brighton's planning committee four years ago. It was received enthusiastically from the outset and the committee gave its consent, subject to a decision by the whole of the town council. The town council gave an overwhelming mandate to the project and received all-party support from Conservative, Labour and Liberal councillors. That was four years ago, since when, using the usual democratic processes, it was open to critics to express opposition to candidates supporting the marina in local town council elections. But the marina never became an issue at the council elections, and no councillor was ever displaced because he supported the marina. It can therefore be confidently claimed that in the absence of opposition the people of Brighton were for it.
  But even if it were felt that the councillors of all political parties had made a grave error, two further events gave an indication of public feeling. First, in view of the magnitude of the scheme the Ministry of Housing and Local Government decided to hold a public inquiry and in January, 1966, for nine days, the matter was ventilated publicly and at length. No views were suppressed, and in due course the Minister approved the scheme.
  But even if all these safeguards were not sufficient, one other matter inter-
  122
  vened. I am not going to use this argument on a party political basis. As it had not been during the 1964 election, the question of the marina became a vital issue in the 1966 General Election, held in March last year. My opponent and I took opposing sides in this matter. Our positions were made clear to the voters, and nobody had any doubt where we stood. I was in favour of the marina; my opponent was against it. We know the result of that election. I was elected.
  The matter has had a thorough public airing. Here I want to pay tribute to the local Brighton Press. It has been more than generous—especially the Brighton Evening Argus—in upholding the traditions of the Press by giving more than a fair share of space to the public debate on this matter, both in articles and in their letters columns. Furthermore, all three local newspapers have come down firmly in favour of the scheme.
  The Bill comes down to what Brighton is all about. The critics are few in number, but loud in voice, and they continually contradict each other in their criticisms of the marina. We hear about the loss of beaches at the same time as the critics go on record as approving a yachting harbour, yet each scheme involves the loss of beaches. We are told that the marina will adversely affect business in the town, yet all the businessmen's organisations and the local chamber of commerce and hotel organisations are fully in support of the marina. We are told that it is a planning blunder, yet it has been approved both by the Minister and by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
  The question of excess sewage has also been raised—a vital problem in Brighton. Nobody has done more than I have to get Brighton to solve this problem, and even before the marina scheme was known the local authority had taken steps to give urgent attention to the sewage problem. This will be going ahead during the next two years.
  Then we hear a lot about people being displaced from their homes in Riflebutt Road. I want to strike a serious note here, because this aspect of the problem gave me more concern than all the other aspects put together. I understand that about 38 people are affected by the compulsory purchase order, and they have a

  123
  right to be heard. Nobody should be lightly turned out of his home. But it should be placed on record that at my instigation the local authority has guaranteed to rehouse every displaced person, and the company will be more than generous in its terms of compensation. In my opinion, these people will get far more generous treatment from the company than they would if the corporation had had to apply district valuers' standards.
  It should also be mentioned that not every person in Riflebutt Road is against being displaced, or against the marina being developed on the site proposed. The trouble is that the residents of Rifle-butt Road are being used as pawns by the marina critics at large. For the loss of beaches, the loss of houses and the loss of certain other amenities, not one critic has been concerned to apply the same argument to other developments in Brighton.
  That is why I castigate them as hypocrites. Hundreds of people have been compulsorily removed from the West Street Site in Brighton, now being redeveloped, and the Brighton Skydeck Bill went through without a squeak or without any attempt at a blocking device from the three local M.P.s. That Bill, which will also involve the loss of beaches, raised not the slightest whimper from people who are now kicking up a row about the loss of beaches and the displacement of people on the marina site.
  It is argued that the marina will mean increased traffic problems, but at the same time we are told that it will be a white elephant. How a development which will be a failure can produce extra traffic escapes my comprehension, but it shows up the inconsistency of the criticisms of the Bill. There would be increased traffic anyway, with or without the marina, and the Minister has insisted that the town council pays attention to this problem. It is a condition of his consent to the marina scheme. It should be placed on record, to be fair to Brighton Corporation, that in any case it has been employing traffic consultants for some time to work out Brighton's future traffic problems.
  Taking all the arguments—admitting the genuine concern for the people of Rifle Butt Road—the criticisms do not
  124
  hold water, are not valid, and represent the last resort of those who would like to see Brighton stay a quiet backwater on the South Coast, thereby frustrating the will of the local people.
  But I believe that they have reckoned without the will of the people of Brighton. I was born and raised there and I know the people; I am one of them. The Bill, granting commission and powers to the Marina Company, is about Brighton and its future, in which I have a tremendous faith. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Conservatives, or—I hope that this will not shock my hon. Friends—with capitalists, to see Brighton develop, if the alternative is to do nothing. As a Left-wing Socialist, I find it a little ironical that some of my hon. Friends apparently want to man the barriers of Socialism at the Brighton Marina, when they should be manning them in the House. That is where the basis of Socialism should start.
  A prayer which is read before every Brighton Council meeting says at one point:
  "Grant us a vision of our town, fair as she should be."
  I believe in that vision and I revel in the spirit of the town's history and its past. I like its reputation and am confident that it has a great future. I can see that vision now and I believe that it includes the Brighton Marina. No one, least of all the academic and intellectual "carpetbaggers", will spoil that vision. Brighton is about the future as well as the past, which is why I ask hon. Members not to block the passage of the Bill, because it will mean not a loss of Brighton's heritage but the creation of a heritage for future generations.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on his praise of Brighton and of that excellent newspaper the Evening Argus, which gives him his fair share of publicity, but I regret that he missed the three real points in the debate. The first is that the proposed yachting harbour will be a magnet to draw people away from Brighton, and thereby destroy its prosperity. The second

  125
  is that it is proposed to place the yachting harbour at the most dangerous beach along the Brighton foreshore. The third is that there are better alternatives for that harbour.
  My hon. Friend said a great deal in praise of Brighton and he was right. He loves Brighton, he lives there, he is the Member of Parliament for Kemptown—and a very good Member he is. But he is misguided. He is like the gentleman who wrote to the paper the other day that this proposed marina will be "a shot in the arm" for Brighton. Certainly, it will be an injection, but an injection of a very unpleasant kind, which will do a great deal of damage to Brighton. It would be a kind of narcotic.
  There are alternatives which my hon. Friend might have mentioned and which might have been selected for the Bill. The injection will be disastrous. It will not exhilarate Brighton, but will draw people away from the hotels, shops, and central prosperity of Brighton. Instead of doing Brighton good, it will do a great deal of harm. Worse still, it may be used as a precedent for other, similar, resorts.
  I therefore oppose the Bill as a matter of national duty, public policy and human safety, in view of the dangerous beach to which it is proposed that these yachts should be enticed. I say frankly that I am in favour of yachting. I am in favour of seafaring and of yachting harbours. I might say that I am amphibious. I am very addicted to the sea.
  I should like to see a yachting harbour for Brighton, but in the right place, under the right conditions, and under public ownership, management and control. This proposed harbour is none of these things. It is to be built in the wrong place, on a dangerous part of the coast, for private profit instead of public and under private control. It is to be built two miles from the centre of Brighton and will thereby attract visitors and customers away from the present prosperous centre of Brighton.
  It will divert traffic from Brighton. It is actually proposed to build roads which will enable traffic to come from London and other small villages to other parts of the coast and so avoid Brighton. It will, indeed, be a diversion from Brighton. It is a long-range Texan shot which may
  126
  assassinate Brighton's "presidency" as a seaside resort.
  I submit, therefore, that the Bill should be rejected as not within the rule laid down in Erskine May:
  "The promoters of a bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success and no one may complain of injury or urge any specific objection, yet, if Parliament apprehends that it will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected as if it were a public measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments not solicited by the parties."
  No doubt the promoters of the Bill will have their own interests advanced, not the public interest. They will make profits for themselves rather than for the public.
  But what about Brighton's hotels and shops, from which the visitors and customers will be diverted to this new township at Black Rock, two miles from Brighton's centre? Brighton will, therefore, be damaged by the new township; that is the essential feature of the Bill.
  I submit that the Bill should be rejected because it comes within the rule which I have quoted—that is, because it will be hurtful to the community. I shall present these probable hurts not only on my own authority, but supported by independent authority which conflicts with the fanciful and imaginative picture published by the Bill's promoters, in locating a new township only two miles from Brighton to compete with and damage Brighton's hotels, shops, entertainments, industry and tourist trade, and I shall do it as a matter of public and national duty.
  This Bill may be used as the thin end of the wedge, as a precedent to bring other beaches under private control for private profit. Local corporations and their constituents should watch with fear and horror the progress of this Bill—that is, if it gets any further. The Bill provides for a company to
  "… be authorised to construct the marina and the recreational, residential and other facilities and the road and harbour works described in this Act, to reclaim land from the sea and to acquire lands compulsorily …"
  As I have said, the scheme is explicitly designed to attract customers and visitors—indeed, the population generally—away from Brighton and thereby to do Brighton a great deal of harm. It will also do a great deal of damage to the residents of Kemptown, where it is proposed to build the new harbour. Some

  127
  of the residents there are to be expelled from their traditional residences, which they, their families and their forebears have occupied for generations.
  A particularly disgusting feature of the use of the powers sought by the promoters of the Bill is mentioned shamelessly in Clause 15, under which it is proposed to acquire a burial ground, to dig up corpses and to pay a sum not exceeding £50 for each corpse and to apportion the £50 equally to a number of corpses that may be in the same grave.
  I ask the House to take the view that this feature of the Bill is repugnant to common decency. It is a horrible and gruesome proposal, almost in keeping with that I have mentioned about dispossessing the residents of Kemptown from their ancestral homes.
  I come to some more of the hurts which the Bill is designed to inflict on the residents of the area. The site of the proposed yacht harbour is all wrong. Brighton, as everyone knows, is a charming and successful seaside resort on a stretch of coast from east to west, with a beach which varies in steepness. A remarkable feature of the place is that the beach varies in steepness to such an extent that some parts of it are suitable for a yachting harbour while others are quite shallow. The part of the beach where it is proposed to build the new harbour is shallow and covered with chalk rocks. These rocks will have to be removed, but the sand beneath will still leave the beach shallow and yachtsmen have written to the local newspaper pointing out the dangers of this part of the coast to yachting.
  At the west end there is a deep and ready-made harbour which could be used with safety by yachtsmen. At the east end it is rocky and there are dangerous currents—yet here it is proposed to build the new harbour at great expense and possibly causing grave danger. It is, therefore, a most unreasonable place at which to seek to build such a harbour.
  I said that I would not rely on my own orbiter dicta, but would quote authorities to support my case. A distinguished yachtsman, Mr. A. Lloyd-Taylor, a resident of Brighton, emphasised the points I have been making in a recent letter to the local Press. I will
  128
  not quote the whole of his letter, but he stated:
  "As a sort of gilded Coney Island the place might be a grand success in the eyes of the more wealthy 'with-it' visitors, but I believe that for yachtsmen it would prove to be the whitest of white elephants, and could well be the cause of a considerable number of regrettable sailing fatalities."
  The Bill proposes to authorise the building of a new township about two miles from Brighton, to build a marina club, restaurants, public houses, oceanarium—whatever that is—ice rinks, recreational facilities, shops, hotels, boatels—whatever they are—and residential units. It is proposed to build these in Kemptown as a counter-attraction to the attractions offered by Brighton, thereby to draw residents and visitors away from Brighton.
  A very distinguished architect who is also a resident of Brighton stated in a letter in the local Press recently—although I will not detain the House by reading the whole of the letter, only the relevant part:
  "… the debate in the House of Commons on the Brighton Marina Bill should bring to a head the fundamental issue that concerns the supporters as well as the opponents of the idea of a yacht harbour: has the right basis been found for the combination of private enterprise and public control which appears to be the only way of creating a new and permanent asset to add to the many that Brighton already has.
  The Bill in its present form does not suggest that this is so."
  I am making these quotations because I wish to present a complete argument.
  This is part of a letter from one of the professors at Sussex University, Professor Marcus Cunliffe. His remarks appeared in that great organ of public opinion The Times on 24th February last. He wrote:
  "1. Everyone in Brighton wants a boat harbour. Not everyone accepts that the only way to get one is to build a new township to sit behind it.
  2. This Marina township is in the wrong place, aesthetically and commercially. It would tend to kill off central Brighton, where the hotels and entertainments are mainly and rightly concentrated. The present site is a gigantic cul de sac with only one means of traffic access.
  3. Leasing off the foreshore creates a dangerous precedent for our whole coastline."
  This is a matter of national importance. Private exploiters, for private profit, must not be allowed by Statute to ruin

  129
  Brighton in this way. They must not be allowed to endanger the lives of yachtsmen by enticing them to this rocky shore. Beaches should not be closed to the public, children and the girls from Roe-dean and other schools who go there to study marine life. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing. I assure them that girls from Roedean go there to study marine life in the pools; not the pools in which hon. Gentlemen opposite invest their money, but the pools in which marine life is to be found. Many girls from the local schools are sent there daily by their mistresses to study the marine life. If this kind of thing is to be allowed by Statute, I say with respect that it is contrary to the public policy.
  On those grounds, and a great many others I could cite, I ask the House to refuse the Bill its Second Reading.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: It is usual in a Second Reading debate for the House to consider the principle of the Bill, but on this occasion there may be some case for distinguishing the objective of the Bill from some of the points of principle it raises. The objective of the Bill is one that this House may well support—the establishment of a marina which, as has been rightly pointed out already, is likely to fulfil a growing need as the affluent society increases and people find that the attractions of the sea are very much greater than those of overcrowded roads. At the same time, two points of principle arise which the House would be wise to consider. The large attendance at this debate brings out the fact that the points which we are considering are wider than the mere consideration of the Bill itself and go to the very root of many of our Parliamentary institutions.
  The first point is whether it is right and proper that a private company should be given the power to set up a socially desirable but admittedly uneconomic project, and to finance it from other investment nearby which is recognised to be profitable. This is a principle that we should adopt with some trepidation. I could not be more in favour of the profit motive—I believe that the whole of our economic system and our welfare depends ultimately on the profit motive—but when the House is considering giving a
  130
  private company the right to set up an overall establishment of the kind proposed it is right that it should decide what balance it will strike between the two parts.
  I have studied at some length the literature that has been provided on the subject. It goes in great details into the amenities that will be provided and into many of the arguments advanced for and against the marina. So far, I have been unable to find any estimate, first, of the rate of return on capital which is ex-amenities that are to be provided, and, secondly, the rate of return likely to be made on the associated enterprises, backing up the marina, which we are told will provide the bulk of the finance.
  Before the Bill completes its passage through the House it would be helpful if those figures could be provided—the rate of return on capital on the amenity itself and the associated enterprises, and the division of capital between the two. In other words, how much is to be invested in the marina, and how much in the accommodation—the boatels, the ice-rink, and so on—that is to go behind it?
  Mr. Donald Chapman: The figures are well-known—about £10 million on the shore development and about £3 million on the harbour works.
  Mr. Higgins: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for that information. That provides the split of the capital, but there is also the question of the return. It is a question of the rate of return expected from harbour dues, and so on, and that expected on the flats, the ice-rinks and other items.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman can find the figures in the report of the hearings before the inspector. It is simply said in paragraph 149 that the return on the harbour mooring, as such, would be from 5 per cent. to 8·7 per cent., and that the on shore development was needed to give a reasonable return of 10 per cent.
  Mr. Higgins: This is overall?
  Mr. Chapman: Yes.
  Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for that information, and I am sure that the House will bear it in mind.

  131
  Another point concerns compensation for those affected. Here I hope that when considering this kind of Bill the House will not necessarily apply the same kind of principles that would be relevant if a local authority or other governmental institution were promoting a Measure considered to be in the public interest. I have received representations from a number of people and, in particular, I have constituents who have property in the area which will be affected by the marina. I have therefore been in correspondence with the promoters of the Bill about the compensation that will be provided.
  The point about compensation is covered by the memorandum sent out on behalf of the promoters of the Bill and which many hon. Members will have received today. The relevant point comes under the heading "Compulsory Acquisition of Land"—page 4 of the memorandum. The promoters point out that two points have been raised in connection with compensation.
  "The first point relates to the adequacy of the provisions in the Bill affording compensation to the owners or occupiers of lands sought to be acquired or adversely affected. In this respect, the Company would respectfully point out that the provisions included in the Bill for that purpose follow the usual form and afford the full provision for compensation which is applicable under the general law."
  We must consider whether the compensation should not be paid immediately the Bill becomes law.
  I understand from correspondence with the promoters that it is likely that the compulsory purchase order will take effect perhaps three years after the passing of the Bill. In that period, the people affected will be under considerable anxiety about how much is to be paid, when it will be paid, and so on. I gather that the promoters have gone to some length to facilitate the matter, and have offered to pay for the valuation of the property. However, I do not think this in itself to be sufficient, because there may well be a considerable time-lag during which my constituents, and no doubt others affected by the project, will be uncertain about what exactly is to happen.
  The hon. Member for Brighton Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) suggested that about 38 dwellings were affected. If we take a
  132
  figure of £4,000 to £5,000 per dwelling, the amount involved—say £150,000/£200,000—is still only about 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. of the total cost of the work that will eventually be undertaken as the result of the Bill. It therefore seems not unreasonable, with the finances available for the whole of this very large project, that the promoters should pay out compensation as soon as they knew they have the approval of the House to go ahead. That is the main point I want to make.
  Another point is whether compensation should be paid on the basis of the actual valuation of the property at the present market rate or whether these people should not also receive some compensation for the disturbance—the fact that they have to move, and so on. I believe this should be covered as well.
  If an organisation is to be set up which is to be profit-making and people otherwise unconnected with it are to suffer loss or expenses, it is right and proper that full compensation should be provided by those expecting to make profits to those adversely affected by the enterprise. It is right and proper that the matter should be raised on Second Reading. I hope that the Select Committee will consider it and bear it in mind.
  A minor point which must be considered is that it is proposed that the company should be given rather wide powers—for example, with regard to the collection of fees from those using the harbour. Not only is the company to be allowed to take ordinary action through the courts but I understand that a fine of about £50 on summary conviction could be imposed on those against whom the company made some charge.
  I believe that the Instruction which we are debating with the Bill goes too far. I think that it is possible to cover the main points of anxiety that the House has in mind by considering them in Committee. We could then reconsider the amended Bill on Report, which is what I would propose that we should do before deciding whether to give it a Third Reading.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) put his case very well. Of course, he has an expert's

  133
  knowledge of the subject. I was interested in being tacitly described as an intellectual carpetbagger. Where he was describing a Left-wing one or a centre or Right-wing one, I do not know, and I do not know, either, whether I object to being called intellectual more than I object to being called a carpetbagger. I think that I do. But my hon. Friend is wrong in suggesting that those of us with reservations about the Bill are frivolous, or have no right to discuss the matter in some detail in the House.
  What we are discussing is not confined entirely to Brighton. It is not a parochial matter. It is not even confined to Sussex. It involves a matter of great principle and the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) fairly stated what that principle is. It is the principle whether private individuals or private companies or private developers should be given power to enclose beaches which the public have used freely for very many years.
  Mr. Higgins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. No doubt the House will consider the point he is making, but it is not the point I made. I said that we have to consider how much extension of planning permission one should allow in order to finance a project of this kind.
  Mr. Davidson: I certainly would not wish to misinterpret the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but this is the point I am making. What we are also discussing is whether it is right for private individuals to have the right to apply compulsory purchase orders against people who have lived in their property for many years and against property which is of historical and architectural interest. It is surely right and proper that the House should discuss matters like that.
  If the Bill passes in its present form—and I am not opposing it in principle—it will set a precedent which the House has a right at least to consider. The precedent is that, if this kind of development is permitted, it may well take place also in other resorts throughout the country. We should also consider what is the grand cause for which the public are being asked to some extent to give up their traditional rights.
  If one strips away the veneer of this proposal, taking away the rather romantic
  134
  and glamorous name "marina", what does one find? It is that we are not dealing purely and simply with a yachting basin. If we were I would be wholeheartedly behind the scheme. What we are dealing with is an on-shore development which includes a casino, luxury restaurants, luxury hotels and luxury flats. Indeed, I have never seen the word "luxury" bandied about with such pride as in this brochure.
  The House is entitled to know who the people are who would make use of these luxury developments, and whether all these luxurious amenities are really necessary in the cause of building a yachting basin. Nobody, as far as I know, disputes that a yachting basin is necessary for Brighton, nor, indeed, that throughout the country there is a severe shortage of sporting facilities.
  But I would like to be reassured that the sort of yachtsmen who would be using this basin would be, if I may use the phrase, sportsmen in the best sense of the word—the amateur yachtsmen who yacht for pleasure at the weekend, for example. I am not and do not pretend to be an expert in yachting, but I gather from the criticism that many eminent yachtsmen have levelled at the scheme that there is some doubt at least whether this would be the right and proper place to build the basin and whether it would not be better for a smaller and municipally owned yachting basin to be built elsewhere in Brighton.
  I am a little disturbed, also, by the mention of the word "casino" in this brochure. I have no moral objection to gambling of any sort whatever but at a time—
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am rather surprised and a little pained by what my hon. Friend has just said. I thought that he was joining us on these benches as a Socialist Member of the House. As a Socialist I have the strongest moral objection to the kind of mass gambling which is going on, because it means trying to get something for nothing. As a Socialist, I object to it.
  Mr. Davidson: We hear the words "Left-wing Socialism" bandied about a lot in this House. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants me to give a definition of it. If he does, I have no intention of doing so. I would not have thought

  135
  that being for or against gambling would have been part of Socialism one way or another. But I am certainly against the sort of mass gambling that is taking place at the moment and what worries me is that, if this sort of luxury, rather sleazy development takes place, we might well attract to Brighton and this marina the very sort of people we are trying to keep out of our casinos and gambling institutions in the country as a whole.
  If there are any doubts about what sort of luxury development can lead to, one has only to look to the Bahamas, where considerable parts of the beaches were let out to private developers and where gambling became virtually the staple diet of the economy and where, this very moment, a committee of inquiry, headed by Scotland Yard detectives, is investigating alleged links with the Mafia.
  I would have thought that before the House agreed to a development of this sort, with all its implications, it was only right and proper that it should be debated.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: I speak on the Bill with some diffidence, because my constituency is not directly affected and the points of principle are not particularly burning issues for Socialist Members, but in the past I have often sailed yachts past Brighton, and I should like to put the point of view of the yachtsman as well as examine the Bill from other points of view.
  Obviously, in spite of the reassurance which we have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) who moved the Second Reading so ably, the Bill will cause some loss of amenities. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) put the very reasonable view that the Bill would interfere with some of the amenities for the local population, including himself. But one can never achieve anything useful without causing some inconvenience, so the House must weigh the relative merits of the slight amount of inconvenience to a small number of people, who, I trust, will be adequately compensated, and the general usefulness of the whole scheme.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, yachting is now
  136
  becoming a very popular sport and is occupying the recreational time of probably more than a million people. One of the most outstanding aspects of yachting is the enormous shortage of facilities in the form of moorings, yacht harbours and hards on which to beach yachts, and anything which can improve available facilities to yachtsmen will have a tremendously beneficial effect on the sport, and so yachtsmen will be grateful for this development. There can be very little doubt about that, to judge from the correspondence in the newspapers.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North suggested that there might be some danger to yachtsmen because this was a lee shore and a dangerous coast. That is a very good reason for having a port, because when one is sailing a yacht on a lee shore with a rising wind, and all kinds of dangers around, the very thing which one wants to do is to get into a port; and there would be a port on this very dangerous lee shore. All the arguments about local dangers are strong arguments in favour of having a port available to yachtsmen.
  There is no doubt but that such a port would attract foreign yachtsmen. The French do not have anything equivalent on the south side of the Channel and there is nothing equivalent in Holland or in Belgium, so we would attract quite a few foreign yachts and tourists.
  Mr. Chapman: What about Newhaven?
  Mr. Cronin: I agree that Newhaven is a useful port, but I would not say that it was a particularly glamorous port. I cannot say that I have noticed many foreign yachtsmen fighting their way through the waves towards Newhaven, come what may.
  Another important factor is that this scheme would have a tremendous tourist attraction. In this country we depend to a substantial extent on the tourist industry for helping towards our balance of payments. Without doubt, yacht marinas glamorise seaside resorts. Places like Monte Carlo, Deauville, Cannes, and Fort Lauderdale, across the Atlantic attract tourists because they have yacht harbours and yacht marinas. The same thing would happen in this case and would greatly increase the tourist attraction of Brighton. The House should

  137
  remember this, because all of our seaside resorts suffer from the deplorable annoyance of British weather and anything which counteracts that, even to a minor extent, should be encouraged by all of us.
  The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that there was some doubt whether the House should give powers for a profitable enterprise to be set up with attached to it a comparatively smaller enterprise which was less profitable, but which would provide amenities. I take it that he has no objection to the setting-up of profitable enterprises per se. Surely it is even more desirable if large profitable enterprises are set up and, at the same time, produce some public amenity of an uneconomic nature. I should have thought that that was an argument in favour of the Bill.
  The hon. Member also questioned the return on capital. That is very speculative, because we do not know what the return on capital will be. This is a purely private enterprise development and the return on capital may well be much less than 10 per cent. I shall be surprised if the profits on this outlay will be as much as has been suggested.
  Mr. Austen Albu: Would not my hon. Friend agree that in those circumstances the whole thing might well become derelict?
  Mr. Cronin: That was one of the things which I intended to mention later.
  Mr. J. T. Price: That part of the Sussex coast has already suffered from the terrible example of the Peacehaven development which, because of unbridled speculation which never fructified, left a blot on the landscape for future generations to endure.
  Mr. Cronin: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that, because I am sure that, whichever hon. Members consider the Bill, they will bear that carefully in mind to make sure that no such appalling happening occurs again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) raised the important question whether a public amenity, a public beach, should be enclosed for the purposes of private profit. Most of us must feel some doubts about that, but the whole thing must be assessed on its merits. I should have thought that
  138
  the numerous advantages of this proposition must outweigh that nevertheless important consideration which must be borne in mind. The danger of causing a precedent is obviously important, because every case like this must be considered on its merits.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington was somewhat too severe about the luxury aspects. If one adopts his principle, that would be good reason for refusing planning permission to every luxury hotel planned for London and likely to attract tourists. One can dwell on luxury too much. Cromwellian austerity is not practical in terms of economics.
  Nevertheless, I should like some reassurance about certain aspects of the Bill. The first concerns the effect on neighbouring parts of the countryside. This township will have a population of about 20,000 and car parking for 3,600 cars and I cannot help feeling that there will be widespread and possibly prejudicial effects on the neighbouring countryside. I therefore think that the first proposed Instruction has great merit in dealing with that danger.
  As for the second Instruction; it may well be helpful for Brighton to be a shareholder in this company, but hon. Members will agree that the actual power of a shareholder in any enterprise is very limited. I have some doubt whether Brighton should be a shareholder. The idea that Brighton should be a majority shareholder sounds to me a most hair-raising possibility from the point of view of the corporation. This, I would suggest, is a somewhat speculative enterprise, and to bring the ratepayers of Brighton into this speculative position would, I think, be most undesirable.
  The third point on which I should like a reassurance is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), and that is the question of finance. The finance required will be of a most massive nature, a sum approaching £15 million. I think that the House does want to be sure that there is no danger of this scheme subsequently being abandoned through lack of finance. So I think it is of the utmost importance that the House should go very carefully into the question whether the finance will be available to see the enterprise through to the end.
  Mr. Chapman: I think that to be fair to the promoters, as I am very anxious to be tonight, I ought to read just one sentence from a letter sent to me by the town clerk, who says that the corporation is negotiating with the developers a restriction which will ensure that
  "no work is to be commenced until the Corporation have been satisfied by the promoters that they will have adequate financial resources to secure the completion of the whole of the works in one continuous operation".
  I think that, to be fair, that should go into the record.
  Mr. Cronin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This goes a long way towards meeting my objection, but I still think, despite that reassurance, that the House should consider very carefully the financial aspects.
  Having made those reservations, I should like simply to say that it seems to me that this Bill will be of enormous help to yachtsmen, who are deserving members of the population, and that this project will be a big tourist attraction. It will be a big help to Brighton and to our foreign trade through tourism, and I think, therefore, that it should have the full support of the House.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I speak with some diffidence on the Bill, being the Member for Harwich, on the east coast of England, but I join hands with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in opposing the Bill. I feel that I should declare a slight local interest in speaking on this matter. My uncle, Aurelian Ridsdale, was Member of Parliament for Brighton and was the only Liberal Member of Parliament Brighton has ever had.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: And probably the best.
  Mr. Ridsdale: I was brought up in the neighbourhood of Kemptown and my sister has a house in Kemptown. And, like the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) I, too, am a keen sailor. I have sailed and boated along that part of the coast, and fished there as well.
  I must say that while I welcome the fact that a harbour should be built somewhere along that coast I wonder whether the point chosen for this harbour is
  140
  exactly the right one. I know from experience how the south-wester blows very hard against the cliffs there, and I wonder whether the protection which an artificial harbour would give would be enough to protect the boats, especially in some of the gales in the winter, when they blow very hard in that neighbourhood. I think that there is a case for putting the harbour farther along to the west, or at the centre of the town, but certainly not in the place at present chosen.
  I support the idea that certainly there is some need for a boat harbour on that part of the coast. Naturally, being the Member of Parliament for Harwich I am keen on making harbours and facilitating the sailors and their amenities, though, of course, I should like some of the money which is to be spent to be spent on the East Coast rather than the South Coast.
  What concerns me is the building on the foreshore of ice rinks and bowling alleys and luxury hotels. I see that the estimated cost is over £12 million. The hon. Member for Loughborough was eloquent when he said that we should thus attract people from Deauville and people from the north coast of France, but I wonder whether these kinds of amenities will appeal to the French tourists. I think that if these facilities were built on the East Coast, in a very natural English atmosphere, they would undoubtedly come. But I am told that an ice rink and a bowling alley and a casino already exist, and that hundreds of luxury flats in Brighton are for sale or to let, and that the new Metropole skyscraper block remains almost empty.
  In particular, as I am one who is always careful to take to task the Government for extravagance, or for not getting value for money in Government spending, I wonder whether, at this time, when our capital resources are scarce, it is wise to spend £12 million on development of a project of this nature. What is to be the return on the capital? Nobody has said whether it is a gross or a net return, but 10 per cent. gross is not very much to expect for this project, if it is something in the interests of the country.
  I am sure that one should not embark on capital spending of this nature unless one can get a return of at least 10 per cent. net. If that were to be the return

  141
  and we could attract tourists by this project I would be in favour, but as it is I must say I find it very difficult to agree.
  Surely, such big sums of money should be directed, if necessary, to non-luxury dwellings, to slum clearance, to hospitals and schools, the need for which is much more urgent at the moment than some of these projects which are being put up on the foreshore, or intended to be put up below the cliffs at Brighton. Or, better still, of course, as I have said, if it is intended to invest a capital of £12 million let us build some more marinas in other parts of the country. But why is this luxury place being put up at a time when our capital resources are very scarce?
  It is for these reasons that, as I say, I am very glad to join hands with the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North in opposing the Bill, much as I would favour the building of a boat harbour at a reasonable price.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: First, I must apologise to the House for arriving a few minutes late, but, perhaps for the first time in their history, a train run by British Railways arrived late at a London station. However, the promoters of the Bill have been kind enough to write to me on the assumption that I am one of their enthusiastic supporters, and they sent me their very full case, so I think that even they would agree that I am conversant with all the arguments even though they may have sent me their case under a misapprehension. As I have just returned from a Hovercraft expedition round Cowes I think that it will be agreed that I have a reasonable interest in the subject, despite the fact that I missed the introduction of the case made by the hon. Member for Kemptown (Mr. Hobden).
  I would say that it is quite clear that everyone is agreed on having a marina, and it seems to me that the only questions are whether we are in favour of it on this particular site and with all the corollaries which have been mentioned, and in favour of giving Parliamentary approval to its being financed in this manner.
  I am not certain what the hon. Member implies by "Left-wing Socialists", but
  142
  I am an old-fashioned Lloyd George Radical and was brought up on the phrase, "God gave the land to the people". One thing about which I feel very strongly indeed is that all the foreshores of the country ought to be in public ownership. It is intolerable to go abroad and find people who are debarred from the foreshores of their country. I have a shore in my constituency where my constituents are charged for bringing their own deckchairs to sit on their own beach. I may be the only nationaliser left, but I should certainly like to see all the foreshores of the country brought immediately into public ownership.
  I believe that to allow private enclosure of half a mile of beach and foreshore is retrogressive. It is going back to the medieval enclosures of the sixteenth century and is wholly wrong. I believe that before we make an exception to the rule we must be convinced that there are very strong reasons for doing so.
  What is asked for? First, we are asked that powers of compulsory purchase of both land and property shall be granted. The promoters say that there is nothing new in this and that very often compulsory powers have been asked for. But that is an extremely disingenuous argment. Most of the powers asked for in Bills—I was brought up with briefs flowing in and out of the house because my father was at the Parliamentary Bar—are compulsory powers for public utilities concerned with such things as gas works, roads and water. I do not believe that acquisitions of this sort and powers of this nature are comparable.
  Secondly, I understand that upwards of £1 million is to be spent on the roads. There was a suggestion at a Press conference that the Ministry of Transport would be asked to make a contribution. That may or may not be right. However, I should have thought that there were other roads with higher priority.
  The ratepayers of Brighton will have to meet an increased rate demand of about £150,000–£200,000, and it will be four or five years before they get a genuine return on that. Although about £90,000 a year will be paid for 30 years by way of charges on the £1 million. the fact remains that in the initial period of development a large financial burden will rest on the Brighton ratepayers. I do

  143
  not know whether we shall be told by either of the Brighton Members of Parliament whether they welcome that. It may be that they do. That seems to be another consideration.
  The third consideration is financial ability. An hon. Member has very properly drawn the attention of the House to the statement made by the town clerk. Possibly, that is not, therefore, as much for consideration as it was.
  Certainly, we know that there will be very considerable pollution. In paragraph 5 of the letter of the 29th September, 1966, from the inspector, Mr. Knox, on behalf of the Minister there is an interesting passage. He wrote:
  "However, it was reasonable to expect that, in some conditions of tide and on-shore wind, pollution would occur on the popular bathing beaches immediately west of the proposed Marina and in some circumstances the amount … could be significant."
  He went on:
  "The discharge of sewage by marine w.c.s involved maceration of solids, but such maceration would not reduce the pollution nor make it aesthetically acceptable."
  I am not quite certain how sewage is made aesthetically acceptable. The letter went on:
  "However, the clearance of any deposited solid sewage, in common with any form of litter, must be a matter for the council who would, no doubt, face to the full their responsibilities in this respect."
  I suggest that those who would face the sewage first would be swimmers and not the local council.
  There has been the suggestion—the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) dealt with this is a very reasoned speech—that this would be a dangerous place for yachts. As the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) said, showing the wisdom that one would expect from a nephew of a former Liberal Member of this House, there would be a better case for siting it on a smaller scale nearer to the West Pier.
  We have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to enclose a public beach so that a private firm may develop it for private profit. Should the firm be given not only powers of compulsory purchase but powers of fining which are extensive? Should it also be given power to build a complex of buildings which I should have thought were not
  144
  asked for or needed by yachtsmen? We should give the matter very careful thought before we pass a Bill which for the first time in the history of this House publicly encloses the foreshore of any part of our coastline. If any such development is really economically desirable it should be done by the municipality. Certainly it should not be done by granting a right of monopoly to a private firm for enclosing any part of our coastline.
  I know the area. It is not the most aesthetically attractive, though it is rather more aesthetically acceptable than the treated sewage to which the Minister's minion referred. Whatever it is, it is a very bad precedent which comes at the time of Operation Neptune, which is seeking to save as much of our coastline as it can. Unless the subsequent speeches in the debate can convince me on a great many of these points, I shall object to the Bill and vote against it.
  Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough in believing that the second Instruction is disastrous. It says that Brighton Corporation can take a share in the equity, which is right, but that if the scheme goes bust there is a contingent liability for it and the ratepayers to become majority shareholders.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is misreading the Instruction. It simply says that the corporation shall have the right, not the liability, to take a majority shareholding.
  Mr. Thorpe: I entirely agree, but presumably the right would be exercised only in the event of the development being other than in accordance with the agreed plan at the inception of the work or if the consortium in question was in financial difficulties. It seems to me that these could be the only two occasions when this power might be operated. I should have thought that the last thing the ratepayers of Brighton want to do is to have a contingent possibility of having to become majority shareholders in what would be financially an enormously expensive concern. But it may well be that I have misinterpreted the point that the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
  Nevertheless, I believe that this is not the sort of private enclosure of public property to which the House should begin to give its blessing.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: I begin by explaining to the House what my credentials are for speaking about the Bill. I was born in Brighton, and I lived there till 1950, when I entered the House. At one stage, both my parents were members of Brighton Corporation and my father was once mayor of the town. Consequently, I know the area extremely well. When I was a boy I investigated the marine life in the pools at Black Rock, but I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I never saw a Roedean School girl there, and I do not think that one would these days, either.
  The principal issues that we have to discuss are the issues which we must debate on any Second Reading, namely, what is it that the promoters of the Bill are requiring from the House, and, secondly, is it in the public interest generally that they should be given those powers? Inevitably, in any debate of this kind, there are a number of comparatively small issues which hon. Members rightly wish to raise. Often they do so simply to put down a marker for the Committee on the Bill to look at later. A great many of the points made tonight are of that character. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that there are two or three major issues to which the House must address its mind before deciding to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  I come to the first point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, whether it is right in the public interest that public beaches should be used for private profit. One thing which has not been emphasised in any speech tonight, except in that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Mr. Hobden), is that throughout the whole of the story of this Bill the Brighton Corporation, the representatives of the inhabitants of the town, have been fully in support of it. It is quite clear that if the public interest, by which I mean, first of all, in the narrow sense, the interests of the inhabitants of Brighton is at stake, their own elected representatives in their own council are fully in agreement with it and approve of what the promoters of this Bill seek to do.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman laying it down as a principle
  146
  that this House should derogate its powers to Brighton Corporation? Because the corporation takes a certain line, is he saying that we should follow it slavishly?
  Mr. Hay: I say nothing of the kind. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had waited for a few moments longer before jumping to his feet, he would have found that I was turning to the wider issue, because this is concerned not only with the interests of the town of Brighton but with the interests of the people of this country.
  Here I strike a clear balance. On the one hand, there is the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, that God gave the land to the people, and all that, and that people should have access to the foreshore and there should be no impediment put upon them. On the other hand, there is the point which must not be overlooked, that what the promoters of the Bill seek to do is to provide a very substantial amenity for people who go there.
  From the speeches made, for example, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), and many others who are concerned with the interests of yachtsmen, it is clear that there are an increasing number of people who want to take up this sport. If we give the Bill a Second Reading, we are going a step towards improving the amenities available to the public. We are not taking something away. We are not saying to the promoters that they may have this piece of foreshore and that they alone shall have access to it. We are saying that they shall have the foreshore and that upon it they shall create works, and do things which will improve the opportunities for leisure and pleasure of the people of the country and anyone who chooses to go there from other parts of the world. To me, the balance comes down in favour of the Bill on that point.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a new departure to propose to charge members of the public for access to the foreshore?
  Mr. Hay: With respect I do not think so. I was about to come to the question whether there have been precedents. I agree that there may not have been a

  147
  precedent where the foreshore has been handed over to private developers to create a pleasure amenity. From the dozens of cases on the Statute Book, that pieces of foreshore have been handed over to private developers, to provide commercial amenities to provide—
  Mr. Chapman: We have nationalised them.
  Mr. Hay: Nationalisation may come before long. Perhaps in its wisdom Parliament nationalised these developments. Perhaps 50 years from now Parliament may wish to nationalise the Brighton Marina. Who knows?
  I am simply on the point that there have not been precedents where the foreshore has been handed over to private enterprise to enable a particular amenity to be constructed. There are many cases of commercial development. If we were sitting in this House 100 years ago it would be a complete commonplace for us to have before us a Bill which sought to obtain special rights for the compulsory acquisition of land for enclosure, for the creation of, for example, the railways.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has raised a material point there, but I am not sure that it helps his argument. That was a period in our history, 1760 to 1832, when thousands of pieces of land in this country were taken over under the authority of a House of Commons which was packed with Tory landlords who brought Bills before the House to steal the land which belonged to the people as common land. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually most reasonable, should ever call that in aid of any cause he argued today. It was a disgraceful period in our history.
  Mr. Hay: That may well be true. I am simply on the point that this is no novel proposition. It is said that it will be a dangerous precedent if we dare to allow the promoters to have their way, to have their Second Reading, and that we shall have done something which the House have never done before. This is the way in which it has been put in several speeches tonight.
  I pass quickly from that to another aspect—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) need not laugh. I am moving on
  148
  quickly because I do not want to take too long. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kemptown, for example, wants to get back to his constituency, where he lives.
  I pass quickly to another aspect of the matter, the question whether this is a suitable site. The House could debate for many hours which is and which is not a suitable site, but anyone who knows that area of Kemptown to the east of the highly developed area of Brighton knows that in no other place would it be possible reasonably to construct a marina of this kind. Anywhere else, one would have to take a large area of beach which is used for bathing. To my knowledge, no one in his right mind tries to bathe at the eastern end of the town by Black Rock, because, as has been said, the water there is comparatively shallow and, as the name indicates, there are many dangerous rocks. This is, therefore, the worst area of the foreshore, and, in my opinion, it is ideal for the construction of a facility such as a marina.
  Next, it is said that the Bill will give rights of compulsory acquisition over all manner of people. Again, this is nothing new for the House of Commons. We have many Bills which confer powers of compulsory purchase upon all kinds of organisations. As I read the Bill and the documents supporting it, the number of people likely to be affected by compulsory purchase is very limited. The Bill provides the fullest possible opportunity for them to secure every iota of compensation to which they would be entitled.
  I have not the slightest doubt, since this is a rather unusual kind of development, that the promoters, the company and the corporation, would do all that they possibly could to see that no sense of grievance existed among any of the people whose property might have compulsorily to be acquired. I have no doubt about it, and I say that, having a reputation in the House, I think, for having in the past been vigorous and active in the interests of people whose property was compulsorily acquired. I see no reason to worry in this case at all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—urged that we should be satisfied that the promoters would have an adequate return

  149
  on their money lest the whole thing became a white elephant and collapsed, saddling the ratepayers of Britain with an enormous burden of expense. With respect, I regard that as pre-eminently a matter not for consideration by the House as a whole as a matter of principle, but for consideration by the Select Committee to which the Bill would be committed.
  It will be for the members of the Committee to satisfy themselves that the Preamble to the Bill is well founded, and, in exercising that function, they will be obliged to go into the financial details which my hon. Friend has mentioned. I have no doubt that the financial situation will be completely protected. The extract from the letter which the hon. Member for Northfield was generous enough to read—I compliment him on doing so, knowing how determined an opponent of the Bill he is—should put any hon. Member's doubts at rest.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party spoke about pollution. This is a problem, but I remind the House of what the inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had to say about it. The right hon. Gentleman read out part of the passage, but did not read it all. Reading what the inspector said and what the Minister said in comment upon his report, I say that there need be no doubt that he places the problem, admittedly a dangerous and difficult one, squarely and fairly in the hands of the local corporation, which is, after all, the responsible public authority. If they have been working hand in hand with the promoters throughout the history of the Bill, they will surely have the common sense, if not a sense of public duty, to take particular care of that aspect.
  As I look at this problem, I am drawn almost irresistibly to the conclusion that too many hon. Members have adopted an entirely unnecessarily censorious attitude to the Bill. What we in this House need to do more often is to try to do things which will make life happier for people. This is a Bill which is intended to improve and increase the opportunities for pleasure for many thousands of people.
  Lots of rude things have been said about references to a casino, to a bowling
  150
  alley and to this and that; and the word "luxurious" has been thrown around as though it is an obscene term. People can use those words with the appropriate inflexion of voice to make it seem as though what is proposed is highly improper, but the fact is that the great majority of our fellow citizens dearly like to go to such places. Why, in heaven's name, should not the House of Commons give them the opportunity? I would give the Bill a Second Reading.
  8.41 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I hope that I will not have to detain the House very long in making some general comments and merely trying to assist the House, because my right hon. Friend the Minister does not take any strong views one way or the other. This is a Private Bill and it is not for him to attempt to sway the House either way.
  There is, however, the peculiarity about it that, as has been mentioned, the Bill is based on a planning decision made by my right hon. Friend, and in the decision letter which he issued he came to certain conclusions of fact, which the House may reject if it wishes, which have been mentioned during the debate. My right hon. Friend said that there was a need for more yacht moorings and that these would not be an economic proposition unless they were accompanied by other revenue producing developments. A lot of work has been put into choosing the right location to reduce to the minimum the harmful effects on other parts of the town.
  My right hon. Friend accepts his inspector's opinion that the development as proposed is unlikely to be unduly obtrusive in the local scene. He accepts his inspector's conclusion that the marina is likely to be an asset to the town as a resort and of financial benefit to it. Accordingly, he has come to the conclusion that the objections to this proposal are not so substantial as to justify his withholding the outline permission which is sought. That, of course, is limited. An outline permission does not commit anyone on the details of the design. It certainly does not commit anyone on the details of financial control and the relationship between the private body and the public body.

  151
  My right hon. Friend does not take the view that there is anything wicked, un-socialist or in any way doctrinally objectionable about a partnership between a public authority and private enterprise. It is a hard fact in development, particularly in urban development, and my right hon. Friend has used his persuasive powers to encourage local authorities to recognise the need for a partnership, if only because of the blunt fact that they will not get the capital any other way. Certainly, in the public sector at the moment, we will not get the supply of capital that would be required to do something of the kind proposed in the Bill. Whether there should be a majority holding, or whether, as has been suggested, that would be dangerous is a matter which could be examined. It is basically a matter for negotiation and, if necessary, for examination in Committee.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) denounced Clause 15. However, that is common form in Private Bills, and there is nothing shocking about it. I am not sure about Clause 47, which is the penalty Clause. There are penalty clauses for publicly controlled harbours, but whether such a clause is applied to any private harbour, I am not sure. However, that again is a matter about which evidence could be led by the promoters in Committee for the benefit of our colleagues who will have to discharge the onerous job of looking at the Bill and making up their own minds.
  Mr. Archer: Is it not arguable that, in principle, a private company should be entitled to collect its civil debts by means of criminal proceedings?
  Mr. MacColl: Certainly it is arguable, and, if I know anything about the Parliamentary Bar, it would be argued. I should have thought that a Select Committee of our colleagues was one of the most reliable tribunals to look at that sort of point. Such a body has that combination of judicial objectiveness and shrewd political awareness which is needed to advise us on what to do with the Bill. I think that it is the kind of point which ought to go to a Select Committee.
  152
  Criticisms have been made about parking arrangements. My right hon. Friend has given much thought to this point, and made it a condition of the planning approval that a very substantial parking provision should be made before the building is finally undertaken.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) both raised the matter of sewerage. It is said on behalf of my right hon. Friend in paragraph 8 of the decision letter:
  "… attention at the inquiry was drawn to the grossly over-loaded Portobello outfall sewer which would have to serve the on-shore development. Furthermore, there seems little doubt that there is a real risk of pollution from boats in the harbour which will be difficult to overcome. Both these problems are for the public health authority and the Minister expects them to take all possible steps to deal with them"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) and the hon. Member for Henley both made the point that that was already under active treatment. I hope that they are right.
  Mr. Hay: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the Minister's hope will be disappointed?
  Mr. MacColl: When I saw members of the Brighton Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board, over a year ago, I pleaded with them to take this matter very seriously, and I said that I thought that it was an urgent problem. With all the limited powers of persuasion at my command, I did my best. I succeeded in moving them from a position of reluctance to agreeing to the employment of consultants. The board engaged consultants, and it was hoped that the consulting engineers would report at the end of last year. It now appears that their report will not be forthcoming until the end of April of this year, and, of course, I do not know what they will recommend.
  Although it is nothing to do with the promoters, but is essentially a matter which is the responsibility of the local authorities, we do not want an impressive facade of luxury restaurants and hotels, if the fundamental parts of environmental health and decent living are inadequate for them. It is more important for a local authority to get its sewers right than to

  153
  provide beautiful and impressive buildings with which to attract tourists.
  Subject to that qualification, I think that the House ought to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that a Select Committee can look at all the points which have been raised and examine them in the light of evidence adduced before it, after which the House can look at the proposals again.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he deal with the point that I made about setting up a counter-attraction to Brighton, by within two miles of it, setting up this new township?
  Mr. MacColl: It is part of Brighton. I can only give my right hon. Friend's view, after obtaining the advice of the inspector and after a long and intensive inquiry, that this was a good site and would not interfere with the amenities of the area.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I was naturally very interested in what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to suggest by way of guidance to the House on this difficult matter. I want to take up immediately the point he made about the nature of this enterprise. What the debate has revealed, in a way, is that there are basically two issues before us. One is whether this kind of enterprise is suitable to be carried out by a private company with monopoly powers and with widespread powers of compulsory acquisition. The second issue is whether there are any steps that we can take to make sure that the general amenities of the whole area are protected. Can we lay down instructions? Those are the issues that are raised.
  I want to comment immediately on what my hon. Friend said on the first of those issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said. In basic sympathy and idealism, in every part of my being as a Socialist I have a great antipathy to the whole idea of enclosing a public foreshore for an enterprise of this kind. I can see the repercussions which it will have. I can see the next one that will come along. I can see that profitability having become the test, as it is in this Bill, other people
  154
  will say, "We can make a profit too, and we would like a slice of the foreshore on which to make a profit".
  Once we start on this road, the difficulty will be that we will have established a very dangerous precedent. Therefore, if we are to allow this thing at all, we must hedge it with conditions which do not allow this precedent to be created. That is why I come to this point, which is in the second Instruction on the Order Paper, about the nature of the control of this development.
  My hon. Friend said, and the House noted it, that his right hon. Friend did not object to the idea of a partnership in this matter between public and private enterprise. If I may put my own interpretation on that word, he was suggesting to the House that it should have some sympathy for the Instruction which I have put down. This is fundamental to the whole scheme, because we are kidding ourselves if we believe that this is a Brighton marina. It is not a Brighton marina. This is a wholesale town development project. It covers 106 acres, for a start. Admittedly most of it is sea, but I will come to the on-shore which covers 32 acres of land development, of town development.
  I would like to see any other town saying to the House of Commons, "We have a project for the development of our town on this huge scale, with all the amenities inside it, and we are not pretending to the House that we would ever want any public ownership or public share of control". The House would always say, on town development of this magnitude, that there must be a public stake in it, and that there must be the answerability that a certain extent of public ownership can provide. This is why the Instruction to which the Leader of the Liberal Party took exception has been tabled. It is the one condition on which we can accept the enclosure of the public foreshore.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, because I am one of the uncommitted Members. What worries me most is that we should be enclosing the public foreshore and doing it for a purpose which in my experience is unique. What difference does it make whether this is done by a local authority under public

  155
  control, or by private enterprise, or by a combination of both? Surely this is enclosing the foreshore for a purpose which is unique, and is not in the same category, as was suggested from the benches opposite, as enclosing a public foreshore for the protection of essential commercial harbour works.
  Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend must make up his mind. What one has to do is to make one's own assessment of the comparative good to the public of enclosing the foreshore under this scheme, or not enclosing it. In other words, are there distinct advantages for the public as a whole which will result from this scheme and thereby justify it? It is a matter about which my hon. Friend has to make up his mind. I do not think that my hon. Friend can do it from first principles. It is an assessment of the relative public good involved in the two approaches, but I agree with my hon. Friend, because it leads me to my next point, that if we had a go-ahead Brighton it would have done this job itself.
  I do not want to be critical of Brighton. I live there, and I enjoy it. I love the town. It may be that Brighton can say that it is beyond its powers to persuade the ratepayers to do this. It may be open to Brighton to say that it is not experienced in business of this magnitude. I do not think that this is particularly true, but in any case it could say that it regards this as something in which it wants the help of private capital, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  The point at issue is that here we have Brighton Corporation saying that it cannot do this, that it never thought of it, that it is beyond its ability, that it wants some help from private enterprise to do it, and it believes that the public good will be helped by having this scheme, by enabling more people to enjoy themselves on this piece of coast after enclosure compared with before. This is the real issue before the House, and the Corporation is entitled to say that to the House.
  What I am entitled to do, and I am trying to do it by way of this Instruction, is to say that we must strike a happy medium. If we are to give this first-ever power to private enterprise on this scale, we must first ensure that there is
  156
  public shareholding in it so that there is public answerability for what is going on there, and so that the town councillors can be told "You are in on this thing as shareholders. What are you doing about this and that? What are you doing about this repercussion or that defect?". We must have this public shareholding because of the size of the whole thing, and because of the principle of public ownership of the foreshore which is being breached.
  Secondly, we must have this further power in the Instruction to provide a majority shareholding if—and this is a phrase which has happily been suppressed by the local Press and not mentioned tonight—the public interest so requires. This is not carte blanche to the Brighton Corporation. It is not a liability to take this over. It is a fair assessment of whether the public interest will be shared eventually by having this under majority shareholding. It is best to say so from the start and write it into the Bill so that we know where we are, and in the future if things go wrong the Corporation can step in and begin to put them right.
  Equally, it is important for Brighton to have a shareholding in this in case it is a success, because if it is, and I hope that it will be, and it provides a great deal of fun and enjoyment for many thousands of people, it may well be that inside this set up we will want things done not only on the basis of private profit. If, for example, it becomes necessary, and to the public advantage, to lay out more gardens inside the marina, to to provide other non-profit-making facilities inside it, I cannot see the Marina Company doing it. It is interested in profit. Nobody would be able to force the company to do it. In its present form the Bill provides only negative planning powers. If we want eventually to make this marina into a considered extension of Brighton, instead of latching on a piece of commercial development, we may need public control—a shareholding of 51 per cent., or whatever else it may be—so that the non-profit-making aspects can be developed inside the scheme.
  That is why this is a double-barrelled Instruction. The first principle is that there should be some public shareholding. It is right, for the future, that if the council requires it it should have a majority

  157
  shareholding. I think that is reasonable. I hope that I have removed many of the doubts in the mind of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
  Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the hon. Member and I should like to be able to support him, because I agree with him on the question of answerability. But if he says that Brighton might not be able to finance this project on its own, how can it buy 51 per cent. of the equity which, on valuation, must run into several millions of £s? Secondly, in fairness to the promoters, is it a very satisfactory position for them if they know that should the scheme be profitable Brighton may wish to take it over? That would be a very hazardous way for anybody to invest money in an enterprise of this sort.
  Mr. Chapman: In the future there will be an established scheme. There will be equity to buy. There will be a record of profitability to consider and there will be an asset to value. At that point, with the project established for good or ill, running well or badly, the situation will be reflected in the capital value of the enterprise, and at any time in the future, as in the case of any other nationalisation project, there will be a fair price on valuation for a majority of the equity. I do not see that Brighton would have any difficulty about raising money then, because there would be an established asset to value.
  Moreover, if a scheme of this kind becomes established, it will not be so much a question of raising money; it will be a question of the expertise involved in creating the marina in the first place. That will be more difficult than the question of raising money in the future. I hope that that reassures the right hon. hon. Gentleman on his first point. I have forgotten his second point.
  Mr. Thorpe: I would not grant these powers, but having given them, surely we cannot then say, "We shall give these powers to you, and if you make a success of the project we warn you that we shall probably take it over."
  Mr. Chapman: It will not be a question of warning the company. We shall be saying, "Because of the principle involved you can either undertake this project in partnership with public enterprise or not at all." It is a matter of
  158
  principle. We shall say, "From the start, you must accept this as the minimum basis on which we can allow the foreshore to be enclosed." It would be on that basis that private enterprise comes in. There would be no warning in advance.
  Private enterprise would come in or would not come in on that understanding. If it wants to come in and help to provide money to make the project a success it will know from the start, without being hoodwinked and without being given a false prospectus, that we are saying, "This is the minimum condition on which you can have all these powers." I do not see why the company cannot be left to make up its own mind whether or not to come in.
  Mr. Hay: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that to put the matter on that basis makes it very improbable that it will ever get off the ground in the first place? Is this Instruction not really an attempt to kill the Bill and the project by stealth?
  Mr. Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman should apply to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who made it clear that the Government think that there is no reason why this should not be a partnership between public and private enterprise. I am simply saying that we should write into the Bill, in case of eventualities, the prospect that we should need a good deal of public enterprise in something like this at a later date.
  I come now to the other Instruction with which I am associated, about the environmental effect. In this respect, I am extremely disappointed with Brighton Corporation. It is largely a good corporation which has a beautiful town, with some of the greatest attraction in the country, to preserve. But to present something like this to Parliament, with no detail of the environmental planning of the area on to which it will be latched—this is just being tacked on to the end of Brighton in the hope that nothing will go wrong with the environment—is deplorable. We in the House of Commons are worth better consideration than that.
  Consider the size and the impact of this project. At any one time, there will be 20,000 people in it. They are making provision for 8,000 people to sleep on

  159
  boats, and there are also over 200 flats and houses and all the other ancillary development, which is enormous. There will be car parking for 3,600 cars. This is all below a level of cliff.
  All we have had from Brighton Corporation—it is not unfair to say this—is an assurance that the gyratory system of entry roads will be adequately planned, but with a very poor approach road around the back of Brighton which is no improvement at all—I think that it is derisory—and a statement which was wrung out of the town by the opposition which was clearly developing here, when the chairman of the planning committee, in a public statement to a Press conference, said that if the effect was to increase the parking in Kemptown's beautiful squares, the corporation would use its parking regulations.
  Brighton is worth something more than that sort of approach. If there is to be a magnet on this scale, all the acreage immediately surrounding it must be planned almost afresh. That does not mean buying up everything and knocking it down but it means having a master plan for the effects on that end of Brighton.
  Overlooking this marina, which will be an enormous town development, there is a long area of cliff with a road behind That road is already impassable on the days when there is any sunshine and everybody flocks to Brighton. I have seen no plans for that piece of road to show the extent to which the through traffic can be managed and the parking and viewing of this thing, which will go on on a huge scale, can be coped with. People will flock in their thousands. This will be an enormous magnet. They will want to park and walk along the cliffs and look down on this development.
  It should be—I hope that it will, if it is proceeded with—one of the marvels of modern development, but the price of that for Brighton is to do it properly and not just latch it on the end and leave these other matters to chance. The cliff area and the roads along the cliff need planning. The whole of the approach system, in a much wider context than has ever been revealed to the House, needs planning.
  As for Kemptown, to tell me that a project of this size can be left in the hope
  160
  that a few parking restrictions will preserve the beautiful squares is derisory, to say the least. If one is to extend this town on such a scale, the whole road system of the approach to the Marina must be sub-divided into through, main and subsidiary roads for the immediate residents of the areas which one wishes to preserve. If Kemptown's beautiful Regency squares are to be preserved, this must be done. The trouble is that this whole project, enormous as it is, is being treated as if it were chicken-feed. It is a huge development which needs the environmental replanning and proper consideration which it warrants.
  I come to the second Instruction on the Order Paper, which is designed to point out that the Committee which is to examine the Bill must be satisfied that adequate plans have been produced for this purpose. It must call in Brighton Corporation and say, "This is a huge town development. What are you doing about it? What are you doing about the area onto which you are tacking this development?" The Committee must be satisfied that it is being done on the right scale, with the right amount of expenditure and with the right safeguards for the residential areas, areas of amenity and taking into account the natural beauty of the place.
  I hope that the House decides, in considering whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading, that these matters are of great importance. I will be largely influenced by what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) says at the end of the debate about whether the two Instructions are acceptable. If they are not acceptable, then I will vote against the Bill because they represent the minimum on which the project can be run properly, can be planned properly and can become an asset to Brighton and the country as a whole.
  The best evidence I can call in aid—in addition to my own eloquence, if I can call it such—is a letter which Lord Holford wrote to The Times. He made it clear that he did not support the Bill as drafted. In a covering note to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), Lord Holford said:
  "… but I am not supporting the Bill and I have written the enclosed letter to The Times which explains my reasons."

  161
  Lord Holford, who is acknowledged to be one of our best town-planners, wrote to The Times:
  "First of all I would only like to see the Bill passed with considerable amendment."
  Among the amendments, he wanted
  "… safeguards against a disproportionate size, damage to Kemptown, especially overflow parking, and the extension of non-marine development and only compulsory purchase after clear statements and designs have been prepared to make the case for it in the public interest."
  That summarises the first Instruction on the Order Paper. Lord Holford went on—and I assure the House that there was no collusion here; as far as I know, he wrote that letter without communicating with any hon. Members who have Instructions on the Order Paper:
  "I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading, but it brings us up against this fundamental issue: has the right basis been found for the combination of private enterprise and public control which appears to be the only way of creating a new and permanent asset to add to the many which Brighton already has? The Bill in its present form does not suggest that this is so."
  Lord Holford there put the case in a nutshell for the second Instruction—that the right balance between private enterprise and public control has not been found in the Bill as drafted.
  I hope that hon. Members will join with me in being largely influenced in how they vote tonight by whether the Instructions are adopted. Without them, the Bill would be utterly intolerable. If the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will say that he is willing to advise the House to accept these Instructions without Division? I shall be content to let the Bill have its Second Reading. Let us not have any prevarication. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman necessarily wishes that. I realise that he cannot entirely speak for his own home town, but if he can give the House a blunt recommendation that these Instructions should be carried, I would say that we should let the Bill have its Second Reading.
  This is an imaginative project. Let all praise be given to Mr. Cohen and the other gentlemen who first thought it up. It could be a great asset to Brighton. On the other hand, without public control, without check on environmental effects on this scale, it could be a blight on Brighton and on Southern England.
  162
  For these reasons, I hope that the House will support the two Instructions.
  9.16 p.m.
  Sir William Teeling: I must make it quite clear that although the Motion for Second Reading has been moved by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) and I am now winding up from this side, this is a Private Bill. It is necessarily brought up by us, so we cannot say definitely one way or the other what will eventually be acceptable either to the corporation or to the promoters.
  I am taking an active part in this matter because as far back as 1943 I was Member of Parliament for this area, stretching right down through Hove to Shoreham. In those days, the area was a two-Member seat—such seats have now ceased to exist—and I continued to cover all that Kemptown area until 1950. After that, the place was divided into three seats and the hon. Member opposite is now Member for the Kemptown division. If I may say so, he has moved the Second Reading extremely well.
  For ages there has been an intense desire and keenness among the people of that area for the development of yachting. Only a few years ago the country had only about 100,000 yachtsmen. There are now about 500,000, and the majority of them come from the south-east of England. They are very enthusiastic, and their numbers are growing. But they all say that going along the coast from Shore-ham right through to Newhaven and beyond is very dull. They are all anxious to have a marina somewhere in the Brighton area.
  I gather that Mr. Cohen and others suddenly got the idea that it might be possible to develop a harbour and marina round about Brighton. Marinas are also developing in many other parts of Europe—Malta and Cannes have already been mentioned—and I believe that such a project would be immensely advantageous for the area.
  The next thing needed was to find the money for the project. Marinas are things which, if they are to be as big as they would have to be, will need a considerable amount of private enterprise in them. The more I have listened to speeches tonight, the more I have been reminded of events of the last 10 years

  163
  when I have been one of the chairmen of the Channel Tunnel Committee in this House. The same sort of arguments are constantly being used, but, finally, the Government of the day have decided that the project involved has been too big to be dealt with alone by public funds and must include a considerable amount of private enterprise.
  On this basis, Mr. Cohen and various others got together and, I understand, got underwritten a very good and big scheme. Brighton Council began to take a considerable interest—bit by bit, more and more of an interest. Bit by bit, it decided and promised to do more and more to help it along. Thus, last year, it decided to hold a public inquiry into the whole subject. The council itself, by a vast majority, passed the necessary resolutions to back and support the enterprise.
  The inquiry lasted no less than nine days. People representing almost every idea that has been brought forward during this debate took part. They either gave evidence or sent others so to do. The Regency Society and other organisations put up money to have people representing them and putting their case forward. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, his right hon. Friend finally decided that the scheme should be allowed to proceed.
  But because certain amounts of Crown areas are, I gather, on this coast, the matter has had to be brought here for a debate. Then the Bill goes, or should go if it gets through the Second Reading, into Committee, and I should have thought that, like all other Bills going into Committee, that is the place where many of the details mentioned tonight should be dealt with. There will be plenty of opportunities then, including an opportunity to discuss the matter with the council and with the promoters.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is giving an interesting historical survey of what led up to the Bill. Will he tell us why the harbour at Shoreham was neglected? It is a harbour that is quite ready for the accommodation of yachts without anything like the great expenditure that would be involved in making a new harbour on the rocks at Black Rock.
  Sir W. Teeling: One reason is that Shoreham does not happen to be as much in Brighton as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think. Nor has he been quite clear in explaining that even Kemptown, where he lives, is part of Brighton. He will keep on saying that it is two miles from Brighton. I used to live in Kemptown and I never felt that I was two miles from Brighton. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants more historical background, the interesting thing is that a number of hon. Members from other areas of the country have come to live in Brighton—or Kemptown, whichever the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to call it.
  It seems to me rather sad, or amusing, however one looks at it, that I, born in Dublin, where the hon. and learned Gentleman was also born, came to Brighton via Birmingham and standing for Parliament in West Ham and that, since then, hon. Members for West Ham and Birmingham seats have followed me to Brighton and are taking part in the argument about this project. Last, but not least, the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who also started in Dublin, has come round via Aberdeen to settle on the front at Brighton.
  I fully appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just moved in to a block of flats which would be right on top of where all this would happen. It may well not be very pleasant for him, but other hon. Members have gone through their troubles, some with having the Metropole built over their heads and others moving into Lewes Crescent and Rottingdean, and so on, and they undoubtedly also are feeling nervous about the future. However, I would be inclined to say that they need have no worries whatever about their own future amenities.
  Incidentally, I can also say, as the Member for the other half of Brighton, that even although it is two miles from the centre to Kemptown, the people in Kemptown have the same sort of ideas and go to the same public houses and the same luxury hotels as those in the rest of the town.
  I have been asked by the fishermen of Brighton to say that they are unanimously in favour of this development. I can

  165
  reveal another secret. The hon. Member for Kemptown knows full well that the Conservative candidate at the last General Election came out against the marina and that the fishermen, who were all very good Conservatives, voted the other way and just about made the difference which permitted the hon. Member for Kemptown to win the seat.
  Behind us we have not only the fishermen, but all the organisations in the town and many other bodies, including the business community. I should have thought that with the elected representatives of the borough almost unanimously on our side, and almost all the leading business men and all the entertainments people and all the fishermen and all the people connected with the front, we would have had enough support to satisfy the House.
  The only people not supporting us are a few well-to-do people living in certain streets, and only certain streets, in the districts roundabout. They are very worried that they will lose their amenities. I do not think that they will. I lived in Lewes Crescent and in Royal Crescent for a long time, and I am perfectly certain that the people in those streets will not lose their amenities.
  One of the things which the council has promised is that there will be nothing above cliff height. That means that there will be no buildings cutting off these people from the sea. I remember that Lord Holford once wrote that when he came to settle in Kemptown, on the coast, he thought that he would not see anything except the sea and that it never dawned on him that any building would go up between him and the sea. This project will not. It has been moved to the cliff end, where it cannot be seen at all.
  Not very long ago, I was in Port of Spain, Trinidad, where it was desired to put up a Hilton Hotel, which would normally be a skyscraper building. However, the hotel owners were told that they could only build downwards, from the cliff. That they have done, making it very beautiful, and the hotel can be seen at night from the sea, but it does not come above cliff height and it is as
  166
  ideally organised as would be the project in Brighton.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) let me know to which hon. Member he is giving way?
  Sir W. Teeling: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover).
  Sir Douglas Glover: Does my hon. Friend mean that Ziggurat Flats will be below or above the cliff line?
  Sir W. Teeling: There will be nothing above the cliff line.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One intervention at a time.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir William Teeling.
  Sir W. Teeling: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) will want to try to intervene again.
  I will quickly go through some of the questions which have been raised and try to answer them.
  Sir Charles Taylor: My hon. Friend did not reply to the questions put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about Shoreham. To begin with, the entrance to Shoreham Harbour is a bar, not the sort of bar which the hon. Member—
  Mr. Speaker: An intervention must be an intervention and not a speech.
  It being half past Nine o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)
  Question again proposed, That "now" stand part of the Question.
  Mr. Speaker: Now the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) may make his brief intervention.
  Sir C. Taylor: Secondly, because of the power station there, which pumps up a lot of hot water, the water in Shoreham Harbour is full of worm, which is damaging to wooden sailing vessels.
  Sir. W. Teeling: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North is now satisfied.
  To answer some of the things of which he was critical, one of them waste that this was a dangerous part of the town. Well, it is no more dangerous than any other part. All this area can be very rough in winter. We all know that, and everybody's eyes have been open to that all along.
  Another thing he was worried about was the fact that graves were to be removed. It is quite true that there is a Quaker graveyard in the Riflebutt Road area. The corporation has promised to remove it completely and to replace the remains of the people in another cemetery at some reasonable distance. This sort of thing happens all over the country now.
  The point was raised by two or three hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), about profitability and what amount of profit the corporation would get out of it. The answer is, 25 per cent., it has now been decided, of profit will go to the corporation, after, I think, about the first 10 per cent., and that will enable the corporation, it feels, to benefit the rates by something like £200,000 a year, and that, in itself, to my mind, is the equivalent of an investment.
  The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) wanted to know why places like Riflebutt Road were being removed, and he referred to them as though they were attractive and wonderful spots. I can assure the House that Riflebutt Road is anything but an attractive spot, and as for the gasworks at the end of it—well, it depends what one thinks of gasworks.
  168
  As regards luxuries, the fishermen, as I have said, are all very keen about them. Of course, there will be luxury hotels. There must be. How else can we develop this area, unless we tax the ratepayers an impossible amount?
  The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) talked about £12 million as the all-in cost. Does he realise, do all hon. Members realise, that it will take at least 10 years before the whole thing is through? For the first four years there will be practically nothing noticeable happening at all; during the next six years, yes; and it will be during all that time that we shall be planning the new roads and trying to develop new approaches to Brighton. We have not only at Brighton but at Shoreham for a long time discussed roads, and the possibility of new roads round Brighton to keep traffic out of Brighton, and this will be added on to the plans and schemes being worked out now by the corporation.
  I can assure hon. Gentlemen that Brighton Council is most anxious that this Bill should go through. The council is most willing to co-operate with everybody. I do not think that it is really essential to have such tight provisions and directions as are contained in these Instructions which are on the Order Paper. They have been very well aired tonight; everybody knows what is wanted, including the hon. and learned Member himself. These matters can be considered in Committee if we have the Second Reading tonight. I have little doubt that hon. Members will eventually be completely satisfied, and I will do my level best to help to satisfy them for that matter.
  Mr. Chapman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if the House negatives the Instructions the Committee will be under no obligation to take any notice of them?
  Sir W. Teeling: There is possibly no need to bring up the Instructions if we just have a Second Reading. Everybody will know about them, and everybody is extremely keen to do what they can to help.
  Mr. Chapman: Give an assurance.
  Sir W. Teeling: How can I give an assurance when it is not my company? Nor is it the corporation's company. The

  169
  corporation has made every promise that it can. In many ways it will be responsible for practically everything that is done. It will get 25 per cent, of the profitability when the scheme develops, and that is quite a bit—equivalent to having quite a number of shares.
  I think that hon. Members should give the Bill a Second Reading, as has been requested by practically the whole of the Borough of Brighton and by Members of Parliament from surrounding constituencies—Hastings, Eastbourne, Hove, Chichester and East Grinstead. Practically the whole of Sussex wants it. Why should anybody want to stop us? If a big principle is involved, as has been suggested, Bills can be brought in for other areas if they want to do this. In the meantime, the Bill before us can be well thought out during the Committee stage.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I venture for a few moments to explain how and why I shall vote. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) is aware, I am a Brighton addict. I have paid visits to Brighton, regular and often, short and long, for many years since my childhood—before the hon. Member was born. I know the coast eastwards to Dover and westwards to Newhaven and have walked the country back as far as Lewes, Chelwood Gate and Forest Row.
  I believe that, whether or not I still want to go there, I am now compelled to go there by the fact that Brighton is one of only three seaside resorts that can accommodate the annual conference of the Labour Party. One thing about which I feel quite certain is that if the plan goes through I shall never of my free volition want to go to Brighton again. I am profoundly doubtful whether the theatrical attractions of the Labour Party conferences will take me there again.
  1 believe that the same would be true of many of the foreign visitors who go to Brighton now. I have an American friend who had three days in Britain this year. He planned one day in Oxford and one in Brighton. He wanted to see the Georgian front and squares, the Pavilion and all the other treasures of the past. If this monstrous £15 million scheme goes through, with its casino and all the rest,
  170
  I believe that a precious national heritage will be destroyed.
  I venture one word about yachtsmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin) spoke with his usual persuasive skill. He wants more facilities for yachtsmen. So do I—more harbours, more places where they can go when the are overtaken by foul weather. I share the view of my hon. Friends who think that it is most unfortunate—I will not say a scandal—that the Minister who is responsible for sport has not been given more money in the Estimates this year to provide just such facilities as these.
  I am all for sporting facilities of every kind. I have never sailed in the English Channel. My yachting experience is confined to the Canadian Great Lakes and to the Thames Estuary. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) gave the right answer. This site is not the right place for a yachting refuge. Let there be such a refuge certainly, and let it be at Brighton, but let it be for the main purpose proposed in the Bill. People have spoken about the precedent which the Bill might create. It is true to say that the very company promoting the Bill is inciting other seaside resorts to put up similar schemes. I have been told this, and I believe it to be true.
  I end my brief intervention, Mr. Speaker, with thanks to you, by saying that I believe that far too much of our coastline for far too many years has been "peace-havened" into unplanned squalor. If the Bill is passed it will be a giant stride along the road upon which we have already travelled too far. I shall vote against the Bill and I most ardently hope that it will fail.
  9.41 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I do not want to detain the House for long and, if it had not been for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), I would not have intervened at all. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to this. I am not a Member for Brighton; I come from a long way from Brighton, but if one looks at the growth of the ordinary amenities, and the activities of the population of the country, this sort of activity is an absolute necessity if people are to enjoy themselves in future.

  171
  I have looked at this plan of the operation, and although I might not particularly like it—I would like to live on an unspoiled piece of coastline—it seems to be something which is inevitable if people are to have the facilities which they desire.
  Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches and I think that the House is anxious to come to a decision.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the picture at which he is looking is pure fiction? It is fantastic imagination, and is not really a plan of the proposed harbour.
  Sir D. Glover: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Member has intervened, because the other thing that I would like to say is that we in this House are returned to represent our constituents. The one thing that I deplore about this debate is the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), and various other hon. Members who have no personal constituency interests in this matter, have used their own private interests to try to stop this Bill receiving a Second Reading, purely for their own—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw. He cannot charge
  hon. Members with taking a point of view in a debate because of their private interests.
  Sir D. Glover: I willingly accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw. I would ask the hon. Members to tell us what other reason they have for taking the attitude that they have—
  Mr. Chapman: Absolutely disgraceful.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is making exactly the same offensive point in an indirect way. He must withdraw.
  Sir D. Glover: I willingly withdraw completely. I support the activities of the Minister responsible for sport, who has taken a very imaginative attitude to the development of sporting activities in this country. We have to face the fact that we are living in a changing society, and that many things will happen which will not be to the liking of conservative people. More and more people will want to take part in sporting and social activities, and they will inevitably need more land and more space than they have had hitherto. In this proposal, the Brighton Corporation has provided all the safeguards one could reasonably require. I hope that the House will look to the future and give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 42.

  Division No. 290.]

  AYES

  19.45 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Ford, Ben

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Loveys, W. H.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Good hew, Victor

  Luard, Evan

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Blackburn, F.

  Grant, Anthony

  McCann, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacColl, James

  Booth, Albert

  Hay, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hazell, Bert

  Maddan, Martin

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Manuel, Archie

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Mawby, Ray

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hunt, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cronin, John

  Hunter, Adam

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Monro, Hector

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Murton, Oscar

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Doughty, Charles

  Jopling, Michael

  O'Malley, Brian

  Edelman, Maurice

  Judd, Frank

  Onslow, Cranley

  Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Kirk, Peter

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kitson, Timothy

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Farr, John

  Lawson, George

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Pardoe, John

  Peel, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Webster, David

  Perry. Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Temple, John M.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Tinn, James

  Winnick, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wall, Patrick

  Yates, Victor

  Smith, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Snow, Julian

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Dennis Hobden and

  Sir William Teeling.

  NOES

  Archer, Peter

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Roebuck, Roy

  Chapman, Donald

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Carmock)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Moonman, Eric

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Driberg, Tom

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ellis, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hannan, William

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Hooley, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Howie, W.

  Randall, Harry

  Mr. Hector Hughes and

  Mr. Arthur Davidson.

  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed to leave out all provisions for compulsory acquisition of lands and easements until the Corporation
  of Brighton has produced to the Committee adequate plans for the areas directly or indirectly affected by the proposed township, so as to preserve their natural and architectural amenities.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 77.

  Division No. 291.]

  AYES

  [9.54 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Roebuck, Roy

  Archer, Peter

  Howie, W.

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Booth, Albert

  Hoy, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Cronin, John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  McBride, Neil

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ellis, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morrison, John (Aberavon)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hannan, William

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Mr. Donald Chapman and

  Hazell, Bert

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Mr. Arthur Davidson.

  Hooley, Frank

  Randall, Harry

  NOES

  Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Grant, Anthony

  MacColl, James

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hay, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Manuel, Archie

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mawby, Ray

  Blackburn, F.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Monro, Hector

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Murton, Oscar

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Doig, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Orme, Stanley

  Doughty, Charles

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kirk, Peter

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pardoe, John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lawson, George

  Peel, John

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Loveys, W. H.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Smith, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Yates, Victor

  Snow, Julian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Webster, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mr. Dennis Hobden and

  Temple, John M.

  Winnick, David

  Sir William Teeling.

  Motion made, and Question put,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed that before finding the preamble of the Bill proved they satisfy themselves that the Corporation of Brighton has become a shareholder in the company promoting the project, and has
  acquired the right (if it believes the public interest so requires) to become majority shareholder at any future date.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 68.

  Division No. 292.]

  AYES

  [10.3 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Hoy, James

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Archer, Peter

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Booth, Albert

  Judd, Frank

  Randall, Harry

  Coleman, Donald

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Cronin, John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Ellis, John

  Luard, Evan

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McBride, Neil

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hannan, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Mr. Donald Chapman and

  Hooson, Emlyn

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

  Mr. Arthur Davidson.

  Howle, W.

  Orme, Stanley

  NOES

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gower, Raymond

  Onslow, Cranley

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Grant, Anthony

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hay, John

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Blackburn, F.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pardoe, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Peel, John

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hunt, John

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hunter, Adam

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire,, S.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Smith, John

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Snow, Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jopling, Michael

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Doig, Peter

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Doughty, Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Temple, John M.

  Errington, Sir Erie

  Lawson, George

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveys, W. H.

  Wall, Patrick

  Farr, John

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fisher, Nigel

  MacColl, James

  Webster, David

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Maddan, Martin

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Mawby, Ray

  Yates, Victor

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. Dennis Hobden and

  Sir William Teeling.

  CRIMINAL LAW BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put pursuant to Order [25th April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill exempting a person convicted of an offence under section 64(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (contravention of construction and use regulations) from consequences of the conviction.—[Mr. John Morris]

  ARMED FORCES (BOYS' SERVICE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I want to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend who will be replying to the Adjournment debate for allowing the few extra moments that I need to deal with the matter in hand. The object of raising it is to draw the attention of the House to the way in which young men are recruited into the Armed Forces, the means whereby they are kept there, and the difficulties that are placed in the way of obtaining their release when they want it. I am not trying to say that the overwhelming majority of young men who enter the Armed Forces at an early age are necessarily unhappy or dissatisfied, but I want to draw attention to the difficulties of the large number who, after a few months or a year or more, find that they have made a mistake and wish to obtain their release.
  Any of us who have been involved in this matter in the last few months are indebted to the National Council for Civil Liberties for the document which it produced. I know that my hon. Friend has a copy and no doubt will be referring to it in his reply. I have no time to deal with the individual cases raised in the document nor to refer to those which have come to the notice of hon. Members, but it is clear that, although it did not become apparent until the last few months, we are retaining in the Armed Forces some young men who entered at the early age of 15½ or a little later and are now bound to contracts of 9, 10 or 12 years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), when Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, told me last August, when I raised the problem of boys' service not counting against men's service and the misunderstanding of these young men when they entered the Forces, that he could see no reason why boys' service should not be taken against men's service and that he would be looking into it. Although his place in the Ministry
  180
  has now been taken by another of my hon. Friends, I hope that this point will be borne in mind when we get the inquiry which we have been promised into the recruitment of young men into the Services.
  Referring to answers given to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), my hon. Friend said that he did not consider that an inquiry into the present machinery for discharge was necessary. On the other hand, in reply to another question about young men under 18, he said that the Ministry would be looking at this matter. With great respect, the one cannot be separated from the other. In several of the cases with which we are concerned, the people may be men already past the statutory age of recruitment, but they entered boys' service at 15½, 16 or 17 and it is only because of their difficulties in obtaining release that they are now above the age at which, presumably, an inquiry will be directed.
  Therefore, any inquiry must include reference to general discharge from the Services, or it would not be worth while. Since it has been said that this is a matter of minor importance, I looked up the figures, and found that for one year, 1965–66, 4,500 juniors and 481 apprentices entered the Royal Navy and 222 juniors entered the Royal Marines. There are similar figures for both the Army and the R.A.F.
  As my right hon. Friend and, no doubt, many other hon. Members know, the National Council for Civil Liberties has, since last August, received details of about 60 cases of young men entering the Forces below the statutory age who encountered great difficulty obtaining their release. Hon. Members also know of cases where this has arisen. We are dealing with quite a problem, numerically.
  It was comparatively recently that the Royal Navy introduced the three months' option whereby a young person could obtain release within three months. This brought the Navy into line with the other Services. This means, presumably, that there are young men now in the Navy who would have elected to come out during their first three months had this facility been open to them. I trust, therefore, that any inquiry into this matter will take that into account, because there would appear to have been in the Navy very little, if

  181
  any, machinery through which these young men could register their discontent.
  I submit that three months as a period in which a young boy aged, perhaps, 15½ can decide whether or not he wishes to dedicate the next 11 or 12 years of his life to serve in the Armed Forces is not nearly long enough. This has been recognised by the Royal Navy, because that Service states in a document:
  "It is stressed"
  this is dealing with the discharge of juniors from the Navy
  "that cases for discharge by purchase are exceptional and most unusual, and discharge will only be granted when it is clear after several months that the boy will never be able to happily settle in the Royal Navy".
  It states later:
  "It is most important for parents or guardians to accept the fact that boys are sometimes homesick and take time to settle down when they first join the Navy. Consequently, any boy who writes home to say that he is not happy, should be allowed at least three months to settle down to the life before his work is upset by the knowledge that an endeavour is being made to secure his discharge".
  Other documents applying to discharge for juniors in other sections of the Armed Forces have been issued and one finds similar statements being made to parents when signing their boys on for service. The document from which I was quoting goes on:
  "When a junior joins the Royal Navy he signs a contract to serve for a set number of years. This contract cannot be broken lightly and only in very exceptional circumstances will the Admiralty Board allow a junior to purchase his discharge".
  I could go on to demonstrate that, far from it being easy for a junior or a young person below the statutory age to obtain his release, it is very difficult indeed. This being the position, I ask my hon. Friend to consider making the period at least six months rather than three months and that when a young person reaches the statutory age he should be allowed to. reconsider his decision before he elects to go on for a further nine years of service.
  Furthermore, we must review the whole machinery by which young people are encouraged to enter into these long-term agreements. As far as I can discover from other military attachés, we are one of the few countries which per-
  182
  mit young people to enter into these commitments at such an early age. It is surely an indictment of our Service life that we do this to boys aged 15½ and that we deny to them the same right to change their minds—to get out of the profession or job they have chosen—as we make available to civilians of the same age.
  It is enormously important to bear this factor in mind because we are talking about raising the school leaving age to encourage youngsters to widen their scope and vision and to delay making commitments that will bind them for the rest of their lives. It is wrong that in the Armed Forces we should actually discourage young people from making the very human statement, "I made a mistake. I have changed my mind."
  Has the Ministry considered the circumstances in which a young person may join the Armed Forces? Some of them do it for the right reasons and enjoy their Service lives. But that does not apply to all of them. Adolescence is a difficult time, when youngsters look around and make all sorts of decisions which they later regret, perhaps from motives which are not the same two or three years later. We do not consider this factor nearly enough.
  The person may be from a broken home. He may be someone—and this, again, gives me great concern—who has been in the care of a local authority, and to whom the continued protection of the sort of life the Service offers is particularly attractive. It may be, too, that parents who have themselves enjoyed Service life feel that it is something their son should also enjoy and put certain pressures and encouragements on him to go in with their consent, but in a few months' or a few years' time the person may realise that it is not his vocation, and that he can make his contribution to society quite differently.
  Again, he may have been seduced by the sort of advertisement that appears currently—or did appear—in a children's comic. The advertisement reads:
  "As this Royal Navy destroyer slips away at dawn Action and Adventure Lie Ahead. Read about life on board—and the great career you'll have. Where is she going? Sorry, that's secret. Perhaps to the Far East, the Mediterranean or the South Atlantic. But one thing is certain. The men on board are in for an adventurous time.

  183
  At sea anything can happen. Ships may signal for help. Hostile coastlines have to be patrolled. Smugglers intercepted. Battle exercises carried out.
  What's she like? She's a guided missile destroyer. She can explode aircraft out of the sky. Seek out and destroy submarines."
  The advertisement goes on:
  "There are spacious mess decks with bunks and television. Even a T.V. studio that can send its own programme round the ship!
  What about your future in the Royal Navy? It's a great time to join—with new ships and new weapons on the way.
  You'll also live a varied, active life at sea and ashore; at home and overseas. And you'll enjoy world travel, sport in plenty, fine company and an average of 6 weeks' paid holiday a year.
  Post the coupon for full details today. You can join at 15."
  To include that sort of advertisement in a child's comic and call it fair recruitment, or presenting a fair picture to an impressionable person of 15, brings discredit to the whole method of recruitment into the Armed Forces.
  I am further concerned at the difficulties that I and, I think, several other hon. Members have encountered in regard to young Servicemen who have wished to contact people in authority to try to present their case to get some sort of release. By Order No. 991, Queen's Regulations actively discourage or inhibit anybody in the Armed Forces—but, presumably, particularly young people, since they would find it very difficult to interpret the Regulations—from contacting people in authority. This may not be their object but it certainly has that result, because apprehension has been expressed to more than one of us by young people who have approached us in order to get release.
  Surely, we do not want to continue a situation in which a young person is inhibited from contacting Members of Parliament or someone else who could assist him. The National Council for Civil Liberties has gone so far as to suggest that an Ombudsman, or someone particularly responsible for people in this situation, should be appointed. That is, maybe, a far-reaching recommendation, but the whole method of making one's complaints and feelings known should be reviewed by the Department.
  I am also interested in the legal position appertaining to young people and to what are called infants generally. The Infants Relief Act, 1874, makes it clear
  184
  that people under the statutory age are protected in certain ways in breaking contracts because, according to Halsbury's Laws of England
  "An infant is of immature intelligence and discretion."
  Yet it would appear that these young people who go into the Forces are not protected by this.
  These young people are encouraged or allowed to make contracts which may bind them for 12 years while, in our own definition, they are still of immature intelligence and discretion. So much concern has been expressed in relation to the age involved that Mr. Justice Latey's Committee, set up to investigate teen-age contracts generally, has agreed to consider evidence now collated by the N.C.C.L. and to review it when it brings out its report in spring.
  When one goes into some of the cases presented—for example, the one I have raised before of a young man who twice has been accepted for university but has twice had to turn his chance down because he could not obtain his release and others who have experienced similar difficulties, although they have shown themselves to be qualified to pursue a different form of endeavour—one can only conclude that the whole machinery needs overhauling.
  My hon. Friend, in reply to the hon. Member for Surbiton, recently spoke of the difficulties involved in considering ending long-term contracts, although he said he would look at this again, and of what he called "manning difficulties". This should not be the consideration on which judgment should be made on an issue like this. Manning difficulties should not determine whether or not we make it easier for young people to leave the Forces and perhaps more difficult in the first place to commit themselves for these long periods.
  Surely the main consideration should be the fact that young people in the Forces are denied that freedom that is permitted to those outside—to change their minds. We should make it easier for them to say that they have made a mistake and want to embark on another career. It reflects badly on the Forces if they place greater priority on manning than on the rights of a young person of 15, 16 or 17 to say that he wishes to do something else.

  185
  I hope that, when this subject is examined by the Ministry, it will take into consideration the points I have made and those which other hon. Members have made from time to time in the last few months and will change its attitude and look upon this matter as much more of a human problem than one of manning the Forces.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): This is a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) has spoken before. I remind the House that, in answer to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) a few days ago, I said that I was looking at this problem, which involves difficult and important manning requirements. I shall announce the outcome of my investigations when they are completed; but I cannot now say how long they will take, for they involve long-term considerations.
  I must re-emphasise what I said to the hon. Gentleman—although my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough did not seem to like it—that, as far as the Forces are concerned, manning requirements must be one of the major factors to be taken into account.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: Why?
  Mr. Reynolds: If we did not take them into account, we should find ourselves spending many millions more on defence than we do at the moment; because we should have to have a large number of extra people in order to allow for the possibility of members of the Forces leaving suddenly. We should need many more people to man the ships and the equipment the House has provided if members of the Forces were able to get out much more easily than now. We should need, as it were, a "cushion" against such a situation. If we were to give young people an option to leave at, say, 21, we should have to have many more apprentices in the apprentice schools at any one time. This would mean more schools and more instructors and would cost a great deal of money. We have to bear this in mind. I am as anxious as my hon. Friends are to try to keep expenditure on military matters as low as possible. Having said that, I should like to say at once that I
  186
  am well aware of the importance of the other points which my hon. Friend made, and they will be fully considered when I look into this whole matter.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the case of leading engineer mechanic Mayhew trying to get into a university for the last two years. I wish that she had referred to the fact that she was informed in a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State yesterday that leading engineer mechanic Mayhew will be released from the Navy in time to take up his university place in October.
  Miss Lestor: That letter has not reached me.
  Mr. Reynolds: I am sorry. The letter was posted on 10th March telling my hon. Friend that he will be released in time to take up his place at university this year.
  I should like to give some details of the number of people involved in this matter. In 1966, the Royal Navy took on 4,925 boys of the age to which we are referring, the Army took on 5,838 and the Royal Air Force 1,244, so that it is about 12,000 boys a year who are going into the Services in this way, about one-quarter of the total intake.
  Those who left before completing their training—and these figures will put the matter into perspective—represented 7·7 per cent, of the intake into the Royal Navy, 15·5 per cent, for the Army and about 10 per cent, for the Royal Air Force. About 1 per cent, left the Navy by purchase and 1·05 per cent, for medical reasons; about 7·8 per cent, left the Army by purchase and 2·5 per cent, for medical reasons; about 7 per cent, left the Royal Air Force by purchase and between 1 and 3 per cent, left for medical reasons. Why the figures are different for the three Services is one of the questions which I want to consider in the inquiry which I am now making.
  It is also significant that of the cases submitted by the National Council for Civil Liberties, 22 came from the Navy and 6 from the Army, where the numbers taken each year are approximately the same for each Service, whereas there were 10 cases from the Royal Air Force where the numbers of the intakes are considerably smaller. That, too, is a matter which must be seriously considered in my inquiries.

  187
  I cannot accept the claim that people are not aware when committing themselves to an apprenticeship that the period of service for which they are signing commences only at the age of 18. Everything is done to make sure that the individual youngster and the parent or guardian concerned are aware of the provisions. They appear on all the various forms which have to be signed; and if people are not aware of the conditions, no blame can be attached to the Army, Air Force or Navy officials for keeping this information from them. The opposite is true. This information is drawn to their attention, they are told that service starts only at the age of 18, and they sign seeing what the conditions are. It may be that 12 months later they have forgotten all about it, but at the time of signing both the young man and the parent or guardian are aware of the conditions, which are clearly stated on the parental consent form which they have to sign, I cannot accept that it is not known at the time, although it may be regretted later.
  My hon. Friend also said—I have not been able to check this, but I take her word for it—that few other countries have a system of this nature. It is very difficult to compare our system of running military forces with those of other countries, particularly other European countries, almost all of whom have some form of conscription. With conscription one can pick up apprentices from outside the forces and bring them into the forces and use them for two or three years. We have a voluntary system, and we therefore have to train our own apprentices. It is possible—I am not saying, definitely—that other systems will work as well, but one has to consider the whole system and not just this part of it. I am certain that because other countries can conscript trained people they do not need to train their own, whereas we train our own apprentices in each of the Services.
  My hon. Friend made two points which to some extent were contradictory. On the one hand, she drew attention to the fact that in the Navy now, as with the Army and the Air Force, there is provision for the individual to buy himself out in the last fortnight of the first three months of his service. This has just been introduced for the Navy, but it has been
  188
  available to the other two Services for some time. My hon. Friend felt that for some reasons it could be argued that the period was too long and for other reasons that it was too short a period in which an individual could be expected to make up his mind about whether the life suited him. I am absolutely certain that for the vast majority of apprentices and young Service men who come into the Forces this period is sufficient, but one must admit that there are a number of people who change their minds for a whole range of reasons after this short period of service. One has also to bear in mind that a number of parents may persuade the boys to change their minds.
  While I do not by any means accept all the complaints made about this, I accept that there are genuine cases of hardship; if there are compassionate reasons we can sometimes deal with them. There are genuine cases of people who find they cannot stand the particular way of life. There are also genuine cases of conscientious objection. The difficulty, of course, is how to sort all these out; because we always want to give sympathetic attention to genuine cases and to help sympathetically.
  But there are also cases where industrial firms are making deliberate attempts to gain apprentices because they are not training enough themselves, and they try to bribe boys to go out of the Service, and, in certain circumstances, put up the money to enable them to purchase themselves out, in order that they may go to work for them. We must face the fact that there are cases like this as well. I would say also that in allowing these discharges one is often putting a large additional burden on those who remain in the Service. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says they enjoy it. We must make it clear that the vast majority of young soldiers and apprentices do in fact enjoy it. In this debate we are talking about only a minority—
  Mr. Driberg: No.
  Mr. Reynolds: We do not know exactly, unfortunately, how big or small the minority is, but it is a minority we are talking about, and the young men we are taking in as apprentices and young soldiers are, in most cases, the recruits who do the whole of their service, and provide us with a very large proportion

  189
  of our n.c.o.s and warrant officers and skilled tradesmen required by the three Services. It is also the case that it is the recruits who come in at the older ages—17½ and upwards—amongst whom the wastage rate is higher. I know one can argue that young men of 17, 18 or 19 are better able to make a decision, but the fact is that a bigger proportion of them seem to make a mistake, and we find that among the young men of 15 the wastage rate is lower. They also reach higher rank than people who come in at a later age, because of the very intensive and good training they are given, and also a larger proportion of them serve for 22 years, and become entitled to pension.
  Another point my hon. Friend raised was about misleading propaganda and publicity, which, she said, was put out by the Services to entice young men into apprentice centres and other training establishments of the three Services. She read a long advertisement which, she said,
  190
  was in a recent comic magazine. That advertisement probably did over-glamorise; but that applies to all advertisements, and I do not think it can be alleged that there was any actual misrepresentation of the facts. Indeed, it finished by encouraging people to write and ask for full details, which would then be sent to them. So, while my hon. Friend may think it was misleading, I do not on the whole accept that it was misleading. It was an advertisement to encourage parents and boys to write in for full information, and most of them would then want to ask questions about the Service before coming to a final decision—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Occupational Diseases
  Occupational Diseases
  Retirement and Widows' Pensions (Late Claims)
  Retirement and Widows' Pensions (Late Claims)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Unemployment Benefit (Night Workers)
  Unemployment Benefit (Night Workers)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Industrial Injuries (Cases)
  Industrial Injuries (Cases)
  Farmer's Lung Disease (Self-Employed Persons)
  Farmer's Lung Disease (Self-Employed Persons)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Skilled Labour (South-East)
  Skilled Labour (South-East)
  Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland (Pay Recommendation)
  Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland (Pay Recommendation)
  Construction Industry (Committee of Inquiry)
  Construction Industry (Committee of Inquiry)
  Welsh Industry (New Jobs)
  Welsh Industry (New Jobs)
  Employees (Free Transport)
  Employees (Free Transport)
  Association of Salaried Staff, Executives and Technicians (Pay Increases)
  Association of Salaried Staff, Executives and Technicians (Pay Increases)
  GERMANY (ODER-NEISSE LINE)
  GERMANY (ODER-NEISSE LINE)
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  INDONESIA (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)
  INDONESIA (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)
  SLAVERY
  SLAVERY
  ADEN
  ADEN
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Social Services (Co-ordination)
  Social Services (Co-ordination)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Teachers
  Teachers
  CHILD CARE OFFICERS AND SOCIAL WORKERS
  CHILD CARE OFFICERS AND SOCIAL WORKERS
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Servicemen (Overseas Deaths)
  Servicemen (Overseas Deaths)
  Major Masterson (Pension Rights)
  Major Masterson (Pension Rights)
  Polaris Submarines
  Polaris Submarines
ROADS
  Parking Meters (Markings)
  Parking Meters (Markings)
  A40 (Member's Letter)
  A40 (Member's Letter)
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Speed Limits (Hampshire)
  Speed Limits (Hampshire)
  M4 (Crash Barriers)
  M4 (Crash Barriers)
  Road Schemes (Mileage)
  Road Schemes (Mileage)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Testing Station, Shropshire
  Vehicle Testing Station, Shropshire
RAILWAYS
  Closures (Trunk Routes)
  Closures (Trunk Routes)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rural Development Board, Wales
  Rural Development Board, Wales
  CONTEMPT OF COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURE)
  CONTEMPT OF COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURE)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Transport Costs (Retail Prices)
  Transport Costs (Retail Prices)
  Population Expansion (Carlisle-Solway Area)
  Population Expansion (Carlisle-Solway Area)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Receipt Stamps
  Receipt Stamps
  Purchase Tax (Colour Television Sets)
  Purchase Tax (Colour Television Sets)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Income Tax (Shift Workers)
  Income Tax (Shift Workers)
  Bank of England (Security Firms)
  Bank of England (Security Firms)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Delinquent and Disturbed Children (Schools)
  Delinquent and Disturbed Children (Schools)
HOSPITALS
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Cotton Textile Materials (Cost)
  Cotton Textile Materials (Cost)
  Patients (Weekly Cost)
  Patients (Weekly Cost)
  Surgical Cases (Length of Stay)
  Surgical Cases (Length of Stay)
  St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon
  St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land Acquisition, Leicester (Decision)
  Land Acquisition, Leicester (Decision)
  Boundaries, Tyneside
  Boundaries, Tyneside
ELECTRICITY
  West Burton Power Station Output)
  West Burton Power Station Output)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
SCOTLAND
  Local Authority Houses (Contracts)
  Local Authority Houses (Contracts)
  Road Schemes (Mileage)
  Road Schemes (Mileage)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Colour Television (Licence Fee)
  Colour Television (Licence Fee)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Telephones (Cost)
  Telephones (Cost)
  Data Transmission Service
  Data Transmission Service
  Facsimile Equipment
  Facsimile Equipment
  Exchange Equipment (Elliott Automation)
  Exchange Equipment (Elliott Automation)
POST OFFICE
  Spalding Head Post Office (Administrative Control)
  Spalding Head Post Office (Administrative Control)
  Joint Postal Delivery Service (Rural Areas)
  Joint Postal Delivery Service (Rural Areas)
  Postmen and Counter Clerks (Wembley Area)
  Postmen and Counter Clerks (Wembley Area)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Directorate General of Research and Development
  Directorate General of Research and Development
  Royal Air Force, St. Mawgan (Grass Cutting Cost)
  Royal Air Force, St. Mawgan (Grass Cutting Cost)
  Agreement Board (Chairman)
  Agreement Board (Chairman)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Public Houses (Grants)
  Public Houses (Grants)
  Advance Factories, Wales
  Advance Factories, Wales
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel and Iron Imports)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel and Iron Imports)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Employment (Millom)
  Employment (Millom)
  Colour Television Sets (Hire Purchase)
  Colour Television Sets (Hire Purchase)
  Estate Agents Council (Chairman)
  Estate Agents Council (Chairman)
  Butter (Import Quota)
  Butter (Import Quota)
  Fertilisers (Report)
  Fertilisers (Report)
WALES
  Roads
  Roads

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

COMPANY PROFITS
2.35 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 how the level of company profits so far reported during 1967 compares with the similar period of 1966; and how they expect company profits for the whole of 1967 to compare with 1966.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is no official information on company profits available beyond the third quarter of 1966. In the first three quarters of 1966 gross trading profits of companies totalled some £3,472 million—a decline of just under 4 per cent. from the corresponding period of 1965. It is not the practice to forecast future profits.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, so far as it goes, may I ask him whether he is aware that I tried to draft
2
at least the first part of my Question so that it would be easier for him to answer to-day than my supplementary question was about ten days ago? Will the noble Lord, or his colleagues, try to give more information about this as soon as possible, since there is so much comment in the newspapers at the present time, much of which can he damaging, and it is obviously in the country's interest to know the facts, and to know them as soon as possible?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord that I am unable to give him all the figures for 1966, and obviously he is too soon in regard to 1967. But the noble Lord will he aware that, if we take the motor car industry as a barometer, there is no doubt a good deal less of the pessimism to which the noble Lord has referred than there was at (shall we say?) the end of 1966. In fact, the registration of new motor cars for January of this year was only, I think, some 4 per cent. below the January figure which was an all-time record for the industry. Therefore one should expect to see a recovery of profits during the course of 1967.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, may we take it from the noble Lord's reply to the supplementary that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of rising profits?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the present Government have never been against profits. What we have always been concerned about—as I hope the noble Lord himself is—is the use made

3
of those profits, particularly in the field of reinvestment.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, since the Government take 40 per cent. in corporation tax, 8s. 3d. in the pound in income tax and, in certain cases, another amount in surtax, every single taxpayer is extremely interested in the profit that everybody else makes? Is he aware also that the more profits that companies and others make, the less tax people have to pay? Therefore will the Government do everything they can, in the interests of the people as a whole, to help and encourage companies to make the maximum amount of profits?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton says the answer is, "Yes, Sir". I would qualify that with a "No", in the sense that what we wish to see is how these profits arise. Certainly I think the noble Lord would agree with me that what we want is the stabilisation of prices, particularly to assist us in the field of exports; but in practice we should like to see profits at a fair, reasonable level, particularly if they are reinvested in equipment.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, if there has been a fall in profits in the private sector, and therefore, presumably, the Government will gather less from taxation, would they explain how they propose to finance their vast increases in public expenditure?
LORD SHEPHERD: All I can do is to refer the noble Lord to the reply which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, some ten days ago and suggest that he should wait until April.

BOTSWANA: UNITED KINGDOM AID
2.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what for the last three years of Colonial rule was the total revenue of Botswana and what proportion thereof constituted subvention in any form by the United Kingdom taxpayer; further, what commitment, if any, for continued assistance has been promised.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, recurrent revenues of Botswana for the three-year period from 1964 to 1967 are estimated to be £15·4 million. Included in this figure are budgetary grants, reimbursements under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and compensation loans from Britain estimated to total £7½ million. In addition, during the same period Britain made available grants and loans totalling £4·9 million for development purposes (including £314,000 through the Commonwealth Development Corporation), as well as £475,000 for technical assistance. The British Government have agreed to provide up to £13 million budgetary and development aid to Botswana for the three years beginning in April, 1967, in addition to compensation loans and technical assistance.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if I have been able to follow all the figures given by the noble Lord, I suggest that the ratio in the future will be something like £13 million subvention to £15 million total revenue. Arising out of that reply, is it to be understood that that includes the cost of the Francistown Radio; and, if it does, is it right to assume that, since it is a subvention from Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government provide the material which is shot by the radio?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Francistown Radio is a quite separate item, which is not covered at all by what I have said.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the exposed position of Botswana to the Republic of South Africa, the Government will do their utmost to develop self-sufficiency in its economy so that it will not have to become subservient to the apartheid régime in South Africa?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him whether it it is to be understood from his original reply that the £13 million subvention falls within the £15 million total revenue?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Brockway, I entirely agree with him about the special difficulties of Botswana, and I should have hoped he would agree, from the figures I have given, that we are determined to do all that is possible to enable those brave people to build up their economy. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asked me whether the £13 million is within the £15 million recurrent revenue. The £15 million recurrent revenue is for the three-year period up to the present time; the £13 million is for the three-year period from now.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that explanation, I would ask him whether there is any reason to suppose that there is going to be a marked change in the country's normal revenue. If not, Her Majesty's Government will be providing supplementary revenue equal to about 85 per cent. of the total revenue.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we shall see how we get on. We have committed ourselves to £13 million in aid, plus the compensation loans and the technical assistance. That is a commitment which was entered into when Botswana achieved independence. The development of the country in the future will, of course, be a matter to be taken into account when we come to consider future aid.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will pardon my persistence, but it appears that there are no grounds for assuming that there is going to be any material change in the revenue in the future as against the past three years. Is that what we are to understand?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Botswana people are dealing with terri-
6
tory which is extremely difficult, so far as wresting a living is concerned. But I am glad to say that there is a possibility that there may be minerals there. If these indications prove to be well founded it will change the position entirely in that country. In the meantime we shall continue to give what economic aid is possible.

ADEN: SERVICEMEN'S CHILDREN AND SECURITY
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the High Commissioner in Aden's warning, on grounds of security risk, to parents not to bring children to Aden, and the Military Middle East Command's reported intention to fly 400 children to Aden for Easter holidays, and the fact that many Service families live outside military compounds, Her Majesty's Government will now issue authoritative advice on what parents should do regarding this apparent contradiction.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be answering that Question, with the permission of the House, shortly after 3.30 p.m. After that my noble friend Lord Beswick will be making a Statement on Malta.

SPORTING EVENTS (BETTING) BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to require off-course bookmakers to obtain the authority of the promoters of any sports event, except horse racing, before making a book or operating a pool, if the results of the event are to be used by way of business for betting purposes. I should explain that at the present time a bookmaker can make a book on any sport, except horse racing, without making any contribution to the sport involved. So far as horse racing is

7
concerned, bookmakers pay a statutory levy based on profits, so obviously a dual system of horse racing cannot be established.
Pool promoters can, without the authority of the promoters, operate a pool on any sport except horse racing and greyhound racing, in the case of which permission must be sought under existing statutory provisions. A literary copyright fee must also be paid by bookmakers and pools promoters who use football results. In addition to excluding horse racing, the provisions of the Bill will not apply to bookmakers operating at licensed tracks or to betting operations using a Totalisator at grey-hound race meetings. There are already statutory provisions for bookmakers to operate at licensed tracks and for a Totalisator to be operated.
Parliament has seen fit to give to the horse-racing and greyhound-racing interests a proprietary right in the use of the Totalisator odds when used by any person for bookmaking purposes, and has also given to them the sole right to authorise a pool to be operated at their sports. This Bill would extend the principle of proprietary right to all sporting events except horse racing. Betting shops do not make any contribution to sports such as golf, lawn tennis, cricket, greyhound racing and others the results of which they use for betting purposes, except when using Totalisator odds on the greyhound course. The Bill is therefore designed to ensure that bookmakers should seek the consent of the promoters of any sport before they can operate a book.
Promoters of sports incur considerable expense in the promotion of their events and it is quite unfair to find that the result of their efforts, whether it be the lawn tennis championships or greyhound racing, is used by someone else for business purposes with complete disregard for the promoters. If it is right for horse racing to bear a levy—and I have no objection to that—then in justice it must be right for the promoters of all sporting events in the country to seek an equivalent contribution from the bookmakers.
My Lords, it is well known that bookmakers make a book on cricket, golf, rugby and many other sports, and I can say to your Lordships categorically that
8
legal sporting bodies are in favour of the principles of this Bill. I have received a letter signed by the Secretaries of the British Cycling Federation, the Lawn Tennis Association, Marylebone Cricket Club, the National Greyhound Society, the Rugby Football League and the Rugby Football Union expressing their consent to this Bill. The letter is in the following terms:
"The aims and principles of the Sporting Events (Betting) Bill which seeks to give promoters of sporting events a proprietary right in the use of results of such events when employed by other persons for betting purposes have our full support."
The letter goes on:
"We trust that Parliament may find it possible to enact this legislation. Its effect would be to vest in the promoters of sporting events control over the use of the results of those events by persons seeking to make a business from them, and we believe the establishment of such authority to be both desirable and justifiable. It would not, of course, be our intention to place any impediment in the way of the Press or broadcasting authorities from reporting these results in the normal way."
I may say, my Lords, that in promoting this Bill I have no financial interest at all in any of the sports.
I know that in 1956 Parliament tried to untangle the law of copyright. It has been said that this Bill seeks to extend the copyright provisions with regard to the use of sporting events for other purposes. First, I would state that this Bill is not concerned with copyright law as defined in the Copyright Act 1956. It is designed solely to extend the principle of proprietary right as now exists in the 1963 Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act in the use of results when such results are used for betting purposes in a big way of business. The Betting and Gaming Act 1960 first gave to the horse and greyhound racing operators a proprietary right in the use of their Totalisator odds for betting purposes. Parliament did so at that time because it felt that the Totalisator is a mechanical device maintained by those interests and, as such, the prices so recorded by the Totalisator should belong to the operators.
My Lords, I should like to emphasise that in this Bill no bar will be placed in the way of the Press and broadcasting media from publishing these results as hitherto, and they will not have to seek the consent of the promoters to do so.

9
While one cannot foresee how the promoters of the various sporting events will carry out the provisions of this Bill, if it is approved by Parliament, I think that a parallel may be drawn between this new proprietary right and that now being exercised with regard to the use of Totalisator odds. There is every indication that the licence to bookmakers will be subject to negotiations between the respective interests involved. If a promoter does not wish for bookmaking to take place on his results off the course it is up to him to say so, but I anticipate that most promoters will endeavour to come to some form of satisfactory arrangement with the bookmaking interests.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that at the present time bookmakers pay a fee to the horse-racing interests for the use of their horse-racing commentary, and this totals about £40,000 per annum. An amount of £170,000 is paid to the greyhound-racing interests for the use of their Totalisator odds. These may appear to be large sums, but they are quite small when one realises that an annual fee of £50 covers all the horse racing in the country and there are some 6,000 races per annum. An annual sum of £50 in London and the South-East and £20 per annum elsewhere covers greyhound racing, and there are about 50,000 greyhound races each year. The fees which the horse and greyhound racing promoters charge the bookmakers are not heavy having regard to the scale of the enterprises involved. If a bookmaker cannot pay the required sum he can make a book on some other event or, indeed, he ought not to be in business.
I am quite sure that on this matter many people will agree with me that there are far too many betting offices. The number is much too large for this country and if they are to operate they should pay their dues to the respective sports out of which they make their living. The enforcement of the rights to be given to sporting promoters will be secured through the civil courts as is the position at present concerning proprietary rights in the use of Totalisator prices.
It may be said by some that to confer on independent bodies an uncontrolled right to regulate betting and raise revenue from it should required Government approval. This is not so, and there is
10
no intention in this Bill to regulate betting which is already controlled by the 1963 Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act. All that is sought to be done by my Bill is to ensure that those people who make a living out of the efforts of others who promote various sporting events should make a contribution of an agreed amount to the promoters. At the present time the Government do not object to revenue being raised by the Racecourses Association or to the substantial amount they receive each year from the horse-race commentary scheme. All betting and gaming is now subject to a general betting duty, and here I feel that the Government should be careful about the way they approach the problem. I am certain that all the betting interests in this country can well bear the present rate of 2½ per cent. It is, however, open to question whether on-the-course interests who provide a market for off-course bookmakers could hear much increase beyond the 2½ per cent. and there is a strong case for the Government considering an off-course tax and whether it should be increased, as in Eire.
The Bill will not diminish the present tax yield, having regard to the large amount of tax so far received, which is greatly in excess of the estimate that the Chancellor made last year. The major proportion of the general betting duty obviously comes from horse racing, which, as I have previously said, is not provided for in the Bill. It is, if I may say so, the other sports which do not provide the greater amount of duty which this Bill would cover. Obviously there is a case for treating all sports alike when it comes to a question of statutory levies. The Government cannot say that horse racing has any special position vis-à-vis other sports in this country, and I believe that they should be treated in the same way when it comes to this particular issue. I hope that the principles of the Bill will commend themselves to the House. I am only seeking fair play for all sports in this country, and it is on that basis that I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Blyton.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to my noble

11
friend Lord Blyton for bringing this matter to our attention and for the fair and reasonable speech he has made in support of the Bill he is putting before your Lordships. We all know that he has been a doughty fighter for freedom over the years, and it seems fair and reasonable, and logical, to suggest, as he is suggesting in this Bill, that sports other than horse racing and dog racing should reap some benefit from the amount of betting that takes place on them. I think that all our sympathy will go towards the general idea. But I am rising to oppose this Bill—and there is nobody I would sooner not oppose than my noble friend Lord Blyton—because I believe that in one respect this Bill is dangerous, and, secondly, that it only nibbles at what is a much more fundamental problem.
I believe that the effect of the Bill in operation would be to put a tremendous power in the hands of the big betting interests, as against the smaller bookmakers and betting interests. The result would be that large sums of money and large profits would be at stake. Since the introduction of the Betting and Gaming Act 1963 we have seen that where big and easy money is available the big interests move in, and after them come the gangsters, the Mafia and these other types. Because of this, I am against the Bill. I am also against the Bill because I believe that Parliament needs to make a fundamental review of the situation of our gaming laws and not nibble at them, indeed, I believe that the present Home Secretary is considering such a review. There is no doubt that there is deep disquiet in the country about the huge interests that are making hay out of the laws that were passed in 1963. The police are frantically trying to hold the dyke against the flood—but deporting one ageing American film star is not enough: we must make it unprofitable for the people of whom I speak to come here. That means a review and change of the entire law.
We have heard that London is a "swinging city". We all know now that it is a dirty city. If we have achieved rationalisation in nothing else, we have achieved it in vice and gambling. It is now a highly efficient and organised operation, and where there is easy money, the mobsters and racketeers flow in like
12
rats. I do not think that my noble friend's Bill would materially affect this situation, though it would affect it in some degree: it would create an opportunity for big money interests to move in on certain sporting events. The people who have written to my noble friend do not quite realise what they are in for when they ask that they should have the power to give the big money interests the right to organise betting on the sporting events they promote. As I have said, this is highly dangerous.
We had a first-class debate in your Lordships' House some months ago on a Motion introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, and on that occasion a number of suggestions were put before the Government. I believe that these suggestions were urgent, and I hope that the Government are considering them actively, because the situation in London is one in which the police, though they have all the information, are almost powerless to act, and the situation is deteriorating weekly and daily. In these circumstances, I would express sympathy with my noble friend Lord Blyton, but I suggest that this is an issue that needs to come up as a much more fundamental review of the whole of our betting and gaming laws.
3.7 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships I will crave your indulgence. I am glad to know that it is always graciously given to a maiden speaker. I do not intend to take up more than eight minutes of your Lordships' time, for I am fully aware that there is important business to be discussed in your Lordships' House to-day.
Before turning to the Sporting Events (Betting) Bill, the Second Reading of which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the House at the present time will allow me to make an apology. I have found nothing set out in Standing Orders which can prevent me from doing so, and I shall take it that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl the Leader of the House, Lord Longford, will allow me to proceed. As a Back-Bencher in your Lordships' House, I should like to offer my humble apologies to the noble and learned Lord

13
the Lord Chancellor, to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the Opposition Chief Whip, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses, for the fact that, though I took my seat on the first occasion some three months prior to Her Majesty's Coronation, I have been unable to attend any sitting until some eight months ago. Since then, I have been a regular attender in your Lordships' House.
The reasons for my absence are simple and straightforward. For some 36 years I worked in the theatre. First, it was on the management side, and later I presented plays and big musicals with the greatest showman we have ever had the good fortune to know in this country. I refer to the late Sir Charles Cochran. After his tragic death I continued as an impresario on my own and presented straight plays and musicals. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strange, who has also been an impresario and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, the distinguished dramatist and author, would agree with me when I say that the world of the theatre is a whole-time job. This, together with the fact that at a later date I personally directed two restaurants and managed one other, made it quite impossible to attend your Lordships' House.
As an hereditary Peer, my considered opinion is that Peers, hereditary-wise or life-wise, should attend fairly regularly, or not at all. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to remark that, having asked for my leave of absence, after working in the Merchant Navy for nearly two years on the catering side, and personally directing one other restaurant in London for just over a year, to be withdrawn I now find myself in the honoured position of being able to attend your Lordships' House regularly.
After eight months, my impression is that in the House of Lords noble Lords have the greatest show on in London to-day. I have had the privilege to witness a great deal of hard work being done in the interests of the nation by life and hereditary Peers. I have been deeply impressed by the way in which great humanitarian issues are being so ably dealt with by many noble Ladies. I repeat that I feel very privileged to be a Member
14
of your Lordships' House, and I can assure noble Lords, who work so hard in the interests of the nation as a whole, that I shall take part in debates from time to time. Furthermore, I will make two promises: that I will never speak for more than 15 minutes on any occasion, and then only when I feel that I am qualified to do so.
To return to the Sporting Events (Betting) Bill, which I sincerely hope will have the support of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has pointed out that it is a simple and clearly drafted Bill. Its main purpose is to protect and aid sport and sport promoters. With the upsurge of betting in this country, as a humble Back Bencher I suggest that it is a Bill which deserves the support of your Lordships. Already Parliament has given to the horse and greyhound interests a proprietary right in the use of their Totalisator odds when used by any person for bookmaking purposes; and further, has given them the sole right to authorise a pool to be operated on their sports. This Bill seeks to extend the principle of proprietary right in the use of the results of sporting events.
The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has explained that he is moving the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House so that bookmakers, and others who make a living out of the efforts of sports promoters, should make an agreed contribution to them. This, in effect, will make it possible for the sports promoters to recover some of the considerable expense incurred in staging promotions. The Bill will tidy up some of our betting laws, such as the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which consolidates the provisional Betting and Gaming Act 1960, and the Betting Levy Act 1961. Following some inquiries, I can assure your Lordships that, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, stated a few minutes ago, this Bill has the support of the Marylebone Cricket Club and the Rugby Union, and it is welcomed by the National Greyhound Racing Association, the Lawn Tennis Association and by athletic organisations throughout the country.
In winding up my maiden speech, may I say that, after attending your Lordships' House for some three months, I went to the starting gate prepared to make a maiden speech on three occasions. However, I was bumped by two "fillies" on

15
two occasions and on the other occasion by a noble "horse". I wish that my maiden speech could in some small way have approached the magnitude of that made by the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, on life and conditions in Rhodesia. The other maiden speeches to which I should like to refer are the very humane and helpful one delivered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, on the important subject of the care of the young with regard to mental health; and, secondly, the moving speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on the welfare of illegitimate children.
So, my Lords, with my Celtic blood coursing through my veins at a rate of knots, I will once again take my seat as a Back Bencher, without removing my "L" plates. However, before doing so I, like other noble Lords, would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, for the concise manner in which he has spoken on this Bill. It is my hope that your Lordships will agree on the Bill, and thereby enable it to be made law in six months' time.
3.17 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, before I offer a few words of restrained pessimism by way of comment on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, I know that your Lordships would wish to join me in offering our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on his charming and unusual maiden speech. The noble Lord apologised to us for the fact that it is nearly 27 years since he took his seat. There was no need, I assure him, for him to apologise. Over 75 Members of your Lordships' House have been in the House for over 27 years without breaking silence. The noble Marquess, Lord Cholmondeley, one of our most distinguished parliamentarians, took, I think, 32 years before he decided to address your Lordships. Then, again, in the 18th century, a certain Lord Macdonald, of whom I am unable to obtain any other information, waited 39 years before he made his maiden speech. He sprang to his feet, forgot what he had wanted to say, and wisely resumed his seat.
Some years ago, when staying in Ceylon with my noble friend Lord Soulbury, who was then the Governor General of
16
that delightful island, we were regaled after dinner by Mr. Senanayake, the Prime Minister, with the tale of a distinguished holy man who had sat for 50 years in silence under a pepper tree outside Candy. Towards the end of the 50th year of his silence he made it evident to his friends, supporters and disciples that he proposed to break that silence; and his friends and supporters gathered round under the pepper tree waiting for some revelation of the mystical ways of life that had occurred to the holy man during his 50 years of silence. Slightly to their surprise, all he did was to remark to those gathered under the pepper tree, in a slightly petulant voice, that he was getting sick and tired of the smell of pepper.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, that there was no need for him to have apologised for waiting 27 years to address your Lordships. But he must promise us that it will not be a further 27 years before he addresses us again, because that will be 1994, about the year, I should have thought, that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, stands the faintest chance of getting his Bill on to the Statute Book.
I admire Lord Blyton's courage, and I congratulate him on the clarity with which he has put his points before us. But the trouble is that this is a matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, pointed out, which should be dealt with wholesale and not piecemeal, so important is it. The noble Lord's Bill is, alas! full of loopholes. He has tried his best and he has given us an interpretation clause. He has tried to define "promoter"; he has tried to define a "sporting event"; and he has tried to tell us what he thinks a "track" may be. But has he for instance, considered one of the principal fields of gambling at the moment; namely, gambling on elections and by-elections? I won a little money, I am glad to say, on the Pollok by-election. I am therefore happy to see that the Bill applies to Scotland, though not to Northern Ireland. But who in this case is the promoter? Was that the Leader of the House in another place? Is a by-election really a sporting event? I ask, my Lords, not for any academic reason but solely because I have a little money at stake upon the current election for the leadership of the Liberal Peers in

17
your Lordships' House. Is this a sporting event? Is the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, their Chief Whip, to be regarded as the promoter and, if it is not lese-majesty, is the Liberal Front Bench a track? If so, Gladstone is whirling in his grave and thirty bob of my stake money is in peril.
This is a difficult matter. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has in mind because what he is trying to do is to rationalise the influence of the bookmakers on sport and on society in general. Here, I endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. Your Lordships will remember the debate which was opened last May by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, whom I am glad to see in his place to-day, and who made a significant contribution. He pointed out—and we all endorsed what he had to say—that since the Act of 1963 something has happened which none of us had intended. We are all to blame for what has happened, on all sides of the House. We had hoped to rationalise the gambling instinct in this country by sweeping it out from under the carpet into the open. We were frightened of the amount of corruption that was arising from street betting, bookies' runners and corrupted young policemen, and we thought we were doing right, but we now discover that we have gone too far. We were anxious enough last May, but since then things have gone from bad to worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, drew attention to the case of Mr. George Raft. I know nothing of the pros and cons of that, save that he appears to have been treated in a cavalier fashion. But it is bad enough that these things should happen and that people should be puzzled about them, and that it should appear that something is going on which we do not know about.
I should like to try to put an Amendment into the noble Lord's Bill. It is going to be difficult, but that will not stop me. I pleaded then, during our previous debate, for the abolition of the bookmaker and for a Tote monopoly, the nationalisation of bookmaking. It struck me as being odd that I should ever stand up in your Lordships' House and propose the nationalisation of anything. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating what I said in my previous
18
speech, admirable, lucid and high-minded though it was. Other countries are laughing, and it was as Lord Willis says, they are sneering at us: they are sneering at us for allowing gaming and betting to become almost a national disease; they are laughing at us for not taking advantage of what is being done in other countries, particularly France, where the nationalisation of betting has resulted in immense benefit to the racing industry, which is as financially important to France as it is to us, to the breeders, the horse owners, the race-course owners, the public, the Exchequer, all of whom profit immensely more in France and other countries than they do here. Most of all the departure of the bookie would be a great advantage to the chief constables. I know of no chief constable who would not favour the abolition of the bookmaker and the substitution of the Tote monopoly.
I am not suggesting for a moment that all bookmakers are criminals. That would be a wrong and wicked thing to say, but I suggest that criminals cannot exist without the bookmaking system. I know of no chief constable who would not favour this. I do not want to deprive bookmakers of their livelihood. The simple method is to nationalise the betting offices and put the bookmakers' staff in to run the Tote monopoly. I could not help noticing that on the day on which I received my copy of Lord Blyton's Bill, there were five cases reported in The Times of people who were up for trial for crimes which could be traced and attributed directly to the bookmaking fraternity or to uncontrolled betting.
Therefore I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that I approve strongly of what he is trying to do, but I do not think he will achieve it. If he likes to withdraw his Bill and re-draft it so that we could have the Tote monopoly, which I believe everybody in this country, with one exception, wants, then I would wholeheartedly support it. I appreciate all that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, is trying to do. I do not think he will achieve it. I share his anxiety and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and your Lordships who also supported him, that gambling in this country is becoming an almost uncontrollable disease and that the sooner

19
we pull ourselves together and try to control it, the better. This Bill, alas! will not do that. I cannot support the noble Lord's Bill, although I support his efforts. I therefore encourage him to re-draft it and to bring forward a Bill to nationalise the bookies and substitute the Tote monopoly. I am quite certain that he will have support from everybody who matters, save one body of people which need not worry him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is to reply—why not the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I wonder. Not that I am complaining for one moment about the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips: she could charm a bird off a tree and then sell the tree back to the bird, and at a profit. But why is the Home Office not replying on this occasion? Are they ashamed of the line they last took?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is aware of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Stonham is not replying. I will not develop it now, but the noble Lord should be aware of the reason, and therefore it has nothing to do with the Home Office. I think I ought to correct the noble Lord on this matter before he goes too far.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if it is due to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, not being fully restored to health, then I apologise and withdraw. If that is the case, I fully understand, but I was not so informed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should not like it to be on record that my noble friend Lord Stonham has not been restored to good health, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows, in cricket it is nice to be able to play oneself in and then one can make a good score.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, sought to restore himself to health by taking a Cunard cruise, I see what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is getting at and again I approve entirely.
When the noble Lord, Lord Stonham made the admirable speech in winding up the debate on betting some nine months ago, I thought he was a little lukewarm to my suggestion that there should be nationalisation of the bookies. Now the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips,
20
can redeem the situation because I believe she appreciates, as does the Home Office, that the climate of public opinion has changed sharply in this matter. I believe that the view of the Home Office has changed, too, and I hope we shall have some word of encouragement that the time has now come to reconsider this matter in more positive terms than Her Majesty's Government used in concluding that debate of nine months ago. There is nothing wrong in changing one's mind. Her Majesty's Government have changed their minds on almost everything of importance in the last two and a half years. We are all getting used to it. Let them change their mind on this one and come back to the full nationalisation. They will have the support of everybody that matters, save, as I have said, one body, and one only, and that of course is the bookmakers. If I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, one word of comfort in that respect, I have a sneaking suspicion that nearly all bookmakers vote Tory.
3.39 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I do not think anyone will envy my position in following the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I cannot measure my puny skill against his, but what I have to say is nevertheless sincere, and I hope that I may have your Lordships' attention for a few minutes. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blyton for introducing this Bill. There may be many technical repercussions—and we have had a catalogue of them—but the idea is absolutely sound and the principle is long overdue. I should like to identify myself with an observation made by my noble friend Lord Blyton, some time before he decided to sponsor this Bill, when he said it was unfair that bookmakers can make a book on any sport except horse racing without making any contribution to the sport involved. That is the principle. The promoters sow, and the bookmakers benefit from the harvest without making any more direct contribution than the cost of transport to the course or sports ground. Given the wonderful insight which bookies have, I cannot understand why they have not gone into other kinds of sport in a far greater way than they have done.

21
I remember my first point-to-point race, I discovered that I could ride. There was one bookie on the course, and he came from Llanelly—a great many wise people come from Llanelly. I was five to four on and I did not know what five to four was. I won the race. I went to the bookie afterwards and asked him: "How did you know I was going to win this race?" He said: "I knew you had a good horse. Also you had bandy legs and the look of a hungry sparrow, and those are the main factors in picking winners." It is impossible to put that into a tote. I am taking issue with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, here. We can assess our bookies and do something about controlling their misdemeanours.
I am quite at one with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who has pointed out the dangers, but surely the matter is not beyond our control. What more fun can you get on the racecourse than watching the bookies and tick-tack men? I think it is time I declared an interest, because I lack interest in betting; I have never had much to do with it. My main obsession is with developing sport. I feel sure that we are heading towards a point when we shall have to have a Ministry of Recreation. In the meantime, sport of various kinds can be developed by people like bookmakers, and I would recommend one which is a far more dangerous and hazardous sport than horse racing; that is, sailing a catamaran or dinghy. There is a tremendous field there. We have a duty to our youth, and in the absence of war, for which I thank God, we have to train men to take up dangerous sport in order to prove themselves and to improve the calibre of our nation which will need to be renewed from time to time as we go on.
Last Saturday I went to see Wales being defeated by Ireland, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, would sympathise with the Welsh. I was on the border of tears. I have myself played scrum-half many times. I found there was a book, quite a considerable book, on that match. It was not only whether Wales would beat Ireland, or Ireland would heat Wales, but by how many points. There were two hooks running. The Welsh Rugby Union did not benefit by one penny. We could have benefited by allowing betting facilities on the ground if the contributions were used to improve the
22
stands and pitch. These are the principles on which my noble friend Lord Blyton has based this Bill. We must get contributions which at present are flowing into the pockets of bookmakers. Perhaps I had better conclude, because time is going on. If I can give any support to the principles of this Bill I shall do so wholeheartedly, in the hope that it will lead to other Bills which will achieve all that my noble friend Lord Blyton has attempted to do in this Bill.

ADEN: SERVICEMEN'S CHILDREN AND SECURITY
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now answer the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchyre, with regard to the position of children of Service families flying out for their holidays. There is no contradiction between the statement of the High Commissioner and the views of the military authorities. The decision whether or not to bring children out is one for the individual Service family in the light of their circumstances including, of course, their particular situation in Aden, and whether arrangements can be made to leave the child in the United Kingdom. In reaching their decision, the parents would be wise to take into account the High Commissioner's views. Some 3,000 children are already with their families in Aden. These families are under security protection and the temporary addition of 400 or so to their number will not add significantly to the problem.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he really has given any positive advice to parents, other than saying, on the one hand, that they should pay attention to the High Commissioner's warning and, on the other hand, that there is very little risk because a whole lot of other children are there? With respect, that Answer does not get us very much further as regards the anxiety of parents. Further, is it not really rather deplorable administration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that this apparently contradictory advice should be given? Can the Government say whether, having

23
regard to the fact that they are always telling us, and quite rightly, that the security forces are well stretched in their duties and under constant strain, it really would not be an undue burden on those security forces to have further children to look after?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not see where the noble Lord sees the contradiction. The circumstances of each family in Aden vary. The High Commissioner's advice was directed at civilians, some of whom are living in more insecure areas than others. There is also a difference as between different Service families. The Service families know as well as anyone the extent to which they may or may not be living in an insecure situation. I do not quite know what it is the noble Lord wishes the Government to do. I have already indicated that this addition in the number of children will not add significantly to the security problem. Certain advice has been given by the High Commissioner, and Service families are advised to take that into account against the background of the particular circumstances in which they live.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it possible to accelerate the repatriation of the Service families concerned in this matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there are proposals, indeed plans, for bringing back the families of Servicemen, and it has not so far been considered necessary to accelerate these. If it should be necessary, undoubtedly the Government would speed up the withdrawal.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, with respect, the Answer does really seem rather a quibble. The Government have not said whether they really support the High Commissioner's view or the military commander's view. In view of the fact that many of these families live outside military compounds, surely the Government should have the courage and initiative to say one way or the other whether these children should or should not go.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot have listened to what I said. What I have said is that the Servicemen and their wives are themselves in the best position to judge their
24
particular circumstances. Some families live in very much more secure surroundings than others. If we were to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion, the logical thing would be to take the perfectly consistent point of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and bring home the 3,000 who are already there. It has not been considered necessary to do so. The High Commissioner gave a range of advice and advised people to take this into account. It all depends on the individual circumstances.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sorry to press this matter; I apologise to your Lordships for doing so. My terrible fear is shared by many of your Lordships, and even if one child were killed by terrorism the responsibility of those giving advice would be great, and the responsibility on Her Majesty's Government would be great. I think it is unfair to say to parents they should take account of this or that. In a position such as exists at Aden, surely it is for the Government to give a strong and powerful lead.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord need not apologise on a matter of such obvious importance and concern. It is the view of the military authorities—and this is not inconsistent with the advice the High Commissioner has given—that against a background as described, in which there is risk, they should take these factors into account in arriving at their decision. It must depend on the particular circumstances in which the family live. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are watching this very closely indeed. We shall certainly take heed of what he has said. The logic of what he has said is that we ought now to bring all the families home, and this is not judged necessary at this juncture.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, surely the logic of what the noble Lord is saying is that the Government should reconsider this matter with a view to bringing home at least the families in the high risk areas.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, without wishing to go into too great detail, steps are being taken eventually to move families out of high risk areas, and this will increase according to how the

25
situation develops. I feel that in a flatter of this kind—let me make it clear there is no question of attempting to save the face of either the military commanders or the Government in a matter of such importance—the best people to judge the situation are our military commanders on the spot. Of course, they are being guided by all the circumstances. I do not see any inconsistency regarding the High Commissioner's general advice to civilians, including non-government civilians, people who are resident, that these are matters they should take into account.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord is trying to be very helpful about this. May I ask whether or not there is a contradiction? I think, as a result of what has appeared in the papers this morning, many people will feel there is a contradiction of advice between the High Commissioner and the military authorities, and there may be some confusion. Could he devise some way in which the parents of these children are told exactly what the situation is?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I am sorry to go on but I realise the House is concerned. I agree that in reading the Press reports there would appear to be a contradiction. The people who are taking these decisions are the parents out there. They are really in as good a position—indeed, in a far better position—to take advice and judge the risk. Certainly I take careful note of what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that some parents would be in a great difficulty about this matter? If they have no alternative home at this end, the children have no place to which they can be sent if they do not go out to join their parents in Aden. Will the Departments consider assisting parents in that particular difficulty, in fact for the children to be looked after during the period of the Easter holidays; and, if so, will they inform the Service families in Aden of the arrangements they propose to make?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, these, of course, are the real difficulties here. I certainly agree it is a matter which should be taken into account, and
26
I can assure the noble Lord that the Department will do their utmost to help.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact the policy we are pursuing is very similar to that which we pursued during the war, when we advised parents of evacuated children to keep them in the safe areas, but left it to the parents to decide what they should do under the special circumstances?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think there is indeed a definite parallel in what the noble Baroness has said. I do not doubt for one moment the Government's responsibilities in this matter. Of course, the parents are in a position to judge the risk themselves.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, following on what my noble friend Lord Henderson has said, can Her Majesty's Government assure us that the facilities for sending children home from Aden are in fact available?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, of course the whole problem of moving families is a very complex one. The Defence Department have full plans, according to the state of the risk as they see it, to speed up any evacuation that is necessary. I would therefore say that the answer to my noble friend's question is, Yes.

MALTA: AGREEMENT ON RUN-DOWN OF FORCES
3.46 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio in another place. It was as follows:
"We warmly welcome the statement issued by the Prime Minister of Malta yesterday evening.
"In this statement he said that, without withdrawing the objections that they have raised, the Malta Government have decided to let the revised British plan as a whole go forward.
"He further stated, to quote his own words that,
'in the light of these considerations, the administrative restrictions imposed on the British forces will be withdrawn at once, and the Bill to amend the Visiting Forces Act will not be proceeded with.'

27
"Dr. Borg Olivier also stated that if it becomes evident that the hopes of an adequate expansion of employment are not likely to be realised, the Malta Government must then feel free to ask the British Government to review the position.
"We are of course always in close touch with the Malta Government.
"During my talks with the Prime Minister of Malta we agreed, subject to mutual acceptance of the package deal as a whole, that a joint Mission should be appointed to report to both Governments on urgent steps to strengthen the industrial base in Malta and on measures for retraining and the creation of job opportunities. We also agreed to the appointment of a Joint Steering Committee to follow closely and report to both Governments on the progress achieved.
"We agreed that our two Governments would give serious consideration to the recommendations of both these bodies.
"I readily confirm that we would be ready to discuss such reports with the Government of Malta whenever it so wished.
"Like the Prime Minister of Malta, my right honourable friend and I are glad that the danger of a tragic breach between Britain and Malta has been averted. I am sure this whole House looks forward to the unbroken continuance of our longstanding and intimate relationship."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement. I am sure that noble Lords in this House will agree with me when I say that this House, no less than the other, will be very pleased indeed that there was no breach, and that our two countries will have renewed opportunity for working together in the future for our common good.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, certainly all of us who sit on this side of the House would join the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his last remarks, and we would all say at once how glad we are that the settlement has been reached, and that wiser counsels have prevailed. I am bound to say, because I have not had an opportunity of saying it before, that in my view this protracted dispute
28
was almost wholly unnecessary. The Government totally misjudged the Maltese reaction to Lord Beswick's proposals when he visited Malta, and even more did they misjudge the British reaction, which almost unanimously took the view that his proposals were mean and unfair. I very much hope that they have learnt their lesson. In the event the Government's last offer seems to me to be reasonably generous, and I am glad that Dr. Borg Olivier has been persuaded to accept it, and that we can resume our friendly relationship.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he was bound to say the words he used at the beginning of his remarks, and I suppose as Leader of the Opposition he was bound to score such points as he felt possible. For myself, I would say this. To call this a dispute is wrong. These were protracted negotiations, possibly, but the discussions that we have had, arduous and particularly protracted over the past fortnight, were part of a series of negotiations which started when I took the proposals to Malta in August.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to congratulate the Government on achieving a happy result to these negotiations. In my view, the settlement is a most generous one to Malta—very generous indeed, and far more generous possibly than has been offered to any former Dependency of the British Crown which has become independent. However that may be, we are all glad that this happy result has been achieved. There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord. I know that a joint Mission is to go out. May I ask him whether he will draw the attention of the Mission to the point that I have often put to him: that is to say, that the whole future economy of Malta depends on an adequate supply of water, and an adequate supply of water depends upon a successful desalination process being evolved in Malta in the near future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord for what he said at the beginning of his remarks. I am sure that the proposals which we have made are generous. Of course they have to be considered against the background of the relationship which we have

29
enjoyed over a period of 160 years with Malta. So far as the desalination possibilities are concerned, I can tell the noble Lord that over the past fortnight, when we had recesses from the protracted negotiations to which I have referred, this was a matter which I discussed with the Prime Minister of Malta, and I am sure that this will be one of the matters that the Mission, when it goes out to Malta, will have in mind.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, arising out of the supplementary question which I put to him last time this matter was raised, would the noble Lord say how much the projected savings will be reduced by this new agreement with Malta?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, over the period of five years, that is to say over the period of the run-down, the additional cost to this Government, by the reduction in the rate of run-down, will be of the order of £10 million. In addition to that, there are the improved payments, for those who are declared redundant, estimated to amount to another £900,000; and in the course of the discussions which we have had we have agreed to add approximately £3 million of undrawn balances to the amount which will be available to the Malta Government over the next seven years.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this means that in the total the cost of the settlement is going to be greater than the cost of maintaining the existing number of forces in Malta for the foreseeable future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to that is, No. I am sure that the noble Lord himself understands, as do the Malta Government and the Malta trade unions, that there must come a time when it will be quite impossible for this country to maintain armed forces in any part of the world, simply to give economic subsistence to the areas concerned.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, while sharing the gladness of everybody that the negotiations have not broken down, for the future, when a great many things are going to come into the melting pot, when we know that a great many troops must be brought home to this country, if it be to this country, from
30
different parts of the world, would it not be possible now to consider that that will be most costly, that there really is not the housing and accommodation for them, and that Malta affords an admirable place for holding troops as a temporary strategic reserve, with every facility of accommodation, of access and of approach, and that that might be an economic solution over the years? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say, now that we are on frank and decent terms again, that that is not excluded as a possibility which might be of great advantage both to this country and to Malta.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite understand the point which the noble Earl has put forward. This is, of course, a matter which was considered in some depth during the course of the last two weeks' discussions. There will now be a battalion kept in Malta up to 1972, and by that time I have no doubt that quite a number of things will have changed, and it may well be that new thinking will emerge.

SPORTING EVENTS (BETTING) BILL [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on his excellent maiden speech. I heard every word he said, which I think counts for a lot; and what he said he said well: there were no "ers", and he addressed every part of the House. He did not "windmill" with his hands; nor did he do what I do, clutch the front of the Bench so that Members do not know whether I am trying to make a speech or ride a bicycle. He spoke exceedingly well, and I hope that we shall hear him again. Congratulations!
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, on introducing this Bill, which I heartily support, because I strongly favour the view that all private ideas, whatever category they come under, should not be pirated. As a bit of an inventor myself, and for other reasons, I hold that view strongly. This goes on over the process of fighting

31
against piracy which I think was originated by Charles Dickens. In Charles Dickens' time his books were best-sellers in America, and he never received one cent for them to support his wife, his children or his girl friend. From that date we have been struggling, not only in the writings, which have got as far as victory with the libraries, but in the musical profession, and in all professions—and, of course, among inventors, too—to have some recognition of the ideas and organisations of private people, so that they cannot be pirated.
But I would say to the noble Lord (and as it comes from me, he need not take it too strongly) that I have had the honour of sitting as a Back Bencher on the Cross Benches for some time, and I have heard some quite brilliant speeches made in this House by some of the best brains in this country. Unfortunately, the general public are not Hansard-minded, or Hansard-conscious. I have noted these excellent speeches hitting these beautiful Victorian cartoons we have and bounding back against the Members' clothes and into the carpet, and no more has been heard of them. But, if by any chance, someone should say anything which can stir up the views of a minority movement, it is all over the place. We in this country have many minority movements, all of them dedicated and apt to pick up things in a long ear. And, of course, it makes us a great country if we have these things, because it makes a real democracy. But these people have a way of picking up anything quite quickly, even if it is a whisper, and it is all over the place.
To come back to this Bill, a great many laws have been passed (the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be able to tell us, off the cuff, just how many) about gambling. From the earliest times there has been a great war against the street bookmaker, carried on with a certain amount of savagery and heavy fines; and I think that the intention of all these laws, the background and the savagery against street bookmaker, is to show that bookmaking and gambling are an evil. I say, with all deference to the noble Lord, that people might think that the Bill he is introducing recognises what they con-
32
sider to be the evil practice of gambling as we might recognise the baker, the butcher and the lollypop-stick maker. It makes it into an ordinary business. People may take that view, but, on the other hand, they may not.
For my part I believe that gambling is inevitable. Gambling has always gone on for as long as we have been a country. In the old days Parliament used to cast lots on quite important questions, even as to whether or not they would go to war—and, after all, that is a far better system than a Division, and much quicker. Gambling has always been popular. The soldiers played knucklebones at the foot of the Cross. We are all gamblers. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, described me, I am a gambler. I am gambling now with a view to taking over a museum-piece railway. We work out the odds, and look in our private newspapers to see "the form" of every proposition we take on.
Everybody is a gambler. A clergyman is a gambler, though he might preach against betting in the street. One day he gets a chance of a better living, and he looks through his sermons, just as an ordinary punter looks through his tips and form books, and thinks, "This one will win" and preaches that sermon to the congregation. At the end he goes through all the things just as an ordinary gambler does. If he does not get the living, he says to himself, "I wish I had preached on sin. That would have 'got' them!" If he gets it, he is like every other gambler, he says, "Alone I did it. How clever I was, instead of preaching the old sermon about sin, to preach about the wages of gin or debt. It went over very well." Such a man is a gambler, as we all are. In fact, my Lords, life is a gamble. We gamble the whole way through life. We never give in. Even in old age we all gamble. We gamble with doctors hoping that they can keep us alive; we gamble with surgeons, hoping that they cut out the right bits. But there is one thing about gambling: whether we are bookmakers or punters, we all lose in the end. I would say that gambling is life, you cannot get away from it. What I am anxious to know for any future purposes of this Bill is whether a General Election is sporting or unsporting.
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I hope I may have the indulgence of your Lordships to intervene, although my name is not on the list of speakers. I promise to be brief. There are three points that arise from the Bill which have not so far been mentioned, but which I feel I should like to make to your Lordships. At the outset, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on his maiden speech, to which I listened with great interest and delight and much enjoyed.
The first Report of the Sports Council, published last November, shows how necessary it is to find increased finance for sport at a time when leisure is often talked about as a "problem"; and talked about as a problem because, among other things, there are insufficient sporting facilities. Like other speakers who have spoken on the noble Lord's Bill, I feel a strong sympathy with the main reason which lies behind its promotion, but I feel some reservations about whether the means the noble Lord is proposing will in fact have the desired effect, or may have side effects which could be harmful. In the first place, I doubt whether the Bill would be likely to raise money for events for which it is most needed. I should have thought that major professional boxing events would be likely to benefit much more than, for instance, amateur athletics. If dependence upon funds derived from betting increases, there may be a tendency to promote events in such a manner as to attract betting rather than the promotion of the sport, as it were, in its own right. That tendency could show itself by the promoters giving special prominence to personalities and the chance of individuals, rather than the appeal being made to the character of the event as such. It might be said that not much harm would be done, but I think that this could have, and would have, an influence, and not a particularly happy one, on the way in which sports—and I am thinking particularly of amateur sports—were promoted and came to be regarded.
The next point which occurred to me in considering Lord Blyton's Bill is that it looks as if it would open a fairly wide area of infringement which would be very difficult to stop. Some promoters would no doubt attempt on occasion to
34
prevent betting on a particular event in case heavy betting could influence one competitor to rig the result for financial gain. If a promoter were to take this line, betting might still go on but it could be done only under the counter, and would be an infringement of the law and so bring the law into disrepute. The object of the Bill is not to promote or extend betting as such, but I should have thought that the Bill, if passed, would incite sports promoters to encourage betting on the particular events they promote in order that they could get good fees for the sale of the betting rights. These are some of the reasons why I feel we ought to be cautious before we approve a Bill on the terms which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has given us.
I believe by far the strongest reason to be that which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in the effects that this would have in extending the kingdom, if you like, of the big battalions of the betting world. I do not want to go through the arguments of the debate on the Motion which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chester introduced in the House in May, but in summing up that debate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke of gambling as "a mounting social problem". I do not think any of your Lordships would challenge that description, or indeed the description of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, this afternoon, in describing it as "a national disease". If the effect of the Bill will be—although it is certainly not intended to be—to minister to the ills that gambling do, then I think it would be an inappropriate act for Her Majesty's Government to sponsor it, even if some sports would stand to gain thereby.
4.8 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is customary for noble Lords in this House to declare an interest, but I feel that perhaps this afternoon I should declare some qualification for speaking on this matter. Some of my colleagues on my own Front Bench asked me a little facetiously, "What do you know about betting?". The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has suggested that while I have charm perhaps I have not much knowledge, but I will tell him for his own interest that at one stage in my very

35
varied career I was actually employed by a commission agent. I learned such terms as "accumulator', "an up and a downer", how to calculate rapidly, how to watch "the tape", and how to watch out for the gentleman who might slip in a bet three minutes after the race had started. For the noble Lord's interest, I would say that I learned that there were very large sums of money which did not on the whole go into the pockets of the people who put the money there as punters. In other words, it taught me that gambling was not a very wise thing to undertake. So if, as the noble Lord envisages, we have a Minister to operate the Tote, perhaps the Prime Minister will consider me as eligible for that office.
Since animal descriptions seem to be fashionable, I hope that I shall be considered to be "a filly" rather than "an old nag". I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have said in this debate. In fact I might say that I listened with great delight, because I feel that we have had some fascinating speeches, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Strange, Lord Mancroft, and Lord Willis, as well as a delightful maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I feel he need not apologise for not having been with us, for if he is going to make such delightful speeches in future he will more than make good his absences in the past. He will be particularly popular, of course, if he is always so concise and so much to the point that we enjoy his interventions. I believe that there is an old phrase in the theatre, which he will know, that you always come off when the customers want more of you. I think he can definitely claim to have done that to-day. I am, of course, with him particularly in agreeing that your Lordships' House provides the greatest show on earth. I am always very sad when I hear people in the queue outside saying, "Oh, if we cannot get in the Commons we will go in the Lords". If only we could reverse the practice, I think it would be marvellous.
Having said that, I should like to express great admiration for the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. He did it so concisely and he spoke with great sincerity, as did other noble Lords who supported him. He was clearly guided by the best intentions, in
36
seeking to enable those who promote sport of one kind or another to have the opportunity to benefit financially from the operations of other parties who conduct betting in one of its many forms on the sporting events in question. If the problem were as simple as this one could sympathise with the aims of those who are sponsoring the Bill, but as several noble Lords have pointed out it is not so simple. The Bill is similar to other measures which have been introduced, or which have been sought to be introduced, in another place during the last two years or so. Her Majesty's Government have felt compelled to oppose these measures and I shall be asking your Lordships to-day not to give this Bill a Second Reading.
The fundamental objection to the Bill is that it would give to private bodies statutory and monopoly powers to demand, for their own purposes, from other citizens what would amount to a levy or tax. I think this was expressed better by the right reverend Prelate and, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. But this is a prerogative of Government, and Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to share that right with any body of citizens. This objection is even stronger in the present field, the field of betting, where the Exchequer itself looks for a substantial amount of revenue. It has been suggested that there is an analogy between what is proposed in the Bill and the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which gives certain monopoly powers to the Totalisator Board. I suggest that there is no true analogy here, if only for the fact that the profits of the Totalisator Board are channelled into the horserace betting levy, the distribution of which is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, a feature that is absent from this Bill.
Apart from this fundamental obstacle, Her Majesty's Government see other objections. The Bill provides no public control over the uses to which the proceeds received by the promoters of sporting events would be put; and this point has been amplified by several noble Lords. While the obstensible reason behind the Bill is the benefit which sport would receive, the Bill contains no provisions designed to secure this end, or any machinery to ensure such a result. The

37
promoter of a sporting event could differentiate between the terms he would charge to different operators, and could, indeed, exclude an operator from participation. There is no provision in the Bill to ensure that the public interest—that is, interests other than those of the promoters and of the betting concerns—would be safeguarded.
I hope that I have shown your Lordships, as have several noble Lords who have spoken against the Bill, that, however altruistic may be the motives of those who have brought it before your Lordships' House—and these none of us would doubt—it would be wrong to allow any invasion of the Government's prerogative of raising revenue from betting of any kind, and in regard to the uses to which it is put, and that, even if this position did not exist, the Bill is not well founded on other grounds. Before concluding, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has in his usual skilful way taken the opportunity to bring forward the points which he raised so ably in the previous debate, that Her Majesty's Government are, of course, having a very thorough-going look at the general question of the gaming laws.
I should also like to assure my noble friend Lord Blyton that the off-course tax is another point which is liable to be considered very carefully in the immediate future. I appreciate and sympathise with the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, about the development of sport. If I thought that the Welsh Rugby Union would benefit directly, perhaps I should not stand here and make this point. But for the reason which I have given, the fact that the safeguards are not there, I must ask your Lordships to decline to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, but I could not understand why he brought the Mafia into our debate, because the Mafia are not dealt with in the Bill. The Mafia and gaming clubs and bookmakers' protection are not matters for me to raise in this Bill. That is something entirely for the Home Office, and I fail to understand why it was brought in. Perhaps it was a red herring
38
to take people away from the embodiment of what I was after. I state, again, that my Bill is only to see that bookmakers contribute to sport.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on his maiden speech and I hope to hear him again. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He is the first Liberal I have heard for years argue for nationalisation.
LORD MANCROFT: What did the noble Lord call me?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, the whole of my life has been taken up with fighting the Liberals on the question of nationalisation. I want to nationalise all industry, if I can. But we have had some terrible opposition, and I think there will be big opposition on bookmaking. But I would support the noble Lord on the question of the nationalisation of bookmaking, if he will introduce a Bill. I do not feel that at this present time I should bring in a Bill to nationalise bookmaking, because there are other industries which we want to nationalise before we tackle that one. I understand that there is gambling on elections. Sometimes the bookmakers are right and sometimes they are wrong, but I cannot see how at an election you can make the country into a race track.
I am not here to stop gambling. But I think it has reached fantastic heights in this country, and it has raised some queer problems. My only desire is that there shall be fair play for those who organise events, and who see bookmakers making good profits from the events and contributing nothing to the sport which has created and promoted them. Therefore, I feel that this Bill is one which ought to be accepted—if not now, at some future date. Nevertheless, I recognise the argument of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench about the lack of public control, of provisions to ensure the use of the money for sport, and the question of public interest. But I think that this principle will have to be faced by the Government some day, even if bookmaking is nationalised, and there will come a day when all these sports must have their fair rake-off of the money now spent in gambling, which amounts to nearly £850 million a year. Since the feeling of the House is that it would like me to have another look at

39
the Bill, I shall most certainly do that, and I now beg to withdraw the Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE BILL
4.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 51:
Control of afforestation
51.—(1) Subject to this section, no person shall plant land in the area of a Rural Development Board with trees except under the authority of a licence granted to him by the Board.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply—

(a) to planting by the Forestry Commission,

(b) so long as the covenant, agreement or scheme in question continues in force, to land which is, on the establishment of a Rural Development Board, subject to a forestry dedication covenant or agreement as defined in the Forestry Act 1947, or the subject of an approved woodlands scheme made under the powers contained in the Forestry Act 1919.

(c) to land which is, or at some time in the period of ten years before the planting has been, woodland,

(d) to the planting of land of an area not exceeding ten acres, but not so as to permit more than ten acres of land in the ownership of any one person to be planted in any period of twelve months.

(4) The Board may in particular grant a licence subject to any condition—

(a) governing the kinds of trees planted, or

(b) where the licence authorises the planting of a short-term crop, requiring the use of the land for growing trees to be discontinued by the end of a specified period, and requiring before the end of that period the carrying out of such works for the clearing of the land as will make it suitable for agricultural purposes,

(c) limiting the period within which the planting authorised by the licence is to be carried out,

40

(d) requiring the planting to be carried out with such gaps as will prevent the planting from blocking access to some other land.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved in subsection (2)(c), to omit "in the period of ten years before the planting" and to insert instead "since 1st September 1939". The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt from planting licence old woodland which has not been planted since September 1, 1939—that is, at the beginning of the war. The Bill as it stands exempts anything which has been left ten years without being planted. My Amendment proposes to make it longer—back to September 1, 1939. The reason is that during the war a very great amount of land covered with trees, mature and immature, was, in order to meet our urgent needs, commandeered, and the trees compulsorily felled. In some cases where there were large areas of woods the wood cut was perhaps as much as it would take 20 years to plant if the wood and the forests had been run on lines of normal rotation.
When the war ended, it was for a very long time extremely difficult to get labour for replanting. If land is left too long without being replanted it becomes covered with shrub, which grows up and it becomes very much more expensive because the shrub has to be cleared. The weeding costs are then very high. As a result, some owners have not been able to replant as quickly as they would like to because of the increasing expense as time has gone on. I have no figures, of course, showing the amount, but there are still a good many pieces of ground, the trees on which were felled in the war, which have not yet been replanted, and I feel that they should not require a planting licence before being replanted. There may, of course, be cases where the land is owned by the same owner, who is intending ultimately to replant but has not been able to do it fast enough. Or there may be cases in which the owner, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, was not as keen as he should have been on replanting, and it may be that his successor is being pressed to do a little more quickly what ought to have been done before.
It is one of the duties of the Forestry Commission to try, through their private

41
woodlands officer or the Regional Boards, to persuade owners to do more planting; and sometimes, as we all know, it is very difficult. If a man's neighbour goes to see an owner and says, "Look here, this piece of land has not been planted since the war. Don't you think it time it was done?", the owner may say, "Well, I do not know. Uncle George never did it. Why should I?". His neighbour may perhaps say, "Well, you know, your old Uncle George was always an obstinate old cuss. If he had spent on replanting it half what he got for it in the war, it would have been a very good thing for you. Don't you feel you should do the same thing for your successors?".
Then the owner may reply—and a great many of them are naturally very reluctant to plant—"Uncle George's cash has gone in death duties on the estate. If I borrow money at the present rate of interest"—that is, 1 per cent. above bank rate in England or, in Scotland, where the banks are greedier, 2 per cent., making 8½ per cent.—"by the time the woods are ready, even for the first thinning, the accumulation at compound interest of my bank overdraft at this frightful Shylock rate will have bankrupted my estate; so I cannot do it". His friend may finally say, "Really, if you have any investment that you can manage to sell out, and if you can put the money into planting this ground, it will do your children and grandchildren far more good than if you keep the investment and try to hand the investment on to them", which is very often true.
It may be that the owner will at last be convinced, with some misgivings, that he should undertake the task of dealing with this land, the trees on which were felled in the war. Then he suddenly gets an intimation that he must apply for a licence from the Board, and that if he receives a licence the Board may make it subject to the condition that they decide what kind of trees he plants, and limiting the period within which the planting authorised by the licence is to be carried out. He may feel that this is just the last straw, and say, "I am not going to do the planting". The sad thing is that a great many people, including, perhaps, some members of the Board, may feel that he has taken the right
42
decision. They may say, "Look at this piece of ground now, with its magnificent golden bloom of gorse and wind blossom in spring, and all the elder shrubs which have grown up, including lovely clusters of elderberries. It is far nicer for the tourists to look at than a young wood of rather ugly spruce trees." What I am trying to point out is that the pressure is always against planting, and not in favour of it; so we must do everything we can to remove any disincentive of this kind to plant, and must encourage the reluctant—who are, I am afraid, in the majority—to do more if we want, as I know we do, to get more done.
Before I sit down, I should like to add that the noble Lord's acceptance of my Amendment last week, No. 46, exempting all dedicated land from the need to get a licence, has, I think, removed perhaps 95 per cent., or even more, of the strength of my feelings about the present Amendment. After all, you can say to the planter, quite reasonably: "if you will only dedicate or undertake a private woodlands scheme, then you will not have to go through all the vexatious trouble and submit the meddlesome interference of a licence from the Board". That is a very strong argument which the noble Lord has now enabled everybody to give, provided only that the modifications which he indicated might have to be made on Report are not of such a nature (I am sure they will not be) as to add anything to the trouble, inconvenience and delay of getting a dedication agreement signed. But, of course, there may still be cases of difficulty.
I do not think the acceptance of this Amendment could do any harm, and it might do some good, because there may be cases in which there is some good reason against dedication and in which this Amendment would therefore be operative. But in moving the Amendment I think it only fair to point out that the real weight of my case for this Amendment has been taken away by the noble Lord's acceptance of my earlier Amendment, last week. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 1, leave out from ("time") to ("has") in line 2 and insert ("since 1st September 1939")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
4.30 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, almost makes me wish that I had adhered to my first intention to indicate that I was favourable to his Amendment in principle but would ask him to withdraw it until the next stage, because I do not seem yet to have convinced him that the Government are quite enthusiastic about the acceptance of his Amendment. He knows that I personally am as much in favour of forestry as he is, and before we have finished these series of Amendments, I hope he will be persuaded that the Government generally are as favourable to forestry as I am personally. The object of the Amendments is not in any way to place obstacles in the way of forestry, but to make sure that the purpose for which these Boards are set up is fulfilled, that forestry will play its part in the proper development of areas, and that it will receive fair consideration. I indicated last week that I thought to some extent that in some parts this may mean that forestry will be looked on more favourably than in the past.
Having said that, I do not think that any suitable purpose will be served by accepting this Amendment. As the noble Earl said, if an owner decides to dedicate he has no problem. I readily accept that there may be cases when there are reasons why an owner does not wish to dedicate or to make a woodland scheme. But the noble Earl's Amendment is dictated by fears that the Board are going to make it their main object in life to require, as part of a licence, that owners should have to plant some sort of trees which will be wholly uneconomic. At one stage it was suggested that they might be asked to plant maple rather than larch. If the Board were sufficiently silly they might ask owners to plant bananas. But we know that that is not what is going to be done.
The question of giving the right to the Board to suggest particular planting is one which is decreed solely by amenities, and it is virtually certain that any specified planting, other than conifers, would relate to the visual aspect as seen from roads by tourists and so on in particular areas. To come back to the purpose of the Amendment, to exempt land which
44
has been planted at any time since September 1, 1939, is to go back well over a quarter of a century and, if we ignore the war-time years, it means to go back more than twenty years. if owners have not planted in that time (for whatever reasons may have seemed good to them or to their predecessors) I would suggest that there is no reason for continuing this in perpetuity. To put in a fixed date Of this kind at this stage is wrong, but it becomes more obviously wrong as the years go by. I would suggest that owners really have nothing to fear from the conditions which may be imposed by a Board granting a licence. After all, if they refuse to grant a licence or grant it subject to conditions, the Bill lays down that they should state their reasons. The matter can be appealed against in certain circumstances.
The Government have no ulterior motive in this matter. They are anxious to see forestry playing its proper part. but I must emphasise that, in the context of these Boards, the part which forestry (just as anything else in the area of a Board) would play is the proper part. I am certain that if, as I am asking, the noble Earl does not press his Amendment, he will have no cause to regret it in the future.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I am afraid that I did not fully understand the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in the last words that he addressed to the Committee. Can the noble Lord indicate whether he is going to look at this again before Report stage or not?
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry. I thought that I was making it clear that I saw no useful purpose in this Amendment being pressed at this stage or at another stage.
LORD INGLEWOOD: In that case, hope the noble Lord will bear with me because I think there is good reason to do so. What he was saying seems in no way to fit in with the words of the Bill. I am not for a moment supposing that there is any ulterior motive on the part of the Government or that the Government do not want forestry to play a full part. But if that is their simple wish and policy (with which we are in agreement) why on earth do they want to include all these meddlesome and detailed

45
conditions in this clause instead of treating it very broadly, as I think would he acceptable to us all? The year 1939 was really an important turning point in the history of forestry in this country because from that date much private woodland came virtually under State control and was in many cases felled. But for some reason or another—and there may be good reasons—some of those areas have not been replanted. I thought this a much better date than the ten years in the Bill.
My last point is that although my noble friend stated that in many cases the tiresomeness of this can be got round by dedication covenants, the noble Lord opposite must remember that before any one can enter into a dedication covenant he must be in a position to see far enough ahead to be able to shoulder the commitments that the covenant implies. There are many elderly people, people perhaps without heirs, who would not wish to enter into a commitment which continues for so long. They would like to see planted some area in the middle of the farm—not the sort of area they can easily part with by sale. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this again. There are good reasons why I think he should appreciate that his concession on dedication (for which I am as grateful as any one) does not in fact meet the full case, and why the date 1939 has very great merits.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I hope the noble Lord may be willing to have a look at this again before Report stage. I entirely accept what he says about his own desire and, I am sure, that of the Department which he represents to get more planting done more quickly. That is my object. I am not going to ask him for a promise to do anything because I am sure he will see whether anything can be done. Although I regret that he could not see his way to meet us directly on this Amendment, I do not intend to press it, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think Amendment No. 48 is consequential to the Amendment which the noble Lord has accepted.
LORD HUGHES: I thought that the acceptance of Amendment 46 clearly rendered No. 48 unnecessary.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps that is so. In that case I will not move it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE had given Notice of his intention to move in subsection (2)(d), to leave out "ten" and to insert "one hundred" [acres]. The noble Earl said: I put down this Amendment because on many agricultural units, in the kind of areas which these Boards will have to look after, 100 acres is a very small proportion of what ought to be planted. But I consider that areas of this size ought to be dedicated and, therefore, since dedicated ground has already been exempted, I do not propose to move it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I his Amendment is perfectly simple and easy to understand. The limit of exemption is for ten acres. It seems rather illogical that if one man owns, let us say, five agricultural units and wants to have a little planting scheme of ten acres on each of them, he should be forbidden to do so, because they are all owned by the same man. It seems to me more sensible that, if the owner of one agricultural unit is allowed to plant ten acres on it without a licence, the owner of, say, five adjoining agricultural units should be allowed to plant ten on each of them without a licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 5, leave out from ("in") to ("to") and insert ("any one agricultural unit").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: I do not find myself able to accept this Amendment, for purely technical reasons, but the noble Earl has tabled another Amendment, No. 51A, which accomplishes the same purpose in another form of wording. I should be happy to accept his second choice on this subject if he would care to withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for meeting us again on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move Amendment No. 51A.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 5, after ("person") insert ("or, where two or more agricultural units are in

47
the same ownership, more than ten acres in each unit").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (d):
"Provided that if any person so elects and gives notice to the Board accordingly, the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to that person and to land in his ownership as if for the words 'ten acres' and 'twelve months' respectively there were substituted the words 'one hundred acres' and 'ten years'."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is based on the economics of afforestation. Its purpose is to enable planting to be done more cheaply and conveniently. The effect of it would be that if a man wants to plant ten acres without a licence each year, say, for about ten years he may inform the Board that it is his intention to do so and that he prefers to spread the ten acres each year, totalling 100 acres, over, let us say, a ten-year period, not in exactly equal sections of ten acres each year but unevenly—perhaps 40 acres one year and then nothing for the next three years.
There are two reasons why that might be helpful. A man might be able to use his labour force more economically by getting one block of 40 acres established before he went on with the next section. Another reason might be that to plant a larger area of the same shape is much less expensive per acre than to plant a smaller area of the same proportion. It is, I think, not always understood that, the fencing costs, for example, do not increase in proportion to the area planted. An area of 10 acres if it is exactly square, is 220 yards each way. That means that the total perimeter of the square is 880 yards. If you multiply the area by four you make a square of 40 acres. The perimeter is 440 yards each way, a total of 1,760 yards, which is only twice 880, although the area is four times as much. Therefore, the fencing cost per acre is only half what it would be for a smaller area. That is the kind of consideration which might reasonably impel a forester not to plant one exactly equal area each year, but rather to plant a larger than average area one year and then concentrate on establishing and feeding up until he is ready for the next one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: I wish to support this Amendment. As it stands the clause would seem to be an encouragement towards uneconomic forestry, which is surely undesirable. I understand that it does not apply to dedicated or approved estates. I am all in favour of incentives, even negative incentives, towards dedication and approved schemes; but many owners do not like dedication schemes, for conscientious or similar reasons, and it seems undesirable that they should be forced into practising uneconomic forestry. An area of 10 acres a year is completely penny-packet forestry and it seems to me that this Amendment is based not only on economics but on simple mathematics and common sense.
As the clause stands, an owner can plant 10 acres every year for 10 years, and it is surely much more desirable that he should plant larger areas in individual years, with the total effect being exactly the same. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that there is no wish on the part of the Government to put private forestry at any disadvantage compared with the Forestry Commission. Of course the Commission would not consider planting an area of 10 acres, and would regard even 100 acres as hardly economic. I should have thought that the Amendment made very good sense and was one which it would be easy for the Government to accept.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should like to support my noble friend. Surely it must be wrong for the Government to encourage high-cost forestry even if the forestry is going to have a dual purpose, the production of timber and, as will be the case with many of these small woods, the provision of shelter for the adjoining agricultural land. At a time when the general trend is towards bigger units, and when there is, even in this Bill, a part authorising the expenditure of public money on encouraging small farmers to enlarge their farms, to put obstacles in the way of providing for sensible-sized planting areas on big hill farms would seem too stupid. Dedication is frequently quite inappropriate for these woods, which in many cases will be shelter belts on big hill farms.

49
I can see that the general idea of some control over planting is acceptable, but trying to make a limit of 10 acres in these circumstances seems to be totally unrealistic. I should like the noble Lord to consider what has been said by my noble friends to see whether at a later stage, if not to-day, we cannot get a figure in the Bill which we can all accept as fair. Frankly this figure of 10 acres looks to us not only unfair but just stupid.
LORD HUGHES: If the object of the Government in putting this restriction in the Bill were to prevent economic planting of areas I should be the first to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that it would be both stupid and unrealistic, but the Government are not saying that planting should be restricted to 10 acres. They are saying that planting without a licence should be limited to 10 acres within 12 months. There are two reasons for that. There will be quite a number of cases where a farmer wishes to plant as a windbreak a small area of land which may well be 10 acres or less. A Board need not be troubled with having to licence small areas of that kind. That is the first reason. Boards ought not to be cluttered up with applications relating to small areas which do not affect the policy in the slightest.
The second reason is, unless there is some limit to what may be done without a licence, decisions may well he taken which would be in complete conflict with a Board's duty to see that the land in its area is put to the best use, looked at from a co-ordinated point of view. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, postulated the case of an owner who might want to plant 100 acres. He might not wish to plant them all at once, but would be willing to plant, say, 40 acres; and, two or three years later, perhaps another 40 or 50 acres. If he had a limit of 100 acres without a licence over 10 years that would be exactly the same thing as planting 10 acres a year for 10 years. I must admit that his arithmetic is faultless, but that is not the point.
If an owner wishes to plant 100 acres, the planting will fall into two categories so far as the Boards are concerned. First, it can be desirable planting, in which case there will be no difficulty about granting a licence to enable the forester to plant 10, 40, 50, or all 100 acres, at one time whichever is most suitable to him. On
50
the other hand, it might be a planting which the Board did not wish to encourage, and we ought not to encourage the granting of a licence that would enable the owner, if he wished to be awkward, to frustrate the wishes of the Board by planting 10 acres at a time. I cannot believe that any reasonable person, who knows that a Board do not wish him to plant 100 acres, will go to the expense of frustrating the Board by doing it in penny numbers.
These Amendments have some validity if noble Lords are right in their fears that the Boards regard it as their primary objective to refuse a licence or to grant one only with such conditions as would make it an uneconomic proposition. The Government wish the Boards to operate on the basis that forestry planting should be done in the most economic circumstances practicable in the area. The Boards will not import into their licences conditions which cannot be defended. As we see later on in the Bill, if a Board import conditions they have to say why and the owner has recourse to the Minister. If I were to accept anything along the lines of this Amendment, it would only he an encouragement to the individual who wished to be awkward, and would be no help to the genuine forester who wished to plant in an economic way. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord surely knows that nobody wants to frustrate the Board. What we want to ensure is that the Board do not want to frustrate individuals. The noble Lord speaks of the forester, but much of this planting will not be done by professional foresters but by farmers. Surely he will agree with me that many farmers in Scotland, if they have to go to a Board and through a lot of paper work before they can get permission to plant even a small area of 10 acres, and then with conditions and restrictions for the future, will think that it would be much better not to bother with it at all.
LORD HUGHES: I am not worried about what foresters will do in Scotland, because neither at present nor in the foreseeable future are we going to have one of these Boards in Scotland. What I have been saying in relation to the Boards has been related to conditions South of the Border. We do not wish to frustrate

51
the forester, and if a Board give a licence with conditions which the forester regards as frustrating, the Board will have to justify them. On the other hand, if this is put into the Bill, the individual who wished to be awkward would not need to give any reasons for seeking to frustrate the wishes of the Board, and would be given permission to do something which is against the public interest without asking anybody's consent at all. I suggest that a reasonable planter has nothing to fear from the Boards if he intends to plant 100 acres of trees over a reasonable period of years. He will get his licence, probably without conditions, and almost certainly, if the application were made in Scotland. without any conditions at all. Even then, such conditions as are imported the Board must be able to defend against appeal.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I sympathise very much with my noble friends behind me who are English. because they have the menace of these Boards hanging over their heads. One of them said the other day, "What has Scotland done to deserve this great favour of not having any Boards?". It makes us who are Scotsmen feel compunction that if we do not press this we are letting the English down, because we are not in any danger ourselves.
I think that the noble Lord is anxious for us to appreciate that the Boards are not being set up for the purpose of the frustration of forestry. Of course they are not. What I want the Government to appreciate is that, although I am glad to say there are some landowners who are keen on forestry and press on with schemes against all sorts of obstacles, there are many who are unconvinced, doubtful or full of misgivings about the real advantages from either the private or the public point of view. They are supported by large sections of public opinion, and the fact of having to get a licence and being subject to these restrictions, even if the Boards have the intention to promote and help forestry, will in itself be a handicap and deterrent. I find it difficult to imagine any case in which the powers which are being given to the Board to control private forestry could ever do any good, and I can think of many cases where it could do harm.
52
If my noble friends behind will not think I am failing to support them, my reason for not wishing to press this Amendment is that I think that most serious planting of over 10 acres ought to be dedicated. So far as my experience goes, the Forestry Commission will now accept even small lots of two or three acres for dedication, which at one time they would not do. But now they have modified the maximum size for which they will accept dedication. Therefore one can always say to a man who does not want to bother with applying for a licence, "If you want to plant more than ten acres. then dedicate.- It might even be a kind of negative inducement to dedication, which is usually of advantage to the owner, even if he does not think it. But it seems rather a roundabout way of persuading people to dedicate. If my noble friends behind me will give me leave, I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved in subsection (3) to leave out all words after "direct" and to insert:
"( ) (a) The Board shall exercise their powers under this section as a means of meeting the problems and needs described in section 44 of this Act in relation to their area and in accordance with such exercise may, on any application for a licence under this section refuse it or grant it either with or without conditions.
(b) In any case in which the Board refuse an application for a licence or grant it subject to conditions they shall pay to the person making the application compensation equal to the loss shown by the applicant to have been incurred by him in consequence of such refusal or the additional expenditure incurred by him in complying with such conditions, as the case may be:
Provided that any claim for compensation under this subsection shall be made to the Board within three years of the date of the refusal of the application or of the grant of the application subject to conditions, as the case may be.
(c) Any question arising between the Board and any person as to the amount of compensation payable under this subsection shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal."
The noble Earl said: This, again, is a case of two Amendment, Nos. 53 and 54, which are really alternatives to each other, and I think your Lordships will probably agree to discuss them together, particularly since I think the moving of one (I am not sure about this) would probably block the other. The first

53
Amendment, No. 53, provides that if the Board refuse an application they shall pay to the person making the application compensation equal to the loss which he incurs as a result of the conditions of the licence. Amendment No. 54 provides that the Board shall not make any conditions which would have the effect of causing him financial loss.
I think the difference between the two Amendments is that No. 53 would unquestionably be outside the terms of the House of Commons Financial Resolution: but whether that would apply to No. 54, I am not sure. However, I am putting forward these Amendments not in any polemical way. I want to try to persuade the Government what is good for the country and what is good for forestry. I think if they were to reflect upon this subject, and to decide that it was just and fair that compensation should be paid for the financial loss, they could probably introduce an amended Resolution in another place. If they did not come to this decision, the effect of your Lordships carrying this Amendment would not be that another place would discuss it, because, if it were rejected on grounds of privilege, it would, I believe, have to be done without debate. However, that may not apply to the second Amendment, No. 54.
I hope the Government will agree that it is both an injustice and a deterrent to forestry that conditions may be imposed with regard to planting which will inflict loss upon the planter. And, at least, as the second Amendment, No. 54, suggests, if the loss would not have been greater
"than would have been the case if the original application accorded with the rules of sound woodland management as recognised in dedicated or approved woodland schemes",
again, there would be a satisfactory criterion in the public interest, by providing that the Board shall not act to this extent against the public interest by imposing on a planter uneconomic planting which brings in a smaller return to the nation as well as to the individual. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 23, leave out from ("direct") to end of line 27 and insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. I would
54
say that one or other of these Amendments is really essential in the Bill; not necessarily in this wording, because the wording is difficult to draft, but at least there should be acceptance of the thinking behind it. If I may express a personal preference, I should feel that the thinking behind Amendment No. 54 is to be preferred to No. 53, not least because it is simpler. Since things in this clause are so complicated already, any way whereby we can make them simpler deserves some support.
The noble Lord opposite, throughout these debates, has been playing down the comprehensive nature of these conditions which the Boards are going to be empowered to impose on planting, and playing up the sweet reasonableness of the Boards. He will agree with me, I am sure, when I say that there is nothing comparable in the normal powers of the Forestry Commission over private planting, outside the areas of Rural Development Boards, with the powers which the Government are taking under this Bill; and, furthermore, that by no stretch of the imagination can these Boards be described as a forestry authority, and forestry on them is never likely to have more than a small minority voice.
On Lord Hughes's left sits the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who I believe had great responsibility in the countryside of Germany at the end of the war. Germany is a country where forestry is far advanced; forestry has close relations with agriculture, and is understood throughout all the rural organisation. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is absolutely shuddering at the thought of these conditions. He would have shuddered if any British Government had suggested that anything of this sort should be imposed on the Germans immediately after the war. Yet here we have his colleague in the Government suggesting that they should be imposed—may we all know the joke noble Lords are sharing?
LORD HUGHES: I did not know the noble Lord was joking. I thought he was being serious.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Perhaps I had better go over it again, in case the noble Lord did not hear.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry if I have missed the joke. As the noble Lord had referred to my noble friend Lord Walston's experience in Germany, it seemed to me that I should listen to him with one ear and find out if my noble friend's experience was relevant so that I could use it when I reply. If, however, the noble Lord does not wish me to do so, I will desist.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I should very much like the noble Lord to do so, because the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in Germany was extensive, and I gather that he was responsible for forestry and agriculture. It seems to me rather hard that these powers over us should be taken now by the British Government when it never entered the head of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that they should be imposed on the Germans immediately after the war.
The conditions are really so comprehensive that I think we should consider them, and I think the noble Lord ought to tell us a little more of how he sees the whole thing working out. He says that nothing unreasonable will happen. But why is it necessary for the Board to have powers governing the kinds of trees to be planted? I do not think the Board are taking power to say what kind of sheep you should have on the hills, which seems to be comparable. Since forestry is a risky enterprise, and since the economic risks of forestry must be borne by the individual, in his own judgment, all these detailed conditions seem to me to be utterly impracticable and most unreasonable. I therefore hope that something on the lines of Amendment No. 54 may find its way into the Bill, because, if it does, I am sure it will make the working of this whole clause, if it must remain in the Bill, much easier.
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: I, too, wish to support my noble friend and to express a preference for Amendment No. 54 as against No. 53, mainly on the ground of simplicity. I think these Amendments are based on fairness to forestry. One of the main aims of Part III of the Bill is the integration of agriculture and forestry in hills and uplands. This is an admirable aim, and few, if any, would disagree with it. The White Paper which preceded the Bill, Development of Agriculture, lays stress on
56
"the need for integrating over a reasonably wide area the use of land for agriculture and forestry in the hills so that they are complementary and not antagonistic to each other."
To this end, the Rural Development Boards are given powers of control over both in the public interest. I fully accept the need for this, but I think it is essential to be fair, and to be seen to be fair, to all the interests involved. Here, I think one must recognise that the hill and upland areas are those which offer most scope, if not the only scope, for an expansion of forestry; and, also, they are those in which forestry has particular significance in providing rural employment and some degree of prosperity. In fact, in this Bill, as it stands, the treatment is far from fair. Agriculture gets any number of quids for quo; forestry gets nothing in return for the controls and restrictions imposed on it.
There are many ways in which forestry could have been helped in the Bill, such as the inclusion in the grants of capital expenditure on roads and bridges, or mechanical equipment, in place of the investment allowances, which are now lost to it, or, as comes later, an amendment of assistance to co-operatives. In this clause even compensation for damage to forestry interests by decisions of the Board is not mentioned. If an owner is obliged to practise uneconomic forestry by reason of a decision of the Board it is only common justice that he should be compensated for this. Forestry is a marginally profitable business under ideal conditions, and foresters should not be obliged to operate at a loss.
This Amendment, No. 54, could be improved somewhat if at the end of the first line, the words "nor the conditions are expected" were deleted and the words "can be shown" were substituted. I think that would make it rather more definite in its application.
5.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for dealing with Amendments 53 and 54 together because, as the Chairman has indicated, if 53 were carried 54 could not be called, so that 54 is an alternative proposal to 53. I do not know how another place would look at Amendment No. 54. It is quite definite, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, indicated, that No. 53 would require another Financial Resolution in another place and it might therefore be

57
rejected on grounds of privilege without any discussion whatsoever. It may be that the second Amendment is in the same category, although I am rather inclined to the view that it is not.
However, the reasons why I am inviting your Lordships not to accept either Amendment are the same in each case. I will deal first with Amendment No. 53. In accepting the condition that there should be compensation we should be accepting a principle which has not hitherto been accepted by Parliament, and I think the best parallel is what is done under the planning Acts. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I do not think his comparison between sheep and trees is a valid one, authough it is an interesting variation—
LORD INGLEWOOD: Why not? It seems particularly valid.
LORD HUGHES: I do not propose to sit down immediately at this point, so the reason may emerge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, proposed it the other way round when the Government were giving grants for fixed equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is suggesting that the treatment accorded to sheep is a suitable precedent for doing the same thing to trees. I would suggest that it is more reasonable to compare it with the planning procedure. Normally, with one or two exceptions—say a short-term crop—the planting of trees is for a fairly long-term period, and therefore it is much more comparable with the putting up of buildings, for which the obtaining of planning permission arises.
I would remind the Committee that under the planning legislation of 1948, apart from development claims which were registered in 1948, compensation is not payable. It is not payable where a person has been refused permission to carry out the most profitable form of development with a piece of land. It is true that if permission is refused to develop land which has no other beneficial use the planning authority can be required to buy the land, but this Bill exempts from the licensing procedure land which has no other beneficial use. Thus in those cases where a planting proposal is rejected an alternative form of development is available to the land-
58
owner. I suggest to your Lordships that the question of compensation does not arise here, and therefore I am obliged to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, not to press his Amendment.
May I now turn to his Amendment No. 54, which seeks to ensure that a Board do not refuse a licence or attach conditions to a licence where the refusal or the attachment of conditions could be expected to involve the applicant in financial loss or in greater financial expenditure than would be the case if the original application accorded with the rules of sound woodland management as recognised in dedicated or in approved woodland schemes. My objection to this Amendment is that it would prevent a Board from refusing a licence, or from attaching conditions to it, if the results postulated were likely to arise. It is likely that in a Board's area forestry will almost certainly be a major rural land use. Boards have been given powers over afforestation in their areas so that planting will not be at variance with their general development programme. Conditions may be attached to a planting licence, and subsection (4) gives examples of these conditions. These include, for instance, that land planted with a short-term crop is cleared ready for agricultural use by a specified time; that amenity interests can be considered; that planting is carried out within a stated period, and that new plantings do not block access to other land.
We are charging these Boards with the duty of watching over all the needs of the planting area, and applications for planting licences must be considered within the context of their general development programme. If, however, a planting proposal would be in conflict with their programme, the Board must be free to refuse a licence or to issue a licence with conditions. If we accepted Amendment No. 54 this could frustrate the Board's duty to think of other users of the hills and to include the development of agriculture and complementary uses of the land.
At first stating, the Amendments appear, on the one hand, to be fair to the forester and, on the other, innocuous so far as the development of the Board's area is concerned. I cannot accept that either is the case, and I must state quite specifically that it is the firm view of the Government that to accept even the

59
second, regarded by noble Lords opposite as the lesser, in effect, of the Amendments, would be to cut completely across the powers of the Board. I regret that, for these reasons, the Government are not in a position to accept either of these Amendments.
5.18 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I just put a further point to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, before we leave this Amendment? I noticed that he used the argument which was used with approval by Government speakers in another place: that a refusal by the Rural Development Board would be analogous to a planning refusal, for which, of course, there is no compensation. But I wonder whether this really is a good comparison? I gave some thought to it when I was studying the procedures in another place, and it seemed to me that it is not.
A planning application concerns the development of land either by building on it or, possibly, by mineral working, and of course these involve a change of use on a dramatic scale. A change of use is the very basis of a planning application, and where a refusal is made it is a refusal of action to which the applicant has not had a right, certainly not for the last half-century, whereas in this case the landowner has had a right to farm his land and plant his land in any way he wished, except in war time, when there were special emergency regulations. He has had this right from time immemorial; it attaches to the ownership of the property itself. It seems to me that there is no similarity in principle between the refusal of a Rural Development Board to plant and a planning authority's refusal to develop; they really are quite different.
I would ask the noble Lord to look at this again because it amounts to a direct deprivation of a certain right that the property owner has had up till now. I entirely accept the noble Lord's argument that if Parliament is to set up Rural Development Boards they must have power to do the things that Parliament wants them to do, and they must not be frustrated by individual property owners who do not wish, for one reason or another, to co-operate. That is fair enough, and I would support it. But if the Boards wish to require the property
60
owner not to plant or to plant something special which he feels is not worth while to do or wishes to do otherwise, it seems to me that the Board are taking away from him part of his rights up to date, and compensation is really no more than justice.
I ask the noble Lord to look at this in terms of the comparable position of the farmer who might be asked to farm his land in this way or that, grow this crop or that, have grassland or grow roots—they are not very likely to grow corn in these areas. Nevertheless, when noble Lords compare the position of the farmer who is left completely free to farm his land how he likes, it is clear that the landowner who wishes to plant trees is being put at a singular disadvantage. I do not think this is fair. It is not the kind of fairness to which British farmers are accustomed. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this again. It is absolutely right that the noble Lord should say that Rural Development Boards should have the powers, but it is not fair to take away rights and give no compensation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies, may I ask whether I heard him correctly when he said that there was never any compensation paid for refusal of planning permission? I will not go into the merits or otherwise of the analogy, but he is quite wrong. If he looks at Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, he will see that where the local planning authority wishes to prevent someone doing the things set out in that Schedule—in other words, refuse planning permission to do those things—they can do so only on payment of compensation. One might think that some of these things were certinly interfering if a local planning authority sought to prevent them. The same criticism might be made about some decisions which might be raised under this Amendment, in which case perhaps the analogy is more the other way round.
LORD HUGHES: I do not claim to be an expert in planning laws. All I can rest on is the brief with which I have been provided.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is inaccurate.
LORD HUGHES: It may be, but it says here quite specifically that if a permission is refused to develop land which has no other beneficial use, it is true that the planning authority could be required to buy that land.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is perfectly right. But the brief leaves out Schedule 3, which is what I was talking about.
5.25 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: We might come back to that point at the next stage. At the present moment, in my state of comparative ignorance of Schedule 3, I would not necessarily back my advisers against the noble Viscount. He may well be wrong, but he may equally be right.
I should like to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and this is where I rely not on knowledge of the law but on common sense, with which I came equipped. I think he helped rather than hindered me when he suggested that it was unfair to deprive the landowner without compensating him for deprivation of his right to plant trees, which he has always had. After all, the planning legislation did exactly the same thing. There was a time when a landowner could put up any kind of building he wanted where he wanted, without regard to the public interest, having regard only to the fact that he had always had the right to do so. Parliament decided that this was a right which landowners should not be allowed to continue to exercise, and they imposed restrictions. Subject to the correctness or otherwise of what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said, they agreed to do so, with or without the right to compensation, except in particular circumstances.
In this case the Government are saying that the planting of trees is much more comparable to the sort of things which require planning consent than ordinary agricultural considerations. After all, trees are not a crop which can be changed from one year to another over a period of years if the public interest requires it. From what happens in Price Reviews from year to year we know how the Government can influence agricultural development along the lines they wish by giving incentives or putting disincentives in the way of one form of agriculture
62
or another. But once a man has planted an area with trees, the Government cannot say the next year, "It is not in the public interest that you should have trees; will you clear the crop and put in something else".
This is one of the reasons why these Boards are being set up, to consider the long term interests of an area. In many cases it will be obvious that the long term interests will require forestry to be permitted and encouraged, and where that is the case a licence will be given. But if it is obviously in the long term interest of the area, or the immediate interests of the area, that forestry should not be allowed, Parliament is perfectly within its rights, and acting perfectly in accordance with parallels set in these other directions, in saying that the general interest requires the taking away from the individual of a right he may have had from time immemorial. What may have been perfectly proper in the 15th, 16th, 18th or 19th centuries has in many cases no validity in the 20th century. This is what the Government are suggesting in this case. In permitting the Boards to act in the public interest in this direction Parliament will not be doing anything which is radically different from what has been done in the past. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that the parallel with the planning Acts is in fact merely extending into the long term field of forestry the principle which has been accepted over many years in planning affairs.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not want to spend any more time in comparisons between forestry and town planning. It seems to me that perhaps the most essential difference is that before the war some owners used to obtain large sums of money by selling building land in undesirable places, such as ribbon development, whereas with forestry what we are asking landowners to do is to deprive themselves of large sums of money in the uncertain hope that their grandchildren may benefit, which is really a different matter. I am afraid that putting powers in the hands of these Boards can do nothing to improve afforestation and may do much to restrict and retard it.
I do not wish to persecute the noble Lord on this matter, and it might be better if we thought about it and returned to it again on Report. It might

63
perhaps be more useful, and less controversial to insert some phrases, having due regard to economic considerations, in an earlier clause which deals with matters other than economic. In the meantime, I should like the Government to consider this point very seriously, because it is one to which we attach great importance. In the meanwhile, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Earl said: We now come to the subsection dealing with all the powers of the Boards, but we have already discussed these powers so frequently that I do not think it is necessary to go over all the arguments again. I would suggest that we discuss all the Amendments on this clause together. The only other one besides those in my name is, I think, a purely drafting one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
My feeling about this clause is unchanged. I cannot see that it is likely to be used to the benefit of tourism, or to the benefit of any other interest, whereas it may be used to the detriment of forestry, due to the fact that the Boards, which have to control a very large area, and will consist of not less than 6 and not more than 12 persons, are not often likely to contain a majority who will fully understand the business of forestry. To be quite honest, I think that forestry could get on far better if we left things as they are under the Highlands and Islands Development Board, in which the judge of whether land should be planted or not may be either the private owner, or the Forestry Commission, or both.
I think it is particularly ridiculous that the Board should have powers to dictate what kind of trees are planted, even if the Board should happen to contain one or two people who know more about forestry than the owner does—which I think is rather unlikely. I think it is a totally unjustifiable power to put in. The argument that it might be used in order to compel people to plant trees which in future generations would attract tourists, is a very far-fetched one indeed. The noble Lord is no doubt aware that
64
I should have pressed this Amendment and the previous Amendments very strongly indeed if he had not been good enough to accept the exemption for dedicated land, which is a way out. I still do not see that it does any particular good to leave this clause as it is. I beg to move Amendment No. 55, which I understand will not block anything else at the moment.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee has stated, Amendments 55, 57, 58 and 59 are all on similar lines. They are successively to leave out the particular conditions which Boards might attach to a licence. I had not intended to say what I am going to say, but in view of the way in which the noble Earl has moved this Amendment, I think it is perhaps the simplest way of putting the Government's objection. If we were to accede to what the noble Earl requests, it would not help private foresters in the slightest. These are particular conditions which may be imposed, and it is helpful to foresters to see in the Bill the sort of thing which the Board may do. If the Government were to accept all of these Amendments, it would not in any way prevent the Board from imposing any one of these conditions in granting a licence, for the simple reason that we must give the Board the power to grant licences, and in giving them power to grant licences we must give them power to impose conditions. If they could grant only unconditional licences, that would be exactly the same thing as allowing people to proceed without a licence.
In subsection (3) it is laid down that the Board may refuse or grant a licence either with or without conditions. If we were to delete subsection (4) in its entirety, and take out paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), it would not in any way prevent the Board from imposing in a licence a condition that a fringe of trees fronting a road should be of hardwood. It would not prevent a Board from authorising a short-term crop. It would not prevent the Board from putting into the licence a condition that the planting would have to be carried out within a certain time. It would not prevent the Board from saying that it should be carried out with

65
such gaps. It is, therefore, I suggest, helpful that there is being placed in the Bill an indication of the sort of conditions which a Board might impose. I have so often in your Lordships' House heard noble Lords opposite asking for just this sort of thing to be done. The specific should be put in. I find myself in the surprising position of defending the specific, when more frequently the argument from the Government is that it is unnecessary to specify because the general power is there.
I am quite willing to look at the desirability of taking out these conditions if, on reflection, noble Lords think that it will help their case in the slightest. But I wish to be quite honest, and I would point out to your Lordships that it will not in any way prevent these conditions from being imposed in a licence because of the general authority to impose conditions, which is given in subsection (3), and which must inevitably be in a Bill once it is accepted that a Board must be in a position to issue a licence. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances that we are intending to set up these Boards in the best interests of the area; that we regard forestry as the natural use of the land in the area, and that where a natural use of the land is a particular subject, the Board will encourage it to be done in the best interests of the area.
One of the conditions which the Board must take into account is that it will be done economically. It will not be their objective to say: "Yes, we will encourage forestry. Yes, we will allow you to plant trees in this area", and then go on to impose such conditions that the owner will never undertake planting. They would be frustrating their own objectives if they did such a thing. Therefore, for all of these reasons, I do not consider that the noble Lord will be doing private forestry any disservice if he decides not to press any of these four Amendments.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is evident from what the noble Lord has said—and I am inclined to agree with him—that the only real way to achieve what I want would be to take away from the Boards altogether the power to license planting. It would be an enormous improvement, and would bring England up to the level of Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: With respect to the noble Earl, he could not possibly set up Boards and deprive them of the power to do anything. He would have to carry the thing to its logical conclusion, and say that there are not going to be any Boards.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Boards have other functions besides not licensing forestry. It is only their powers with regard to licensing of planting which seem to me likely to do harm and which I am trying to restrict. The noble Lord has agreed to remove those powers in regard to dedicated land, which is what is most necessary in the public interest. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment and I shall not move the other three.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely drafting. One "or" too many has crept into the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 30, leave out ("or").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable a Board to attach a condition to a planting licence to ensure that neither the planting nor any fencing erected in connection with it shall prevent access to other land. This is the fulfilment of an undertaking which was given in another place to look at this clause. It was pointed out there that it is usually fencing which prevents access to other land rather than the way in which the planting is done. The effect of this Amendment is to ensure that where fencing is carried out in connection with planting, neither the planting nor the fencing shall prevent access to other land, for instance, by providing for gates in the fencing and a way through the plantation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 39, leave out from ("planting") to end of line 41 and insert ("and any fencing in connection therewith, to be carried out in such a way that access to other land will not be blocked").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 61 seeks to achieve the same purpose as

67
Amendment No. 62 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the Government prefer this one. Your Lordships may recollect that when Amendment No. 44 was discussed last week we spoke to the principle of this Amendment. Amendment No. 44 arose in consequence of Amendment No. 61, which is this Amendment. The noble Earl indicated at that time that he was happy with the Amendment, the purpose of which, broadly speaking, is allow a licence to be transferred to a new owner. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 42, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 44 and insert ("name the person to whom it is granted, and shall authorise planting by that person only unless it is endorsed by the Board in favour of another; and—

(a) the Board shall not endorse a licence in favour of any person except with the consent in writing of the person for the time being entitled to its benefit,

(b) subject to the foregoing paragraph, it shall be the duty of the Board to endorse a licence on the application in writing of a person owning for the time being the same estate or interest in the land to which the licence relates as that owned by the grantee of the licence at the time when it was granted or (by virtue of subsection (12) below) is deemed to have been granted,

(c) subject to that paragraph, in any other case the Board may grant or refuse an application for endorsement as they think fit.")—(Lord Hughes.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is the third time that the noble Lord has been good enough to meet me by accepting, in substance, the Amendment I have put down, and I am grateful to him for his attitude in this matter. I am glad to agree to the longer Amendment which he has moved, and therefore I shall not move the following Amendment on the Order Paper, that having the same purpose.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment would reduce from two months to one month the period in which the Board is allowed to give notice to other people having an interest in the estate. It seems to me desirable that this should be done as promptly as possible, and I thought that I would at least give the noble Lord and the Government an opportunity of
68
explaining why it should be so long as two months. I hope that the noble Lord will make clear that that is the maximum period, and I hope he will also make it clear that it is not likely to be usual. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 45, leave out ("two") and insert ("one").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: The arguments in relation to this Amendment are the same as those which I put forward on Amendment No. 41, where the noble Earl similarly suggested that the period should be reduced from two months to one month. I then stated that the two months period would be a maximum period, that we had to put in a period of this kind to cover the complex sort of case which might arise from time to time, but that the normal case would be dealt with in less than this period. So far as the normal case is concerned, the period which the noble Earl suggests, of one month, is probably much more likely, but it would be unwise to assume that every case is going to be straightforward, only to find that rushed and ill-considered decisions have to be arrived at because we had put into the Bill an unnecessarily short period.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, which I am glad to have on the Record. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved in subsection (6), to leave out "five" [years] and insert "ten". The noble Earl said: This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 67. I do not know why the period of five years has been put in. It seems to me that there might be many reasons why it would be desirable, or even necessary, for a longer period to be allowed before the planting is carried out. One of the obvious ones, of which we are all conscious at the moment, is the credit squeeze and the bank rate in Scotland, which was 9 per cent. and which, I am sorry to say, is still to-day 8½ per cent., because it goes 2 per cent. above the English bank rate. This is an almost impossible, prohibitive condition for anybody who is trying to plant on credit, not having the actual cash to do it. I think that a little longer than five years

69
should be allowed. Here again, as the noble Lord said in another context just now, I think the normal period certainly should not be more than five years, but in certain circumstances, such as a credit squeeze, it might be necessary to allow longer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 7 leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: Having a part interest in an overdraft in Scotland, I wish that the noble Earl would not find it necessary so frequently to remind me of the difficulties which apparently I share with him. It hurts me to have this repeated reference to the high rate of interest. However, so far as this Amendment is concerned, while a higher rate of interest and the credit squeeze might well alter the period during which planting might take place and might change the landowner's ideas in the matter—he might well be obliged to spread it over a longer period than he originally contemplated—I would not think that this would present any problem at all. It seemed to the Government that it was reasonable that some limit should be placed on a planting licence in the ordinary way. Once you decide on a period it is obviously capable of being attacked as being too short a period or too long a period.
What I am obliged to point out is that this is a normal period which would be put in a licence in the ordinary way. In one case I think that the noble Earl seemed to indicate that it would be perfectly reasonable. People would normally be applying for a licence to plant when their plans are pretty well worked out. They are not asking for a licence in the expectation that they are going to begin three or four years hence; they are asking for a licence in the expectation that they will be going to commence fairly soon. I accept that these plans could be frustrated through conditions which they do not foresee—for instance, a plan undertaken last March might have been completely altered by the events of last July. So I accept that point as quite valid. But I would wish to go on to point out that, if a landowner is applying for a licence and he has any reason to believe that the period during which he would be expecting to plant would be over a period of five years, there is
70
nothing at all to prevent him from asking for a longer period than five years to be specified in his licence. There is nothing at all in the provisions in this clause to prevent the Board from giving a longer period.
This is a matter which was discussed at some length in another place, and it was decided that in these circumstances five years was reasonable. I am quite certain that I will not be doing the landowner an injustice or placing any difficulties in the way of a Board when I say that this is merely a convenient figure which can be inserted in the Bill and it places no obstacle in the way of a board in suitable cases in granting a licence for another period altogether. Each application could in that respect be considered on its merits. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think I have read the discussion in another place on this particular point, but I am glad to hear what the noble Lord has said because, of course, in some cases you might want a very much longer period than five years. If you were undertaking a big scheme involving, say, 50 acres a year covering 1,000 acres, you would want 20 years in which to carry it out. You have to make your plans for planting often fully five years before you actually plant in the way of making arrangements for the hill farming lease to be modified, or in some cases terminated; there is part of the sheep stock to be disposed of and there is the question of getting the nursery ready, and it may take five years before the seeds you put in your nursery are ready to plant. I gather from what the noble Lord has said—I hope I am right—that there would be nothing whatever to prevent a licence being given covering a period of more than 10 years, even 20 years, if there were circumstances of that kind. Is that right?
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earl mentioned that there might be circumstances where a period of 20 years for a licence to run would be desired in respect of a large area of planting. I accept that that is quite a possibility. If the Amendment were inserted substituting "ten" for "five" that particular owner would be in no better position. I think that the noble Earl's point will have been met in that

71
there is written into the Record a clear undertaking that the five years is merely a normal figure which is to be put in and that the Board are perfectly free to incorporate into a licence such longer period—ten, twenty years or whatever may be valid—which seems to them proper. It would be equally proper for a landowner in making his application to suggest the period of years for which his licence should be valid.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am glad to have that assurance, which I entirely accept. Of course, it was not uppermost in my mind because the large long-term scheme would quite certainly be dedicated, so as to be exempt from the licence. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (8), to leave out "two hundred" and insert "fifty" [pounds]. The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment relating to fines to which I refer with some little feeling, because, as I told the noble Lord on Second Reading, some years ago I took action which if it had been taken under this Bill would have rendered me liable for this fine of £200. We all recognise that if there is to be a law there must be some sanction of some kind. All I say is that it seems to me that £200 is a very heavy amount to fine somebody for doing good. I maintain that anybody who plants is doing good. I know, of course, that the noble Lord will say that if a person plants contrary to the decision of the Board he is doing harm, but I still feel that he is probably doing what is best in the national interest and that the Board are probably wrong, as they were in my case—but that was a long time ago.
I consider that £200 is a savage penalty. After all, what has a man to gain by planting if he does not think he is doing good? He is not going to get anything from it himself. He will lose a lot of money for the rest of his life, although his descendants may possibly benefit. It would be a good thing if these maximum penalties could be reduced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 31, leave out ("two hundred") and insert ("fifty").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: I do not agree that the sum referred to by Amendment No. 65, and if I might say so the daily figure to which Amendment No. 66 relates, are necessarily excessive. After all, these are maximum penalties, and recently in legislation we have been concerned to bring up to date permitted maximum penalties in fines which with the passage of time have become completely out of date. We must in the first instance give the court adequate powers. There may be some cases where the court might feel that a fine of £200, even for a first offence, is not enough. There would be other cases where the court would not consider it necessary to impose the maximum penalty. I am aware of the fact that there is a later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, on the subject of penalties, where for giving false information he seeks to do it the other way round, for he wishes to increase the penalties from £100 to £300.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Would the noble Lord accept my Amendment if I support the other one?
LORD HUGHES: No. What I am willing to do is this. I am afraid I am not completely free from the feeling that there is some inconsistency between the two lots of penalties. In this case we have gone up in comparison with other legislation, and in the other case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is directing attention, we have come down from the penalty which is imposed in the other legislation. I suggest that if the noble Earl will withdraw this Amendment, I should like to look at the particular figures again and come back to the matter at the next stage. I am not prepared to die in the last ditch for £200 as against £100. I may be influenced by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and come back with the suggestion that in this case also the figure should be £300.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: All I am suggesting is that the existence of this fine, to which I cannot imagine anybody rendering himself liable, may be a deterrent to planting. It will do no good to forestry, and it may do harm. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: This Amendment is necessary to delete the references to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in so far as they relate to the Board's powers in respect of the control of afforestation in England. These powers will now rest with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, and with that Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly, in Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 42, leave out from ("to") to end of line 46 and insert ("Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly").—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 51, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD INGLEWOOD: As a critic of this clause throughout, it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the Amendments which have been accepted by the noble Lord opposite. I hope he does not think that they make a bad clause into a good one; they do not. All they do is to make a bad clause rather less bad. I would say again that throughout these debates I have heard no good reason why, under this Bill, forestry in the areas under discussion, areas where planting on a smaller and on a larger scale ought to be encouraged, is to be made subject to conditions far more detailed and far more strict than is the case in other parts of the country, where, in fact, its sponsoring body is at least a national forestry authority, with which those concerned with forestry have good relations and for whom they have the greatest respect.
The same thing cannot be said about Rural Development Boards. Among many people in the countryside there is a feeling that the powers which noble Lords opposite are taking, and the special conditions they are imposing, may one day be extended to other areas, because all the arguments which they have used this afternoon could apply equally well to other areas where forestry might not be expected to develop on the same scale. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, appreciates this.
I was not here last week for the earlier stage of these debates, because I was in a country on the other side of the Iron
74
Curtain taking part in certain agricultural discussions. If you substitute the expression "co-operative ventures" for "private ventures", which we have been talking about here to-day, the arguments which the noble Lord has been using are exactly the same as the arguments which I heard the bureaucracy over there using time and time again; always with the same encouraging tone of voice and smile, saying that it was for the good of the public and that the public authorities must not be frustrated, et cetera. It all had a most ominous ring. I look forward to the time, which I hope will not be too far distant, when we shall have different Ministers on the Benches opposite introducing an amending Bill which will put some sense into this whole business.
LORD HUGHES: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that the Amendments do not make a bad clause into a good one. I am in complete agreement with him on that point. But what I suggest we have done is to make a good clause into a better one. In relation to what he has said about being behind the Iron Curtain, I hope that in your Lordships' House we will never be placed in the position where we will be deprived of the use of any particular form of language, because people on the other side of the Iron Curtain can use the same sort of language suitably translated for their own purposes. I do not have the slightest doubt that there will be many times when other noble Lords who venture on the other side of the Iron Curtain will find being said there the sort of expression which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would find it suitable to use in your Lordships' House.
What is important is not the language which is used by an individual or a Minister, but what is intended to lie behind it. I am quite certain that, anxious as the noble Lord is to see a change of Government, he is not suggesting that there is any real similarity between the Government of the country which he favoured with his presence, and the Government which he is favouring with his presence to-day. The noble Lord has left me in no doubt that he does not like this clause, as he has left me in no doubt that he does not like this Government. It is my wish that he will have to put up with both for a very long time.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Whether we are making a bad clause a little less bad, or a good clause a little better, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the very large and valuable concessions which he has made in accepting three of my Amendments, one of which is a really key Amendment and which has altered very much my mitigated opposition to the rest of the clause.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Directions to Boards by appropriate Minister]:
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: This Amendment is similar to the last one, No. 68, and is necessary to delete references to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, in so far as they relate to the powers of giving directions to Boards in England. These powers will now rest with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, and with that Minister acting jointly with the Secretary of State for Wales in Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 41, leave out from ("to") to end of line 44 and insert ("Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly").—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
6.6 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, after Clause 53, to insert the following new clause:
Conditions for exercise of functions of Rural Development Board
". In formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions, a Rural Development Board and the appropriate Minister shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the flora, fauna, physiological features, buildings, antiquities and natural beauty of the countryside."
The noble Lord said: I move this proposed new clause with a certain hopefulness that it may be accepted by the Government. It has come to be regarded as something like common form in a number of Bills which have given to statutory and other authorities powers to acquire and to develop and to carry out works in rural districts. In amenity circles it has come to be known as the "Hurcomb clause". It was originally
76
introduced into the Electricity Act 1957, where it appears as Section 37. After wards, it was adopted as Section 3 in the Opencast Coal Act 1958. It appears as Section 43 in the Pipe-lines Act 1962, and also as Section 101 in the Water Resources Act 1963.
The purpose of the clause must surely be agreeable to the present Government. They have recently issued a White Paper dealing with recreation and leisure in the countryside, in which they indicate that they are anxious that everything that can be done shall be done to preserve the amenities of the countryside for the benefit of holidaymakers and other people. They have also indicated that they are going to change the name of the National Parks Commission to the Countryside Commission. I have specially in mind the National Parks when moving this clause, but it is of course of wider scope and will apply everywhere.
It may be argued by the Government that the matter is already adequately covered by Clause 44 of the Bill. But we who are concerned with amenities view the Rural Development Boards with some slight suspicion, because they are being set up for the purpose, mainly, of improving, increasing and developing agriculture and forestry. I am a farmer myself, and therefore I am entirely in favour of that; but I am also very much interested in the preservation of amenities, especially in those parts of the country which are not really suitable for agriculture. Normally, it is the wildest and most barren parts of the country which are the most beautiful and most suitable for leisure and recreation. But if I have read Clause 44 aright, there is no obligation upon the Rural Development Boards to take into account the importance of the preservation of the charm and beauty of rural areas of that kind.
Perhaps I might mention one case in point where amenity considerations are directly opposed by agricultural development. It is where the Ministry of Agriculture, in places like Exmoor, are giving grants to encourage the enclosure of moorland and its improvement as arable land. That, in our view, is very destructive of the charm, the loneliness and the beauty of places of that kind. This new clause does not impose a complete bar upon the extension of agriculture and forestry, but it calls upon the Rural Development

77
Boards to take these matters into account. In view of the fact that this has become almost common form in Bills of this kind, I hope that the Government will be willing to accept the insertion of this new clause into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 53, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD HURCOMB: I should like very strongly to support this new clause, which was originally accepted by the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, not only with acquiescence but with approbation, and which, as has been said, has been inserted into many other Bills. I hope that it will not be argued that Clause 44 already covers the ground. The wording of Clause 44 is somewhat curious. It says that account is to be taken or regard is to be had for
"the need for preserving and taking full advantage of the amenities and scenery in those areas"
where development is undertaken. That language is appropriate enough if one is thinking in terms of landscape architecture; and the great exponents of that architecture, like Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton, whose efforts adorn the seats of many Members of this House, naturally took advantage of the scenery. But when one thinks of the phrase "taking advantage of" in relation to the fauna and flora, it is a very different story. I think that if the noble Lord in charge of the. Bill were to look up his dictionaries, he would find that the lexicographers say that the phrase "take advantage of" is generally used in a bad sense, and the last thing we want to do is to see someone taking advantage of the fauna and flora by clearing them all out. Clause 44 also talks about historic and scientific features, and I do not myself quite see what is meant by the word "scientific" in that connection.
I therefore hope that no objection will be raised on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to incorporating what has now become the standard clause, though on looking at the Amendment it seems to me that "physiological" ought to read "physiographical". I am speaking from memory here, but I do not see any great meaning to "physiological" in this connection. As I say, Clause 44, though useful and apt in regard to the actual
78
moulding of the landscape, is not quite suitable in relation to the fauna and flora or the physiography of the countryside. The clause which is now being proposed follows many recent precedents, and it is completely in line with the general policy of the Government in relation to the countryside. On all those grounds, I hope that it will be adopted. If it needs any modification in wording in relation to Clause 44, which is already in the Bill, then perhaps that could be agreed and considered in detail at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think it needs any further speech in support of this clause to induce the Committee to accept it, but I think it is right that it should be known that we on this side, equally with noble Lords opposite and on the Cross-Benches, support this clause. I should have thought that it was completely unobjectionable, even if one were not enthusiastic about it, because it does not ask that these questions should dominate or determine the decision of the Rural Development Board. It merely asks that they should take these questions into account; and "taking into account" merely means weighing up the questions that they have before them, and as set out in the Amendment, and deciding how much weight should be given to them. I hope that a great deal of weight will be given to them, but they are really only a pointer to a Rural Development Board that, in giving consideration to any proposals, and in making their decisions, they should consider the matters set out in the new clause. I therefore hope that no objection will be taken to this new clause, and that it will be readily accepted.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to add a brief word of support to the cogent case which has been made out by my noble friend Lord Molson and by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I rather suspect that noble Lords opposite intend that Clause 44 should cover this, but Lord Hurcomb has very adroitly picked a hole in it by referring to the normal meaning of the words "take advantage of", which clearly imply exploiting in a bad sense. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right in saying that this new clause is unobjectionable in every way; and it certainly makes quite plain what

79
I am sure all noble Lords wish to see done by Rural Development Boards. I therefore hope that the Government will be good enough to accept this Amendment now, if possible; but, if they do not, I hope they will consider, before the next stage, how they wish to handle it, with a view to putting something in this sense in the Bill at the next stage.
LORD WALSTON: May I clear up the small point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made about "physiological" or "physiographical"? It is perfectly true that in the Third Marshalled List of Amendment it is shown as "physiological", but I believe (although I have not got it with me) that in the original List it was shown correctly as "physiographical". On behalf of whoever it is who is responsible for the actual typography here, I apologise; and I can assure noble Lords that "physiographical" is the word on which I think all of us are speaking.
I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that the purpose of his Amendment is entirely agreeable. There is no quarrel about that whatsoever. The only question, in fact, is whether it is necessary; because, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, I do not think there is any justification for putting in an already somewhat lengthy Bill a further clause, or even a paragraph or a subsection, which is unnecessary. In my view, the correct method of presenting a Bill before your Lordships is in such a way that it will fulfil its purpose with the least amount of verbiage. My own contention is that, as this Bill is drafted at the present time, it amply covers these points, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said—and I speak with great deference in view of his great knowledge and experience on these matters. I can certainly make it abundantly clear to him, if that is needed, that when this Bill speaks of "taking advantage of" it is in no sense in a derogatory manner but in the literal, and I would suggest correct, sense that the greatest advantage to the community is obtained by all these natural resources whatever they may be.
Clause 44 has been quoted in part. Perhaps I may read certain parts of it again to support my contention that it fulfils all the desires of the noble Lord,
80
Lord Molson, and his friends. Clause 44(2) says:
"Those special problems and needs"—
those which the Rural Development Boards are to take into account—
"include the special difficulties in the formation of commercial units of agricultural land";
in other words, the agricultural aspects of the area. They also include:
"the need for an overall programme for guidance in making decisions as to the use of land in such areas for agriculture and forestry",
and so on. They also include:
"the need for improved public services",
and they further include:
"the need for preserving and taking full advantage of the amenities and scenery in those areas".
That in itself I should have thought would be sufficient.
LORD MOLSON: May I interrupt? The noble Lord said in his quotation:
"taking full advantage of the amenities and scenery in those areas",
but he stopped at that point. The wording goes on,
"in the course of their development for those purposes".
Those purposes, I think, are agriculture and forestry. In cases where there is a conflict between amenity interests and agricultural and forestry interests there is no instruction to the Board to take account of amenity interests.
LORD WALSTON: I must confess to the noble Lord that that is my understanding of this. It would not be my desire that it should be interpreted in another way. I should like time to consider that somewhat further; but I would go on to point out that in subsection (3) of Clause 44 (as it were, to give special importance to the amenity aspect of this) the amenities are singled out in a way in which agriculture, public services and other things are not singled out. They are underlined to the extent of saying that the amenities
"shall include"—
it does not rule out others—
"any feature of scientific or historic interest in those areas"
I feel myself that that includes all those matters that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has raised.
6.24 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: May I ask what the noble Lord really means by "scientific" in this connection? In the past it has been considered that the various factors should be spelled out as in the standard clause, which makes it clear that they include flora, fauna and physiographical interests—a point which arose, for example, very controversially at Dungeness. All these things were to be taken into account and the Minister and the authorities who had to consider these matters were told clearly what were covered. I submit, with deference, that an ill-defined word like "scientific" will mean nothing to one of these Rural Development Boards. If the noble Lord would be good enough to consider that carefully and ask his advisers why they have departed from the standard clause and would discuss it further with us on Report stage, then I hope we shall be able to convince him that the standard clause is the one to adopt in this connection. "Historic" and "scientific" are very vague words and I would, again with great deference, suggest that the fuller wording is much to be preferred.
LORD WALSTON: I personally have a preference for the vaguer words in this because it seems to me that they are more all-embracing. Once you start defining such matters as flora and fauna, physiographical features, buildings and antiquities and natural beauty, it implies that something left out has been specifially left out. If you use simply the word "scientific" then ordinary people know what is meant by that. It is always possible that new disciplines can arise under the general heading of science. For instance, "physiographical" is a relatively new word. I see that the noble Lord is not agreeing with me. I would not like to say when "physiographical" first came into use, but I imagine it would be much later than "flora" and "fauna".
If this clause had been drafted at some time in the last century when "flora" and "fauna" were accepted words and "physiographical" was not a word in common use, that word might have been left out and physiographical features thus excluded. I do not want to labour this point, because I am certain that all of us on all sides agree with the objectives of this Amendment. I will gladly con-
82
sider this matter further and can assure all noble Lords that at the Report stage, if it is clear that this point has not been adequately covered in the Bill as drafted, some further Amendment will be proposed to meet these points.
LORD BALERNO: May I say a word in favour of "physiographical". It is a fairly respectable word. It has been used for practically the whole of this century, if not the last century. It is a delightfully vague term in this particular connection. It is not precise and I should have thought it would commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in that respect.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do, may I just make this suggestion?—that it is advantageous to have this particular provision in one separate clause rather than as a subsection of some other clause which deals with a variety of things. When the noble Lord considers this I should hope that he will agree that this provision, which is already in other Acts, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, told us, should be dealt with separately even if it is amended in some way.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for both his interventions. I think there is no possible argument against what he has just said. Where you have a certain kind of matter dealt with and where it has been dealt with in four important Statutes in a clause that has become common form, it is advantageous to use the same form again and set it out as an individual clause. Naturally I entirely accept the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking to look at this matter again. Perhaps he would consult me about it before the Report stage. I will gladly withdraw my Amendment in consideration of the undertaking he has given. I should like also to express my gratitude to him for what he said about the original form of the Amendment and how it came to be altered in the Marshalled List. I had thought for a time that I had been guilty of a clerical malapropism.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 54 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 57:
The Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
57.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Council").
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of DUNDEE The Earl of DUNDEE moved, in subsection (1), after "Agricultural" to insert, "Forestry". The noble Earl said: We now come to Part IV which I think one of the best Parts of a Bill which in general we heartily support. I have always thought it a pity, indeed I feel it to be a blemish in the Bill, that Part IV should apply only to agriculture and horticulture, and that forestry is not included in the scope of the councils and co-operative schemes provided for in this Part of the Bill. I think that all the nine Amendments in my name could be discussed together; that is, this Amendment, the remaining Amendments to this clause, and Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 80 to Clause 60. That would be all the remaining Amendments in my name except the last one.
I would ask the Government to look again at this matter carefully before the Report stage to see whether it is possible to bring in forestry. The point of agricultural co-operative schemes is to encourage small farmers, small owners and crofters to come together to improve their property and enable their way of life to be carried on by co-operation, since it is quite impossible in present economic conditions to carry it on without co-operation—and we are not in this country always very good about co-operation. We welcome this Part of the Bill because it helps small farmers to do that. There are, I think, a good many small farming communities, particularly crofting communities, whose survival might depend not so much on co-operative schemes for agriculture as on co-operative forestry schemes. There are parts of this country where farming on a small scale will be unable to continue unless there is some substantial kind of subsidiary employment brought into the district. If it be not possible or convenient to bring in industrial employment to a sufficient extent to keep the small farmers going, forestry is often the only answer.
I have no direct experience of crofting communities in Scotland because I have no crofting tenants, but I am told that when a forestry scheme is proposed in the Scottish Highlands the younger and progressive crofters are often apt to be in favour of it, but that opposition is more apt to come from the older crofters; and the scheme is held up because usually you have to have unanimous or near unanimous agreement. One can well understand that people who are getting near to the end of their lives will not benefit as much from co-operative planting schemes as will the younger people as they grow up. But might it not make all the difference between agreement and failure to get agreement for a co-operative forestry scheme in that sort of area if the advantages of Part IV of this Bill were available?
In the words of the Explanatory Memorandum, Clause 60 enables Ministers to pay grants for
"organising, promoting, encouraging, developing or co-ordinating co-operation in agriculture or horticulture. Grants may be paid on proposals submitted to and recommended by the Council and approved by Ministers, being proposals so submitted within ten years of the coming into force of the clause."
I think it regrettable (although I am sure it is not the case so far as the noble Lord is concerned) that the impression should be given that forestry is regarded as a secondary, inferior kind of occupation, and that it should not be brought into this Part of the Bill. I would ask the Government to consider this again, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 7, after ("Agriculture") insert ("Forestry").—(The Earl of Dundee).
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: Spokesmen on private forestry in your Lordships' House have generally been drawn from among the owners of the rather larger woodland estates, which may give the impression that in private forestry such estates are in the majority. In fact that is far from the case. There is a predominence of smaller owners, just as there is among the occupiers and owners of agricultural land. In this Bill there are incentives for the amalgamation into economic units of the smaller units of agriculture. No such incentives are provided for forestry; nor I think, is

85
there a potentiality for that sort of thing. Yet small units in forestry are possibly even less economic than those in agriculture.
There are a good many reasons for this, but one, particularly, is that wood-land produce goes largely to either monopoly or near-monopoly buyers—for example, the National Coal Board, British Rail, the General Post Office and so on. State forests can deal with these buyers on an equal footing, but so far as the private side is concerned it is only by joining forces in some way—in cooperative societies for example—that the small owner has any chance to sell his produce economically. By joining a cooperative he can also obtain not only skilled management for his woodlands but also essential advice and help in marketing his produce.
The co-operative societies need considerable capital to start, and they are expensive to run. The need for help for agricultural societies is recognised in this Bill, but the need for forestry cooperatives is at least equally urgent. The Forestry Commission used to give grants for their formation and also grants towards running expenses. These ceased when the woodland owners' organisations were set up, following the recommendations in the Watson Report. Several societies have recently been forced to close down for lack of finance, and others are in danger of having to do the same thing. There is an urgent need for help, and I find it very difficult to see why there should be this differentiation between agriculture and forestry. I had hoped that any extension of the cooperative principle would be very acceptable to noble Lords opposite.
6.38 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Bradford, have spoken in favour of extending the cooperative principle from agriculture and horticulture to forestry, and I agree with them about the desirability of having cooperation in that field. The only reason why the Government do not have a provision of this kind in the Bill at the present time is that this is an Agriculture Bill. Forestry comes into it in the previous Part, because the Rural Development Boards have powers over their areas, including forestry. But there is a secondary and much more important
86
reason why we do not include forestry in these co-operative principles. It is that the powers already in the Forestry Acts provide for financial assistance to forestry, including forestry co-operatives. We feel that the question of the extent to which these powers should be used is a matter which must be considered as a forestry issue and not as a side issue of agriculture, and that it is not appropriate for consideration under an Agriculture Bill.
It is true that the Forestry Commission have no specific powers for giving financial aid to forestry—which is rather interesting, because earlier I was arguing, as I admitted quite frankly, against the general Government line that we rely on general powers rather than specific powers. In view of what I have said to the noble Earl, I am glad that I put it in that way. Though the Forestry Commission have no specific power to do this, this does not prevent them from being able to do it. Their general powers enable them to assist the planting and management of woodlands, and this power could be exercised to support forestry co-operatives by way of grants, loans or guarantees against loss. The relevant provisions are in the Forestry Act 1919, Section 3(1)(3)(e) and (3)(f).
In view of what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said more than once, that he regrets the extent to which forestry has suffered from the lack of enthusiasm on the part of successive Governments, it is interesting to know that one of the times when the Government were enthusiastic about forestry was immediately after the First World War. The present Government believe that the powers given in the 1919 Act are adequate to meet this situation. There have been some activities of a co-operative nature under these powers, though perhaps not so much as noble Lords would like. The Scottish Woodlands Owners' Association and the Timber Growers' Association were set up in 1958 with the aid of grants from the Forestry Commission, and part of the responsibilities which these two organisations assumed was for supporting forestry co-operatives. The Government are convinced that aid to forestry co-operatives can best be given under the Forestry Acts rather than as a side issue under the Agriculture Acts.
The noble Earl's Amendments might well serve a useful purpose in reminding

87
those interested in forestry co-operatives that these powers are in existence. I hope that the noble Earl will accept the Government's view. It may be that the inclusion of these powers in this Bill will have less than a satisfactory effect. Sometimes when people have a choice of action under two provisions, they finish up by doing nothing under either. I hope that the noble Earl will allow the Committee to make rapid progress by withdrawing these nine Amendments in one go.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord ended by saying that it would be a disadvantage generally to deal with something under two Acts, and that we are considering an Agriculture Bill. But we have spent one-third of the Committee stage dealing with forestry, and it is rather difficult to say that it is so minor an issue in this Bill that it can be brushed aside by saying that the Forestry Act 1919, which most of us who have been closely connected with forestry for a long time know already, contains the necessary powers. That Act gave the Forestry Commission wide powers to deal with the production and marketing of timber. In point of fact, those powers have not worked out so satisfactorily as the noble Lord asked us to believe.
The great effort of the Forestry Commission in its early days was to encourage planting—first and foremost, its own. It must be borne in mind that any increase in the support of the private side of the industry, which still represents a half—even more—of the industry, must be subtracted from the funds available for the Commission. That has always been a most unsatisfactory factor in working out ventures under Section 3 of the 1919 Act. Further, many of us, in our time in Parliament, have tried to get agriculture and forestry treated as equal partners in the countryside. I am sorry to say that this Bill again makes the division wider.
I should have thought there was a great deal to be said for including the word "Forestry" here and for bringing under the Central Council for Co-operation many of the co-operative schemes we have in mind. Many of us consider that this is a much better way of doing it than doing it under the 1919 Act, which has not proved as satisfactory as no
88
doubt its authors thought. It would also be a great saving, because much of the work of the co-operative councils for agriculture and horticulture has a forestry application; and surely we ought not to overlook that. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to look at this matter again.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Could the noble Lord specifically say whether the powers he referred to in the Forestry Act are as extensive as the powers under Clause 60 of this Bill? And can he assure us that if advantage was taken of those powers, the grants payable to cooperative schemes would not be deducted by the Treasury from some other grant to forestry?
LORD HUGHES: I must say frankly that I envy the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the facility he has of hearing only the things he wants to hear and even of hearing things that have not been said. I did not say that the Bill had nothing to do with forestry. I said that it was an Agriculture Bill and forestry had arisen in the previous clause because the Rural Development Boards would have to exercise their powers in relation to forestry as well as to other uses of land. The fact that we have been spending a considerable time this afternoon in discussing forestry still leaves forestry a relatively small part of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has asked if the powers under the 1919 Act would enable grants to be given as under Clause 60. I think that I cannot do better than repeat what I said. These are general powers, which can be used to assist the planting and management of woodland, including the supporting of forestry co-operatives by way of grants, loans or guarantees. The advice which I have been given is not that the Commission can give grants up to a certain amount, loans at a particular rate or guarantees to a certain amount. I assume—and I will check this before the next stage—that the generality of this reference is exactly as it is intended. I think that we should do better to rely on how the Forestry Commission will use these powers. Since this Bill was introduced, there have been a number of suggestions made to the Minister of Agriculture by private forestry interests in relation to the Bill and in relation to forestry

89
generally. These are being studied, and it may be that further representations may be made.
So, on this matter of co-operation, I can give the undertaking that forestry Ministers are very willing to look at it in the widest possible terms, although noble Lords will not expect me to anticipate the conclusions at which they may arrive. I do not think I should have been encouraged to draw your Lordships' attention to the wide powers which exist under the 1919 Act if it were not that the Government intended that noble Lords should know that the powers they are seeking to import into this Bill substantially exist in the general form in the 1919 Act.
If they have not been used during the years perhaps to the extent that some noble Lords opposite would like, I do not think it can be taken as a criticism of the powers which exist, but rather as a criticism of the attitude which Governments have adopted from time to time in the past in relation to forestry. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has pointed out more than once in debates on forestry in your Lordships' House, this support has fluctuated: at times Governments have been keen on forestry, and have been helpful, but at other times they have not been so enthusiastic. They did not withdraw the powers; they just did not use them. But the fact remains that they are still there, and can be used, and if noble Lords with forestry interests wish to make representations for the use of these powers in the co-operative field, I can assure the Committee that forestry Ministers will be very willing to look at such representations and give them serious consideration. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 71.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Grants for purposes connected with co-operative activities]:
LORD WALSTON: This is purely a drafting Amendment, which is designed to rectify the unintentional omission of
90
a standard provision relating to schemes of grants, which already appears in Clauses 26, 30 and 40 of the Bill. As amended, the clause would permit authority to be given for work to be started, without prejudicing subsequent payment of grant, on proposals that had been submitted to the Central Council but had not yet received their recommendation or approval by Ministers. This sort of arrangement is provided for in many grant schemes to avoid unnecessary delays in allowing work to start on proposals. The issue of an authority to start work does not, of course, commit Ministers to pay grant if the proposals are not subsequently recommended and approved. I feel sure the Committee will agree with me that this is a worthwhile Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 15, at end insert ("which recommendation and approval may be given before or, in such classes of cases as the Minister may direct, after the carrying out of the proposals").—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: This is a useful, practical Amendment, which all experience has shown to be necessary, and I am happy to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [False statements to obtain grants]:
6.56 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved, in subsection (1)(i), to leave out "one" and insert "three" [hundred pounds]. The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to refer first of all to the suggested similarity between this Amendment and the one moved by my noble friend Lord Dundee. In point of fact, there is a substantial difference. Amendment No. 65, moved by my noble friend Lord Dundee, referred to cases where there was a contravention of the Rural Development Board's instructions, or as it says:
"failure to get a licence from the Rural Development Board."
I protested at an earlier stage in the Bill about the lack of information being given of the existence of a Rural Development Board. As a contravention in the earlier case might be due to lack of knowledge of

91
the existence of a Board, or of the necessity to obtain a licence for forestry, it is quite different from the purpose of Amendment No. 65, where the contravention, or the fault, is that of a farmer who knows of the existence of the regulation, because he is applying, and must therefore know all about it. So there is every reason why the fine should be lighter in the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Dundee, and why it should be more severe in the case which I now put forward. But the main purpose of my Amendment is to draw attention to the importance of speedy action in dealing with applications for grants under this Bill.
This clause deals with a farmer who makes statements known to be false, or recklessly makes false statements, in order to obtain a grant. On summary conviction, he is liable to a fine not exceeding £100, or imprisonment for not more than three months. I am emphasising the careless nature, not the wilful nature. The farmer who wilfully makes a mistake can be caught up on indictment, and there is no limit to the fine that he may suffer. I am considering the case of the farmer who makes a careless statement; perhaps he is hasty in putting in his application, and that is carelessness. I submit that a maximum fine of £100 is not much of a deterrent to a farmer who is somewhat careless by nature, and who would know that for his first conviction it would be most unlikely that the whole £100 fine would be imposed. If a high proportion of farmers are careless, then those responsible for administering the scheme will have to spend far more time checking the statements of the farmers, and arguing with them. If the immediate penalties for a false statement are stepped up sharply, far fewer careless farmers will put forward applications. They will take good care that their applications are exact before they submit them.
In the past, many applications have been promptly dealt with. One would like to pay tribute to the work of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was in charge, for the great promptitude and courtesy with which, by and large, these applications have been dealt; and I understand that the same holds good at the Ministry in the adjacent Kingdom.
92
But there are cases where, for one reason or another, undue delay has occurred, particularly in looking into the bona fides of a farmer and having discussion with him, especially when it comes to calculating such things as acreages.
I submit that the farmer will have to wait a long time before he can get his application through under this Bill, and before he can even decide to go ahead with an improvement. He has to get expert advice; he has to weigh up the pros and cons; he has to count the cost, and he has to have an interview with his bank manager to ascertain whether his overdraft can be enlarged. Therefore, by the time he gets his application in the months are slipping by, and it is important that the application should be examined and that the work should be started as soon as possible. The need for speed in the administration of these schemes has been fully recognisd by the Government. At the Committee stage in another place the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary, talking of the new incentives in the Bill, said that the aim was to provide incentives which were more selective, more certain, and more speedily paid; and on the Third Reading the Minister is reported as having said that the Government had decided to replace investment allowances by cash grants, which would be more selective, more speedy and more certain.
The purpose of this Amendment is to assist the Government in ensuring speed in dealing with applications by honest and careful farmers, and to make certain that the small proportion of malefactors among them do not "get away with it", for if they do it may mean that the honest farmers will get a smaller slice of the cake in future. That is why I suggest that the maximum fine should be raised from £100 to £300. If this Amendment is adopted it will give the farmer a positive incentive to exercise care in making an application for a grant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 17, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(Lord Balerno.)
LORD WALSTON: I am glad that in spite of the awkwardness of the fact that your Lordships' Committee are sitting on a Monday the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has been able to attend and give us, as always, the benefit of his great

93
experience. I am also rather glad that, as I gather from the newspapers, the Price Review has now been completed, otherwise perhaps his remarks might have had some effect on it, when he told us that, at any rate in Scotland, £100 is not much of a deterrent to the average farmer. They seem to have plenty of them to hand out. The noble Lord must live in a different part of Scotland from that with which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is familiar. In spite of that. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. Of course we do not want to have fraudulent applications made; nor do we want to have careless or frivolous applications. The question is how best these can be prevented.
The noble Lord has rightly said that where there is a question of fraud, or where the case appears to be a serious one, there are various legal methods by which the culprit can have imposed upon him a larger penalty than that which the magistrates' court—or the Sheriff court, in Scotland—can impose. But he is dealing solely with the careless farmer. Apart from the fact that it seems to me that for most careless farmers a possible fine of £100 is a considerable deterrent, I would point out to noble Lords that this maximum fine of £100 is, in fact, the normal provision for offences of this kind, and increasing this figure to £300 for this particular group of offences would take it out of the normal range of magistrates' court fines and therefore invest it with a degree of seriousness that would exalt it above other offences which might well be just as serious, if not more serious.
What I am really saying is that as this clause stands at the moment it is in line with other offences of a similar nature and I should have thought that if it were right to increase the maximum fine for an offence of this sort it should be looked at not in the somewhat narrow context of an Agriculture Bill but in the far wider context of all those other offences which are roughly similar. Therefore, provided that the noble Lord is satisfied and realises, as I know he does from what he said, that in bad cases of fraud, or even persistent carelessness, it is quite possible to impose a heavier fine on farmers, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: The reason I wished to increase the fine was that it was quite simple for the careless farmer, by a rather careless misrepresentation of the facts, to increase the grant that he would get from the Government by an order of £200 or £300. Therefore the possibility of a first offender's fine, with a maximum of £100, would be about £25, and that would be practically nothing in order to bring in a couple of hundred pounds. Perhaps that sort of thing does not happen in England, and probably it does not happen often in Scotland; but the intention of the Amendment was to prevent that. However, the main purpose of the Amendment was to draw attention, not necessarily only of the Government, to the importance of the fact that these grants, if they are to be effective, must be paid speedily. It is possible for hope to be deferred to such an extent that the subsequent crop is missed, the cattle are not housed for the next winter, the implements are not there for the cultivation of the ground in the spring or the harvesting later on. Speed will be an essential point in the operation of these grants. But having, as it were, rubbed Her Majesty's Government's nose in this particular point, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Disqualification for House of Commons, etc.]:
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The effect of this Amendment would be to disqualify a Member of the Northern Irish Parliament only from taking an appointment as a member of a Rural Development Board in that country. He could, however, accept an appointment to a Board in Great Britain. I think it would be preferable to make this clear in the Bill, rather than by an Order in Council setting up a Board in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 22, after ("Board") add ("in Northern Ireland").—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Schedule 1:
The Meat and Livestock Commission

AGRICULTURE BILL

  PART III
  The Commission's Committees
  2.—(1) The Distribution Committee shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Ministers and not less than eighteen other members so appointed.
  (2) The members, other than the chairman, shall be so appointed as capable of representing the interests of—
  7.10 p.m.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, in paragraph 2(2), after subparagraph (c) to insert:
  "( ) operators of private slaughterhouses,"
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to Schedule 1. The effect of this Amendment would be to make an addition to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of the Schedule so that the Distribution Committee of the Commission would provide for representation of private slaughterhouses. This is a quite compendious Schedule of no less than eight different aspects of the livestock trade, and I think it is a little unfortunate that the private slaughterhouse owners are left out. As noble Lords know, there are very many of these people up and down the country, many small but some large ones as well, and they play an essential part in the slaughtering of cattle and maintaining our meat supply; and the effect now is to indicate that it is not necessary to have them directly represented on this very important Committee.
  I noticed that it was argued in another place that this was not really necessary because one of the other categories in this Schedule would undoubtedly contain somebody who had a private slaughterhouse, and that in that way they would be covered. But is it really wise to leave it to chance in that way, to hope that somebody there would speak for them, even assuming that it would be in order to do so? Is not their role so important that they ought to be represented? I am sure noble Lords opposite are aware that from time to time some Government spokesmen have made speeches indicating a very strong bias against private slaughterhouses and a desire to see a general concentration into local authority slaughterhouses. Composing the Distribution Committee in this way adds to the impression that in the
  96
  Government's view the private slaughterhouse is not all that important, and does not have a very great future. I cannot believe that that is the view of the Government. I am sure they recognise that these private slaughterhouses are playing an essential part, and provided that they can achieve the proper standards of hygiene and efficiency they should be allowed to continue. That seems to be the proper test.
  As this Schedule stands, the Government are in danger of giving the impression that there will not be much future for the private slaughterhouse. This will discourage them from making investments they ought to make from time to time in the future. Slaughterhouse investment is very expensive, and it may endanger the development of this section of the slaughterhouse trade that I wish to see continued. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Walston, will tell me that he wishes to see them continued, too. I feel that he would be creating a rather unfortunate impression if he did not give them a category of their own. I hope he will agree to do so, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 88, line 23, at end insert ("( ) operators of private slaughterhouses,").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
  LORD WALSTON: Let me start straight away by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that neither Her Majesty's Government nor I have any bias whatsoever against private slaughterhouses. I would hope to see anybody, or any body, who is capable of playing a useful part in increasing the efficiency of the meat trade given ample opportunity to do so. That is the main objective of the Livestock Commission, so there need be no fear whatsoever about that. I think we all accept the fact that the smaller a committee the more effective it is. We do not want to have vast bodies with everybody representing one particular interest and speaking for that interest alone. We want to achieve a body where all the main activities of the industry are represented, where people may, and can, speak with personal knowledge of the main activities, but where they do not regard themselves as delegates of that particular section out to look after its narrow interests at the expense of the wider interests of the whole industry. That is why we have sought to

  97
  keep a balance between a small and manageable body and a large body representing everybody who has anything at all to do with the industry.
  It is perfectly true that there are a good many interests who are not represented on the Livestock Commission; for instance, the transport interests. They are very valuable and useful people. Without them the cattle could not be brought to the slaughterhouse and carcasses could not be taken away. They play a vital and intrinsic part in the whole picture of distribution, wholesale and retail. But they are not specifically represented. Nor are the veterinary organisations. Again, without them there could be no effective slaughtering of livestock. So it is not just one particular group, the private slaughterhouse people, who are being discriminated against. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think it has been drawn in a reasonable manner where it has been drawn in this Schedule.
  If it is a question of representing interests—and of course it is perfectly true that the interests of different people and different organisations have to be heard—I think there is a misapprehension about the function of this Committee, which I should like to clear up. There seems to be an impression that unless the Bill provides for a particular chair, labelled with the name of a particular interest, there will be no possibility of any section of the industry, unless it is sitting in a labelled chair, being consulted by the Commission or influencing their policy. Of course this is not so at all. For one thing, and most obviously, there is nothing at all to stop anyone from going to the Commission, or to stop the Commission consulting particular interests which their work may affect from time to time. Secondly, if the Commission are persuaded that on some issue there should be more formal arrangements, the Bill as it stands gives the Commission full power to set up a joint committee for this purpose with just the right people on it, whoever they may be. So there is no difficulty and no impediment to prevent the Commission from consulting private slaughterhouse operators as such if they consider it appropriate, nor anything to prevent the private slaughterhouse operators from going to the Commission if they wish.
  98
  What I think is really more important—and the noble Lord did just touch on this—is that in almost every case the operators of private slaughterhouses are either wholesalers, retailers, curers or manufacturers, and there is already provision for each of those interests to be represented on the Distribution Committee. So that from the practical point of view—and, after all, we are attempting to make, and I think have succeeded in making, this Bill a practical Bill—the views of private slaughterhouse operators will certainly be fully and directly expressed in the Committee as it stands. Even though they may not be sitting there specifically as operators of private slaughterhouses, they will be sitting there either as wholesalers, retailers, curers or manufacturers.
  For all of these reasons—the need to keep the Distribution Committee to a workable size, the means already available for consultation, which I have outlined, whether they be formal or informal, and the fact that the views of private slaughterhouse operators will in practice be very well represented on the Distribution Committee through a number of different types of members—I think that specific provision for the representation of private slaughterhouse operators on the Committee would be unnecessary and unwise, in view of the size of the Committee. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his answer to my Amendment. May I particularly thank him for his opening words that neither he nor any other member of Her Majesty's Government has any bias against private slaughterhouses, and they wish to see them performing their full function. This was, I thought, the most valuable part of his speech, because it will help to remove the impression which the present constitution of the Distribution Committee has given. It has caused quite a good deal of uneasiness in the trade. I do not think it would be helpful to argue the other points which the noble Lord made beyond just making the point that the other people he mentioned, like cattle transporters and vets., have something else to do. If you have a slaughterhouse, all you can do is slaughter cattle in it. If the Government do not want you to

  99
  do that, there is nothing else you can slaughter in it.
  A NOBLE LORD: Slaughter the Government!
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes, if you could get them there you might. I think the private slaughterhouse people have a point there. As I say, I welcome the noble Lord's assurance, and I hope this will remove the impression that has become general in the trade, and I hope that the Commission, in picking the Distribution Committee, will make sure the other categories who are specified will in fact include men who have private slaughterhouses, to make sure that they are represented there, and on those terms I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Improvements eligible for grant]:
  LORD BALERNO: I beg to move this Amendment, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Baroness Elliot of Harwood, being the representative from Scotland here to-day. The reason why this has been put forward by the noble Baroness is that a piece of machinery which is capable of being moved from one place of operation to another will not qualify for grant, although it is not in operation during the process of moving. When this matter was before the Committee earlier on an Amendment put forward by my noble friend, I suggested that instead of the word "fixed" the word "static" might be used. That would allow a fixed piece of machinery to be moved, although not in operation while it was being moved. I hope that the Government might have had further thoughts upon this whole subject. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 98, line 8, leave out ("fixed").—(Lord Balerno.)
  LORD HUGHES: I should be happy if I could offer to accept this Amendment for the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, as a consolation for travelling down here, as I did from home on Sunday, but I should think it would be as much
  100
  as my life was worth to concede to him, in the absence of the noble Baroness, something which I did not concede to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, earlier when she was present. I must admit this is not exactly the same Amend-met as the previous one, because the earlier Amendment to Clause 31 dealt with investment grants, whereas this deals with farm improvement grants.
  I indicated, when the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, put forward his suggestion in relation to using the word "static" rather than "fixed" that I did not think it was going to make any difference. Nothing has been said to me in the period since we last discussed this particular aspect of fixed, static or mobile which has caused me to change my mind. The farm improvement scheme is, as the opening words of Clause 30 indicate, limited to long-term improvements for the benefit of agricultural land, and in practice we shall not assist improvements unless satisfied that they are likely to go on benefiting the particular farm concerned for at least ten years.
  For that reason, it has been felt appropriate that grants on plant and machinery should be limited to fixed plant and machinery, including fixtures and fittings. While the noble Lord conceded that I did give him authority to drive a lawn mower through the regulations, I am very sorry I cannot give him any encouragement to do the same in relation to these farm improvement grants. I think it is rather stretching the imagination to regard some of these items of equipment as being long-term improvements and therefore capable of being assisted under this particular grant. I am sorry not to he more helpful to the noble Lord, and while I am certain he would have skipped back happily to Scotland or even dallied on the way to ring up the noble Baroness and tell her the Amendment was through, this is a pleasure which I must deny him.
  LORD BALERNO: While not feeling altogether satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I have no desire to prolong the sitting of this Committee further than is necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Schedule 5:

  CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF BOARDS
  1.—(1) A Rural Development Board shall consist of not less than six nor more than twelve members appointed by the appropriate Minister of whom more than half shall be appointed as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, agriculture or forestry.
  6.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in Part II, to add to paragraph 1(1):
  "Provided that in any case in which members of a Board are appointed as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, forestry, not less than half of such members shall be so appointed to represent the interests of private woodland owners."
  The noble Earl said: This Schedule lays down the constitution of the Rural Development Boards, and provides that more than half of the members appointed shall have
  "had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, agriculture or forestry".
  My Amendment proposes that so far as forestry members are concerned, not less than half shall be appointed to represent the interest of private woodland owners. I admit this might involve some rather delicate mathematical calculations for those who had to choose the members of the Board. Supposing they wanted to appoint only one member with special knowledge of forestry, he would have to be representative of the woodland owners because one is the smallest number which is not less than the half of one. It would, therefore, be necessary to appoint two, if they wanted to have one from the Forestry Commission as well.
  I have always been strongly in favour in all the circumstances of co-operation between private woodland owners and the Forestry Commission. Sometimes the representative of one can speak for both. But the Forestry Commission is becoming very specialised now and, unless a member who happened to be put on to represent their interests had been in the private woodland officers' department, he might not have enough knowledge of the problems of private owners,
  102
  to represent them reasonably effectively. I think it would greatly increase the authority of these Boards and the confidence which would be reposed in them if my Amendment were accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 101, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
  LORD HUGHES: It is the Government's intention that Boards shall be small independent bodies, composed of members selected for their personal qualities, their knowledge and their experience, and not as representatives of various interests. Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to give representation to all the interests on these Boards, which will consist of only six to twelve members. The coordinated development of agricultural and forestry in their areas is one of the main functions of a Board, and the Schedule stipulates that more than half of their members shall be drawn from those who have special knowledge of agriculture or forestry. The importance of having members with local knowledge of the Boards area has also been stressed, and an assurance has been given in another place that this will be borne in mind. It is also important, I think, that there should be some members who can bring a fresh independent approach to the problems that will face the Boards.
  As regards members "having special knowledge of" forestry, I do not think it would be wise to oblige the Minister in all cases to appoint at least half of these as direct representatives of private woodland owners. Many assurances have been given, both in this House and in another place, that Boards will take private forestry interests fully into account. This will be an essential part of their duties. It is recognised that there is a big job in these areas for both the private woodland owner and the Forestry Commission, and both will be actively encouraged to tackle it. Perhaps I may just point out a practical difficulty. In some cases the most suitable person to put on a Board might be someone who was engaged in private forestry as an agent but who did not, in fact, fulfil the qualification of himself being a private landowner. That person might be excluded if we were to bind the Minister

  103
  in this way. So I think it is better to leave the wording as it is, in the knowledge that Boards will consult all the interested parties as they draw up their programmes. I am certain that close links will be established with the various interests, including private forestry. I am sure, too, that Boards will welcome the views put before them at any time by private forestry organisations, and will consider with great care any representations that may be made on any particular issue.
  While I am certain that the interests of private woodland owners will be most carefully considered by these Boards, I cannot agree that we should seek to achieve this by the method proposed in this Amendment. Undoubtedly there will be cases where, quite naturally, a private forestry owner will find himself asked to serve on one or more of these Boards. I think it would be wrong that we should seek to get down to this on a basis of representation, because if this were to be carried to its logical conclusion it would mean creating a number of Boards which would be bigger than is desirable and probably, therefore, less able to do the job they are intended to do.
  The noble Earl has been extremely cooperative throughout these proceedings and this spirit has not gone entirely unrewarded. We have given, I think, favourable consideration to those aspects designed to help forestry owners. The Government have agreed with them where we thought we should lean over backwards to encourage the forestry interests. This is a case where we believe that it would be a mistake to do so, and, that being so, I hope the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw this Amendment and go out on the co-operative basis which he has applied to this Bill throughout the Committee stage, even though he did not get his later Amendments incorporated in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord's explanation is almost verbally the same as the explanation which I have had to give on numerous occasions in regard to numerous Amendments of this kind when our positions were reversed, and I entirely understand the point. I should again like to thank him for what he has just mentioned and for the very
  104
  forthcoming way in which he has met so many of our points on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT BILL
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, this is perhaps a convenient moment to make a brief statement. I should like to inform the House that it is proposed to postpone the Committee stage of the Royal Assent Bill from to-day until Thursday next. This has been agreed with those noble Lords known to be interested in the proceedings on the Bill this evening.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TERMINATION OF REVIEWS) BILL
7.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this is a short Bill of only two clauses which deals with two kinds of review affecting local government. The first clause concerns reviews held under Part II of the Local Government Act 1958, to consider changes in the organisation of local government, and the second clause deals with the review of the administration of education in Inner London which is provided for in the London Government Act 1963.
Two Local Government Commissions were set up under the Local Government Act 1958. They were charged with reviewing, at county and county borough level, the organisation of local government in England, outside the metropolitan area, and in Wales. They were required to propose changes authorised by the Act as they considered desirable for effective and convenient local government. In five provincial conurbations, designated in the Act as Special Review Areas, the Commission had also to consider county

105
districts. Outside these areas the reviews of county districts were to be conducted by the county councils in what were termed county reviews.
The Local Government Commission for Wales completed its job in 1962 and went out of office in January, 1964, when the warrants of appointment of its members expired. Its winding up is therefore no more than a formality. The Local Government Commission for England, on the other hand, had completed about two-thirds of its work when the Government decided that it should be wound up because of the setting up of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Although the Local Government Commissions were required to review the organisation of local government, they could propose only the sorts of changes which were authorised by the Act, and the effect of this was, broadly speaking, to restrict them to changes within the existing structure. They were concerned, in fact, largely with proposing boundary alterations, and no more.
We have had two reviews of local government since the war—the Local Government Boundary Commission of the 1940s, and later the Local Government Commission which this Bill seeks to wind up—but in both cases the narrow terms of reference have prevented the Commissions from undertaking the sort of far-reaching and comprehensive review which the situation by now demands. This, as the House knows well, is the reason why the Government decided that Royal Commissions should be set up for England and for Scotland, with terms of reference much broader than the former ones, so that they could examine functions and make recommendation about functions of authorities, as well as boundaries, and for the division of functions between authorities in different places and at different tiers: in other words, the total overhaul which we have often discussed in this House in recent days.
The Royal Commission will thus be able to recommend a completely new pattern of local government which the former Commissions could not. As long ago as 1946 the former Local Government Boundary Commission discovered that the exclusion of functions from their terms of reference crippled their work. They concluded that effective and convenient units of local government administration could not be procured every-
106
where without a fresh allocation of functions, and they asked that legislation to widen their terms of reference should be considered. Their Report for 1947—as long ago as that—gave details of the sort of changes which they thought necessary. The Government of the day recommended this Report for study by all concerned, but it turned out that no agreed body of opinion on any proposals in this field emerged. The climate of local government affairs has now fully changed and, as the House well knows, the main associations of local authorities all welcomed the new review by the Royal Commission. This in itself is a measure of the increasingly forward-looking approach to be found in local government circles to-day.
When the Government decided to set up the Royal Commission, it was then necessary to consider the future of the existing Local Government Commission for England. This Commission had just issued draft proposals on three areas in the North-West—the North-Western General Review Area and the Merseyside and South-East Lancashire Special Review Areas. They had only recently started their review of Southern England, and the South-East still remained to be tackled. The Commission would have been unable finally to report on the North-West Areas much before the Royal Commission's own Report was expected, and their reports on the South and the South-East would probably not have been received until after the Royal Commission's Report had been published.
The processes under the Local Government Act 1958 are so slow that the consideration of putting their proposals into effect would have taken several years (our experience shows that it is usually about seven years), during which time the Royal Commission's Report would already have been in the hands of the Government and would have been under consideration. It was very much open to question whether the Local Government Commission ought to go on working out new proposals in parallel with the Royal Commission. The Government, having considered the question, decided, as we know, that it should not and that it should be terminated by the present Bill. I would associate myself with the expressions of thanks to the Chairman and members of the Local Government Commission which have already been

107
made by my colleagues in the Government elsewhere.
To turn now to the county reviews, where a county review had been completed it was thought right that all the work put into it should not be wasted and that the county councils' proposals should be considered on their merits. But where a county review still had a long way to go towards completion, or had not even been started, it seemed best to leave the area concerned for review by the Royal Commission. So in June, 1966, after consulting the local authority associations, the then Minister told local authorities that he would not consider county review reports beyond those which would be submitted to him by the end of August in that year.
I turn now to Clause 2 of the Bill. This repeals the sections of the London Government Act 1958 which laid on the Secretary of State for Education and Science the obligation to carry out a review of the arrangements for education in the Inner London Area, and to lay before Parliament, not later than the end of March, 1970, a report to determine whether any of the functions of the Inner London Education Authority should be transferred to the Inner London boroughs, including the City. The clause also repeals the section of the Act which laid on the Minister of Labour the duty to review the Youth Employment Service in the Inner London area in conjunction with the review of the education service which his colleague the Secretary of State will be undertaking at the same time.
The Government have come to the conclusion that these two provisions have introduced an element of uncertainty into the future of the Education and Youth Employment Services in Inner London and that this element has given rise to unnecessary anxiety in the minds of teachers and parents. There is by now general agreement in the educational world that the educational service in the Inner London area should not be fragmented among the Inner London boroughs and that a unified service is clearly desirable, and, indeed, essential to a fortunate future for education in the capital city. The Government are satisfied that the Education and Youth Employment Services are efficiently administered as they are at present, and
108
that any change would be likely to lead only to a lowering of standards. The effect of Clause 2 of the Bill is therefore to confirm the present position of the I.L.E.A. and preserve the long-established unified service in the Inner London area by repealing the review sections of the London Government Act. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
7.46 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we should all wish to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his careful exposition of this measure. I doubt whether your Lordships feel that we need spend a great deal of time on the Second Reading of this backward-looking Bill. The Commissions for England and Wales are both dead. This is really a funeral ceremony, but I am thankful to say that most of the members of the outgoing Commissions are alive. I, too, would wish to pay warm tribute to them for the work they have done, both individually and collectively. I would particularly single out one of them, the original Chairman of the Local Government Commission for England, the late Sir Henry Hancock—a great public servant. I think that almost everyone who had cause to meet the members of the two Commissions during their official inquiries was personally impressed by the sincerity, knowledge and deep understanding with which they were tackling their jobs.
Outside London these Commissions represented the sole post-war effort to reform local government which has produced practical results and improvements. The Welsh Commission, as the noble Lord said, finished its work some four years ago. The present Government have held office for two and a half years, and have still not made up their minds on the future pattern of local government in Wales. We had been told, of course, that the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales would lead to dynamic handling of the problems of the Principality, but in fact the reverse has been the case.
The English Commission was encouraged by the speech which was delivered by the then Minister, Mr. Crossman, to the annual conference of the

109
Association of Municipal Corporations on September 22, 1965, in which he said
"I take the opportunity of scotching all rumours that the Commission is to be wound up."
Within five months after that the Government announced that the Commission was to be wound up; and the rumours proved true. Is it surprising that when members of this Government promise what is going to happen or not going to happen, the public are beginning not to believe them? There is a story current that after the Government had decided to set up a Royal Commission on Local Government, nevertheless the Government wanted the existing Commission for England to go on and complete its work, but the members of the Commission, being thoroughly sensible people, refused, saying that that was absurd and impossible.
Whatever happened, we can now see that when setting up the Royal Commission the Government appear to have given no adequate thought to the position they were bringing into existence in the meanwhile. The Government created a situation where a very complex task was left two-thirds finished, and debates in your Lordships' House on one Order after another, starting with Torbay and continuing with the debate which is to take place later this evening, have shown how unsatisfactory, how chancy and how inequitable a situation has been brought about simply by vacillating government.
This is a classic example of the notorious military sequence — order, counter-order, disorder. The Government would have been wiser to enable the Commission to finish its work of review, and meanwhile to give some hard thought and make up their own mind as to their future policy in local government, without queering the pitch for the existing Commission by superimposing a new Royal Commission. But that, of course, would have involved the Government meanwhile in implementing recommendations which might be unpopular.
In 1947 the Labour Government of the day solved a similar problem by simply running away, scrapping the Local Government Boundary Commission, and then doing nothing at all towards local government reform in the remaining four years of its tenure of office. That was the disaster in the post-war history of local
110
government reform—the complete waste of those years. We had laboriously to start afresh, and I brought forward what became the 1958 Act as the best measure to which I could get agreement at that time among all the interests most concerned.
I readily agree that if the Commission had been given wider scope then as to what it could recommend, that would have solved some of our problems now. But I could never have achieved an acceptable degree of agreement at that time on setting up a Commission with much wider powers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, both the nature of the problem and the course of public opinion have greatly developed in the last ten years. The reason why the procedures under the 1958 Act have been so lengthy is that it was the first serious attempt for a great many years to grapple with an intensely sensitive subject, and in these circumstances it seemed to me right to give every chance at every stage for local public opinion to express itself.
The noble Lord said that these Local Government Commissions were really confined to boundary revision. That, of course, is an understatement. They were able to recommend the promotion and demotion of county boroughs, and in the extensive special review areas they could recommend quite new patterns of local government. Indeed, when I see now what has happened in the case of local government in Wales, it is somewhat ironical to look back and recollect that I accepted from the Labour Benches—perhaps rashly—an Amendment in Standing Committee to ensure that it would be impossible to create a special review area in Wales.
I accept that local government reform, in the light of to-day's developments and knowledge, will demand in the end greater changes than these Commissions had statutory power to recommend. My criticism of the Government is that as, even under their plan, there was clearly no chance of any further local government reform during the lifetime of this Parliament, they should not have cut the throat of the only set of people who were getting on with the job.
Clause 2 deals with an unrelated subject. It proposes the cancellation of the

111
statutory review of the strangest education authority in the country. The fact that that was created by a Conservative Government makes it none the less an oddity, compared with every other education authority throughout England and Wales. Even though the whole structure of education in Inner London may remain unchanged after the review, I am certain that at some time there must be a re-examination of the authority itself. It is the only education authority in the country composed principally of people who are compulsorily drafted on to it, whether they are interested in education or not.
It is almost the only body of which I can think in the whole system of local government from which it is literally impossible to resign. The 40 candidates who are elected to the Greater London Council on April 13 next for Inner London boroughs will find themselves compelled to be members of the I.L.E.A. even though their main interest in local government may be planning, traffic, housing or something else, and not education at all. I shall seek to develop this further in Committee, when I shall move to omit Clause 2 from the Bill. It is so remote from the main theme of the Bill that at this hour of the evening, with a good deal of additional business ahead of us I shall take up no more time on it now.
We have no choice but to give the Bill a Second Reading, for the two Commissions are dead already. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will answer two questions. First, when will the Government be clear enough in their mind to announce their local government proposals for Wales? Secondly, is it the case that there was a difference of opinion between the English Commission and the Minister, the Minister wishing the Commission to carry on, but the members saying that he had created a situation in which it was impossible for them to do so?
I have spent more than 20 years of my life in local government, and there are others present in your Lordships' House at this moment who have given a great part of their years to the same cause. I care about its welfare, and I do not for one moment believe that Parliament could conceivably administer the whole
112
country without the immense and outstanding contribution of those who take part in local government, members and officials alike. They are the sufferers when the real needs and problems of local government are insensitively handled by a Government which shuns making hard decisions itself.
At this very moment, on a Monday evening, while we are discussing this Government Bill to stop various things, literally hundreds of council committees all over England and Wales are at work in their town halls and council offices, anxious to get on and to be doing more to make their own locality or neighbourhood a better place to live in. If we in this House to-night can join completely in nothing else, let us join in wishing them well and thanking them for their devoted and all too often unappreciated service.
7.58 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has told us that the 1958 Act was the best to which he could get agreement at the time; that the terms of reference for the Commission were the widest to which he could get general agreement at the time. We in the Government now know that that was the case, and we have no complaint that that was the form in which he set up the Commission which we are burying to-night. He did the best he could in 1958, he was right to do it, and the Commission has done good work. But now we have been able to do better. I do not claim that this is by our superior merit on this side of the House, though of course part of it is. It is also that it is now nine years later and, as I said before, the climate of opinion in local government circles has now changed. It is now possible to get general agreement on a Commission with much wider terms of reference, covering the whole system, including functions.
I do not know whether in the last resort the noble Lord was telling us that we should not have set up the Royal Commission which it has proved possible to set up, or that we should have set it up earlier, and I do not know quite what the nature of his complaint is. For myself, I see this as a natural and logical development. The noble Lord did the best he could nine years ago. We are now doing the best we can, and it is a little better because time has elapsed.

113
The noble Lord said that no adequate thought had been given to the situation meanwhile—that is, the situation between the appointment of the Royal Commission, its reporting in two years' time and the adoption or otherwise of its report some years after that. This is really not at all true. A very great deal of thought has been given to it. I outlined the reasons behind this thought, and the reasons for which the Government have taken the actions they have, only last week on one of these Orders; I think it was the Teesside Order. Perhaps I should just briefly touch on it again, because it was a very real problem which has been solved in a very definite way. One may criticise the way in which it has been solved, saying the solution should have lain a little more on this side or a little more on the other side of where the decision has been taken, but one cannot say that no decision was taken or that inadequate thought was given to it.
The decision was this. After the announcement of the setting up of the Royal Commission, there were a certain number of review reports on the Minister's desk. Should he pass them all, take decisions on them all, whether favourable or unfavourable? Should he take decisions on none of them? Or should he adopt a middle course and pass those which he thought it was worth having "in the bag", even though the Royal Commission were still to report, and stall or take no decision on those which he thought would not be worth the upheaval in the small number of years between now and action on the Royal Commission's report? He decided, as we know, to take the middle course. He stalled on seven and he took decisions, in most cases favourable ones, without any change, on a larger number than that. Hence the series of Orders which I am bringing before the House in these days.
I do not think there is a situation of disorder. I do not think that any other solution could have been found to the problem of what to do with the large body of work already turned in by the old Commission after the necessary and right decision to set up the new Royal Commission had been taken. With the noble Lord's agreement, I will leave the question of I.L.E.A. until the Committee
114
stage. Since he has said he is going to move an Amendment to delete the whole clause, this will give us an opportunity to discuss the whole matter.
I should like to conclude by joining him in his happy and picturesque evocation of the hundreds of councils meeting at this moment. We on the Government side agree with every word he said about that and about how much we owe to the work of those councillors and those officers; and I should also like to say how much we feel it is our duty to ensure that in the future they get a better system than they have now to express the will of their electors in the most efficient, best arranged and most progressive and flexible way.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer my question about Wales?
LORD KENNET: I am very sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that I cannot answer his question about Wales, but I will inquire from my colleagues who are responsible for the Principality under our somewhat separate arrangements, and either they or I will let him have an answer at Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
8.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The limit on Post Office borrowing is fixed in terms of the total accumulated debt to the Exchequer which may be outstanding at any one time. The present limit—that is, the upper limit prescribed by the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Act 1964, subject to a Resolution by another place, which was taken on March 4 last—is £1,320 million. This limit is likely to be reached some time in the summer of 1967—this summer. The Bill proposes that the limit should be extended in the first instance to £1,750 million. It also makes proposals for further extension by Resolution to £2,200 million. So far as can be foreseen, the lower limit should meet Post

115
Office borrowing needs up to about the middle of 1969, and the upper limit should last until some time in 1971. In short, the Bill deals with an increase of £880 million in the Post Office borrowing powers. Total investment requirements are likely to amount to about £1,500 million, with the balance coming from Post Office depreciation and profits, all of which are ploughed back into the business.
Your Lordships will be interested to have a broad and, at this hour, rather short outline of the Post Office plans for the next few years. But before doing this I should like to draw attention to two other matters. First, this Bill contains a new feature, as compared with previous Post Office Bills; namely, Clause 2. Section 10(1) of the Post Office Act 1961 authorises the Postmaster General to borrow from only two sources: the Treasury and the Bank of England. However, the giro service is expected to start next year and, technically, money deposited in giro accounts will be borrowed from the account holders. In this respect the position will be similar to that of money received on current account by banks. Clause 2 of the present Bill is intended to remove any doubt there may be in relation to the borrowing provisions of the 1961 Act.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the general context in which this Bill is being considered. Your Lordships' House was informed on August 3 last that the Government had decided that the Post Office should become a public Corporation, and that a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals would be presented, after the fullest consultation with the representatives of the staff of the Post Office, and after there had been an opportunity to study the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which has been examining the Post Office. The Select Committee's Report was published on February 28, and is being studied carefully by my right honourable friend the Postmaster General and his colleagues. Your Lordships will not expect me to discuss it in detail tonight. The White Paper on the re-organisation of the Post Office will be presented shortly, and I am sure that it will be read with great interest.
116
It may be asked why the Bill should deal with Post Office investment requirements up to 1971 if the Department is to become a public Corporation. The reason is that as Parliament has not yet approved the change in status, the Government did not feel that it would be right to provide for a shorter period than is usual in Bills of this kind.
Although the Post Office telecommunications services employ many people, these services are, by their nature, primarily technological. The postal service, which is being extensively mechanised, relies heavily on manual skills and labour. It follows that the greater part of the money to be borrowed under the Bill will be spent on telecommunications. Broadly speaking, it will be spent in three ways: in overcoming deficiencies of plant that now exist; in providing for growth, both in the number of calls and in the number of subscribers, and also in modernising the system and exploiting new developments. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a lot of figures. No doubt those of your Lordships who are particularly interested will have read the Post Office Annual Report and Accounts.
While the greater part of the money to be borrowed under the Bill will be spent on the telecommunications services, this is not to say that the postal services are to be starved of capital. Far from it. In 1967-68 the Post Office expects to invest some £26 million in new and enlarged postal building, machines, et cetera, and the capital going into postal machinery will be increasing steadily and substantially over the next ten years. More than half the investment in machines will go into letter-coding and automatic letter-sorting machinery. Postal address codes of the kind my right honourable friend announced recently for Croydon are essential if full value is to be obtained from the new machines. Taking, for example, the postal address, CRO 3BA, the first half, CRO, will be the name of the town to which the letter is going; and the second half, 3BA, will be the actual delivery area to which the letters are to be sorted when they arrive in Croydon. These codes are to be introduced this year in seventeen more large towns, and are expected to be in use in London and

117
some sixty of the largest provincial towns by 1970.
The success of these codes and machines will, of course, depend largely on the co-operation of the public in using them in their addresses, and it is satisfactory to be able to say that experience so far indicates that this co-operation will be forthcoming. We can take pride in the fact that our postal address code system is technically the most advanced in the world. Although all codes are being designed for automatic outward sorting—that is, from one town to another—the British system is the only one that will enable letters at the distant town to be machine-sorted for the individual delivering postman.
At the same time as the intensive mechanisation programme, under which £45 million is to be spent in the next ten years, the Post Office is, and will continue constantly to be, working for the most economic use of manpower. At present, as many of your Lordships will know, Messrs. McKinsey and Co. have been working with the Post Office looking at arrangements in postal sorting offices and public offices; and the counter staff have given the fullest co-operation in this fundamental stocktaking. These efforts are already producing results.
While our postal service is second to none in the world, the Post Office is not by any means complacent. Over the past year there have been complaints about late deliveries and about the unreliability of the service, many, but not all, justifiable. Growing areas to be covered and increasing amounts of mail to be delivered call for more staff each year, and, quite frankly, it has not been possible to keep pace with the demand. For example, extensive and continuous housing development requires something like 300 to 500 more postmen each year for mail deliveries, and this adds about half a million pounds each year to operational costs without significant increase in revenue.
Finally, my Lords, a word about the giro service. The centre will be at Bootle where a complex of buildings is being erected. It will include one of the largest computer centres in Europe. The facilities to be provided are based broadly on discussions with European countries who run a giro service. Because this is a new
118
service it has proved possible to use modern techniques and equipment, including special and unique features designed to make the service flexible and to meet the varying needs. Suggestions and criticism from the public have been invited and taken into account. Public reaction has been most encouraging. Discussions have taken place with the clearing banks about the arrangements for links between the two systems, and there is every reason to believe that the services will be complementary. Some ten days ago my right honourable friend presented the latest in the series of "Post Office Prospects" White Papers. It looks ahead for one year, as against the four-year period provided for in the Bill; but it emphasises what I have said to-day.
My Lords, the Post Office, employing as it does over 400,000 people, is a vast organisation providing a wide range of services. I have recently had the privilege of visiting quite a number of district post offices and sorting offices, and I have been impressed by the real dedication that the workers have to their jobs. The demand on the Post Office is growing, and the purpose of this Bill is to provide it with the finance that it will need to meet those demands effectively and efficiently. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
8.14 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lady for introducing this Bill and explaining what it does. I am bound to say that it is an extremely simple Bill—even I can understand at least the wording of it. One cannot help reflecting on the curious state of affairs that when 2s. is added to or subtracted from a prescription charge, all Hell is let loose; yet when one seeks to borrow £880 million it goes through almost at the nod of a head. It certainly will receive the nod of our heads; but it also gives us the opportunity to discuss the Post Office and some of the implications. I think that frequently the Post Office services are greatly maligned. On reflection it is really remarkable that for the price of 4d. you can sometimes even have your letter collected, but certainly delivered to any house in the British Isles; and that for the price of

119
3d. your own house can be attached by wire to another house. Although when one's telephone bills and postal charges have to be met this represents a large cost, in fact it is, individually, a relatively inexpensive service.
It is encouraging to find that the Post Office is one of the—I was going to say "the only"; but this is not quite true—nationalised industries which really does pay its way. In 1963 to 1966 it made a profit of £40 million, which represents a return of about 8 per cent. on its capital, which is the target at which the Post Office aims. But within this figure of overall profit some of the activities of the Post Office make a loss. The cable services, for instance, invariably make a loss. The sad part is that it does not matter how many cables you send; the more you send the bigger the loss. It would be a great mistake if we were to think that each individual facet of the postal services must make a profit, because I do not think that that should be so. I hope the mere fact that the cables service does not make a profit will not lead the Government to think that it should be dispensed with.
One wonders what the future of the G.P.O. will be. Will it become more modern? Will it become more efficient? Will it become more expensive? I suppose the answer is that it will become all three. The noble Lady said that Messrs. McKinsey are engaged on a study of business efficiency in the Post Office. They have been on this study, I think, for two years. I was delighted to see that the former Postmaster General engaged a firm of efficiency experts. I was only sorry that it had to be an American and not a British firm. I wonder if the noble Lady could tell us whether they have yet made a report; or whether they have made only a partial report? If they have not, when are they likely to make one? Can the noble Lady also give an assurance that the report will be made public? I think it is essential that it should be made public, because it is impossible to make any assessment of charges unless one knows the full facts.
I wonder whether in this respect the noble Lady could give an assurance that there will be no increase in postal charges until this report is made. I ask this for
120
the specific reason that the Postmaster General said a short while ago that postal and telephone charges would be held at their present level until, I think, the end of the year, or for most of this year. From that, may one assume that the report is likely to be in the Minister's hands at least within a few months? Of course, the job of an efficiency firm is to make the entity efficient from a management point of view. In their eyes, this might justly be achieved by reducing the standard which at the moment obtains in the Post Office. I would urge the noble Lady in turn to urge upon her right honourable friend that we should not accept a reduction in the standard of postal services; because the standards in this country are uniquely high and I think it could be the greatest mistake to see them reduced.
One such reduction that immediately comes to mind is the delivery of letters not to the door but to the garden gate. I hope that will be resisted vigorously, even if the firm of management experts recommend it. The whole kernel of efficiency in postal services is that the letters are delivered to one's house and not to a point 10 yards, 50 yards or 100 yards away from it. Rather than a reduction in standards I would prefer an increase in the charges. That may seem a terrible thing to say; but when one looks at the postal charges in other countries one finds those in Britain are really rather reasonable. In the Netherlands, Italy and America the charge for a letter is 4d.; in Belgium it is 5d.; in Denmark and France it is 6d.; in Sweden it is 7d.; and in West Germany it is 8d. On the other side of the coin, in Spain it is only 1d. I would leave it to the noble Lady to say whether we could ever hope to emulate that.
The noble Lady referred to the extension of postal coding. One can only assume from this that the experiment which has been carried on at Norwich has proved to be successful. It has been going on now for some six or seven years, and I am slightly surprised that no action has been taken about it until now. One would have thought that sufficient time had been allowed for information to be gathered from the experiment. If it was good, one would have expected to see the service extended to other towns; and if it was bad it should have been scrapped. It seems to me extraordinary

121
that it has apparently taken the Post Office seven years to discover whether or not the service was worth carrying on.
Can the noble Lady give us any idea at all about the progress which has been made, and will be made, with substituting the dialling system for selecting telephone numbers by a push button form of selection? One gathers that this is the coming thing, and that push button selection will enable one to get telephone numbers more quickly and accurately. Is this system likely to come into operation fairly soon? There always is a cry of "wrong numbers", and everyone complains vigorously about perpetually getting a wrong number. I do not think that this happens frequently, though I must admit that it did happen to me last week. I made a call from here to a firm, and to my surprise I found myself connected with the Lambeth Mortuary. I asked the good lady if she would dial the number again and then I was met with the very responsive reply of, "Look, darling, I have just told you, this is the Lambeth Mortuary." I asked the operator if she would be good enough to dial a third time, and suggested that she might care to determine whether or not we had got the right number. The lady was becoming a little brusque. She did try, and on the third occasion the lady at the mortuary roared with laughter. I am bound to say, as one who was slightly irritated, that I wondered what was the cause of her merriment, and I was constrained to ask her whether the cause of her merriment was that a corpse had just sat up. But such mistakes in telephone numbers do not happen very often.
I offer as a last suggestion and thought for the noble Lady something which I think is not irrelevant to the Bill. One finds that more and more people in this day and age are living on their own. In 1966, of all the old-age pensioners living alone apparently only 18 per cent. of the men and 15 per cent. of the women had telephones. I know that there is always an argument about giving forth subsidies, and I do not wish to pursue that question now. But this is a point which the Government should consider. Is it right that people who are old and sometimes chronically sick should live on their own without any form of communication with the outside world? Frequently a telephone may be the only form of social
122
contact that these people have, and it may be a vital source of contact with a doctor. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have any ideas on this subject. We certainly wish the postal service well, and I hope that it enjoys its extra £880 million.
8.24 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, in giving a general welcome to this little, but, as it were, very costly Bill, I should like to pay tribute to what is now taking place in the Post Office. I think it correct to say that, for the first time almost since its inception, some real thinking is taking place about how to adapt the Post Office service to modern requirements. I understand that the firm of consultants which has been brought in has been giving interim reports; and I wish to draw attention also to the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place which has just completed a full-scale investigation into the workings of the Post Office. I refer to this because, as Chairman of that Committee, I was responsible for persuading it to conduct this investigation. They commenced the inquiry while I was Chairman and the work was continued after the last Election when I retired from the other House.
If your Lordships have not read the Report which the Committee have issued, I commend it to you because a real probe has been made. It will be most interesting to see how far the present Postmaster General, with his very progressive ideas, will act along the lines of separating telecommunications from the post and how far this new public utility company, as it were, will operate in that way. If these proposals are adopted, as I am sure that they will be, it will be interesting to see the effect of operating the Post Office on modem lines.
The noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, referred to the profits made in the Post Office in the past. A few years ago, instead of the surplus going to the Treasury, it was ploughed back into the Post Office and I think this greater financial freedom set a very good trend. To those of us who have inspected district offices and seen the mechanisation which has taken place in respect of letter sorting, and other vast changes in Post Office work, it is obvious that it is a step in the right direction. I think we shall be well justified in allowing this Bill to go through

123
with the blessing of your Lordships' House.
8.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, as Norwich has been mentioned, I think I might say just a word, from the point of view of the user with regard to the extension of the coding system. This system was started at about the time that I went to Norwich, and I was a little apprehensive because I thought it unlikely to prove workable. I thought that people would not succeed in remembering code numbers. That is the most obvious and simple objection to the system, but it seems evident that people do remember the numbers without difficulty. Whether or not in extending the system more widely this will prove more difficult, I do not know. Possibly there may be means by which those who wish to be helped to recognise areas within the scope of the code may be assisted.
"Nor" may be easy enough to remember, but it may be more difficult to remember whether somebody living in one area will be likely to be "67 J" or somebody living in another area may more likely be "120 Z". This is where the difficulty arises, but despite this most obvious liability, in fact the system works quite clearly, and as it works there is everything to be said for its wider adoption. It is very good to think that Norwich is leading the way in this respect, and to some extent it consoles our drooping spirits for having been knocked out of the F.A. Cup last Saturday.
8.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I wonder whether the Post Office would consider issuing a code in telephone manners. It is my fate to be continually rung up when I am listening to a good wireless programme. In the middle of the second movement I am rung up by someone who wants me to do something. It is of course always delightful to be rung up by one's friends, but it is not a delight to be rung up by someone who wants one to take part in a brains trust or to open a bazaar. It is a bore. I think that some telephone man to protect the public from being continually rung by people who want them to do things would be a great advantage. The Post Office ought to protect those
124
who are engaged in the other Post Office activity of listening to the radio or television. At any rate, I hope that Her Majesty's present Government will not make the mistake the Tory Government made, of advertising the telephone service in terms of: "Somebody wants you to ring them up". I beg that our privacy in this matter may be respected, and I venture to put it in the mind of the Postmaster General that some code of telephone manners would be exceedingly desirable.
8.32 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have welcomed this Bill. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I hesitated to describe this as a simple Bill. I agree that it is simple, inasmuch as it is readable; but, to my mind, anything which deals with millions of pounds deserves some better adjective than "simple", and that is why I avoided using the word. I was delighted that he also took the view, which many of us have held for a long time, that we get a remarkable service of postal deliveries for a ridiculously low price. I can safely assure him that one thing my right honourable friend would not countenance is a reduction of standards. Some experiments have been carried out—for instance, the "garden gate delivery", but people did not like it, and at the present time there is no intention of going on with these experiments. When I suggested the "garden gate delivery" in my own locality, it was put to me that it was difficult enough to keep a plant in the garden, let alone a letter box. No doubt the noble Earl lives in a better-behaved area.
I was delighted to learn from the right reverend prelate that people do remember numbers. In this increasingly complex society, if some individual could devise some scheme by which we can more easily memorise telephone numbers it would make life easier for us. The right reverend Prelate will have noted that I quoted CRO for Croydon, and this leads me to believe that there will be some indication of the place in the telephone code. I should like to compliment my noble friend Lord Popplewell on the hand he had in the excellent work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I recommend their Report

125
to noble Lords. It makes fascinating reading, and every suggestion made is of great merit.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, I find people are apt to ask me to do things. As we share the same fate, perhaps I may suggest to him that this is sent to chasten us—and probably it is very good for us. My own protection, one which the noble Earl may have discovered, is not to be in the telephone book. It has the disadvantage that old friends do not discover you, but at least it protects you from unwanted telephone calls. I think that the noble Earl's idea of a code of telephone manners is an enchanting one. In view of the fact that telephone "tapping" is highly criticised, I do not know how my right honourable friend would cope with the idea of an automatic intervention, but I will certainly place the suggestion before him.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did me the courtesy of sending some of his questions in writing earlier, so that I had an opportunity of investigating them. I am happy to tell him, apropos charges, that my right honourable friend has recently stated in public that he has no intention of increasing charges.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, presumably this statement is qualified: it is only for a period.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should not like to put any words into the mouth of my right honourable friend. I simply repeat what he said: that he has no intention of increasing charges.
EARL FERRERS: I thought that the noble Baroness had left out some words.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as regards the question of push-button telephones, there has been a small experiment conducted in one exchange in London, but it cannot be considered economic until there is a sufficient number of electronic telephone exchanges. This matter has not been shelved but is in the experimental stage at the present time.
On the noble Earl's question about the firm of McKinsey, they will not be presenting a report in the usual sense. They are giving a continuing series of advices, some of which are dealt with on the spot, but my right honourable friend is going to consider the extent to which this series
126
of advice notes (if I may use this phrase) will be made public when this firm have completed their task. It may interest the noble Earl to know, apropos charges, that my right honourable friend has said that he would not increase telephone charges even though installation costs the Post Office £120 as well as maintenance charges, while the rental is only £14 a year. To use my right honourable friend's phrase, this is "commercial nonsense".
I think that I have covered the points raised by noble Lords. I am grateful for the cordial reception the Bill has had, and with my noble friend Lord Popplewell I would pay my tribute to the men who go out, day after day, in the rain and wind to collect letters, take them back to the sorting offices and then go out again to put them through our letter boxes. I should like it to go on record that we appreciate very much the work that is done at this level.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, when she mentions £120 for installation costs, is she talking in absolute or in relative terms?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord the whole of my right honourable friend's words. He said:
"Telephone rentals have not been increased since 1961 and the present rental charge of £14 is commercial nonsense. It is not simply a question of the instrument in a subscriber's house. In addition there is the cable and the complicated exchange equipment for subscribers' use. All this costs the Post Office £120, and in addition there are of course maintenance charges."
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, with respect, the question I asked was whether the noble Lady was speaking in absolute or relative terms. Obviously, if in some cases installation cost £120, it might in other cases be less, or more. If this was the absolute cost, and the Postmaster General was taking £120 in the maximum case, there must be many in which the cost is far less. Then rental charge against this must also be qualified.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My noble friend will appreciate that it would he wrong for me to give him a direct off-the-cuff reply in view of all the other things that were said. I should think—and I put it no higher than this—that this is an average. However, if my noble

127
friend desires an explanation, I will send him a reply in writing.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton has already said, we do not propose to move the House into Committee this evening upon this Bill. It is proposed that the Committee stage be taken on Thursday next instead of to-night.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
8.41 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Jurisdiction of county courts in undefended matrimonial causes
1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order designate any county court as a divorce court, and any court so designated shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any undefended matrimonial cause, except that it shall have jurisdiction to try such a cause only if it is also designated in the order as a court of trial.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) after "undefended" to insert "or defended". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for having arranged for this Report stage, so enabling me to move my Amendment which was due to be moved on the Committee stage. I was, unfortunately, quite unable to be present for the Committee stage, and I recognise it as a great act of courtesy on the part of my noble and learned friend in enabling me to move it now. I have three Amendments on the Order Paper, but they all stand together, and in moving the first I am virtually moving all three.
The object of the Amendment is a simple one. It is to enable the Government at some time, if they find that the existing proposals in the Bill are working satisfactorily—that is to say, if they find that undefended cases are being satisfactorily disposed of in the county
128
courts—to make rules so as to enable certain defended cases to be taken in the county courts. It is not intended—and if my Amendment gives this impression, then it will not be the first time that an Amendment has been badly worded—that this should operate now. I think it would be a mistake to introduce defended cases into the county courts at the present stage. But I think it might well be desirable in a few years' time after we have had ample experience of the working of undefended cases in the county courts. What I am suggesting, however, is that, if it should be thought desirable hereafter, we should have the opportunity of introducing defended cases into the county courts by a simple rule, without having to get fresh legislation.
What I have in mind is not that all defended cases should ever be dealt with by the county courts. Some of them are very long and complicated, and I think they are more appropriately dealt with in the High Court. But there is a considerable proportion of defended cases which are of short duration and simple in character which could be quite well dealt with in the county courts. As my noble and learned friend knows, there is a procedure by which a petitioner in a matrimonial case files a petition and fully sets out the grounds upon which she is seeking relief, and in due course the respondent, if he wants to defend, sets out in full his answer to the petition; and then there may be in either case, where the actual petition or defence is not clear, further particulars delivered, and eventually the case is complete so that each side knows exactly what is the case that is going to be presented by the other.
At this stage, the matter would go before a registrar of the county court. The registrar would then be able to assess whether that defended case was likely to be a lengthy or a short case, or even if it was merely a formal defence for the purpose of enabling the respondent to appear, but not to put up any serious defence. What I have in mind—as I say, not immediately, but in due course, when experience has justified it—is that it would be for the registrar to decide, on the basis of the estimated time to be taken and their complexity, which of these defended cases should be dealt with

129
in the county court and which should go to the High Court. A case that might be disposed of perhaps in a couple of hours, I suggest, would be a suitable case to be dealt with in the county courts; a case which might take a day or more would be suitable to go to the High Court. In the event of any dispute, there would be an appeal to the county court judge. It seems to me—and I have had some experience in these matters—that there should be no difficulty by the time the pleadings are closed in forming a fair judgment as to whether the case is (a) a lengthy one or (b) a simple one.
There will never be any danger of the courts being overloaded. In 1965, the total number of defended cases was 2,825, of which 1,045 were in London and 1,780 were in the provinces. I assume it would not matter very much if the London cases were dealt with in the High Court, although, again, I see no reason why a proportion of them should not be dealt with in the county courts. But if one takes the whole 2,825 (I have no means of forming an accurate judgment) and if one were to say that roughly half of them would fall in the category of simple defended cases that could be dealt with in the county court, this would look like 1,400 a year and since we are going to have over 100 county courts which will be dealing with undefended divorce, 14 a year, on an average, would not unduly overload a county court. From that point of view, therefore, I submit that there would be no ground for not enabling county courts to deal with a case of this kind.
I realise that there is a difficulty about extending the undefended divorce cases to the county courts, which is that a case heard in the county court will enable a solicitor to have a right of audience. I should think that a good many solicitors would actually appear on behalf of their clients in undefended cases. There would, of course, be a considerable saving, whether on account of counsel's fees or otherwise. On Second Reading my noble and learned friend said it was estimated that the saving might be something like £700,000 a year. I ventured to guess that it might be somewhat more than that, but be that as it may, that is the order of the saving by enabling undefended divorce cases to be dealt with in the county courts.
There might be a further saving if defended cases of the kind I have described could be dealt with in the county courts as well, but I do not base my case on that. I base my case on the convenience of enabling both parties in a defended case to appear in the county court locally with their witnesses, rather than having to attend in London or at the Assize courts, which may be some considerable distance away. It may well be that they would have to be away for one or two days, and spend the night at an hotel. This is an inconvenient and costly business for a great many people who cannot afford it, and therefore if these simple cases could he dealt with in the county courts it would result in a substantial convenience to those who are participating.
The question arises of the right of audience in such cases. There is no suggestion that solicitors should not have the right of audience in undefended cases, but I recognise that it may be a hardship for the Bar that they should be able to appear in defended cases. I should be willing to incorporate in the Amendment words to give the Bar the exclusive right of audience in defended cases. I think that would be right, because it gives the young barrister the opportunity of finding his feet, of being able to express himself and of feeling his way round the courts, which he would not do in undefended cases, which are largely formalities. I think it would be a good thing to enable the members of the Bar to have this exclusive right, and if my noble and learned friend was prepared in principle to accept the idea that one day, when it was eventually decided that the time was appropriate, short defended cases should be dealt with in the county court, I should certainly be prepared to incorporate in my Amendment words conferring upon members of the Bar the exclusive right of audience in these cases in the county court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("undefended") insert ("or defended").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, do not know whether I can say anything which will persuade my noble friend Lord Silkin not to press his Amendment. If I cannot, I hope the noble and learned

131
Lord on the Woolsack will be able to do so. As I understand my noble friend, he is not pressing for this to take effect immediately, but merely to make provision in the Bill that, should it be considered desirable at some later date, the machinery will be there to enable it to be done. The fact that the noble Lord does not envisage that it should be done immediately makes me say, with great respect, that I hope he will not press his Amendment, but that if he or any other of your Lordships felt at a later date that it was desirable to make that provision, then it should be made by making a change in the Bill after it has become an Act.
My reason for opposing this Amendment is not on the grounds that it may be a matter of conflict between members of the Bar and solicitors. I am not concerned with that at all, any more than I am concerned with the time factor. I think that in a marriage which is on the point of breaking down the time factor is unimportant. I think people should realise that marriage is a sacred institution, and that it is perhaps necessary to spend some time on it. Nor am I concerned with the saving in money. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that the saving on undefended cases being heard in the county court would be in the region of £400,000, if my memory serves me correctly, but frankly I do not think it is worth saving that amount of money by taking even undefended cases to the county court.
As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows—because I have said this before—I am not persuaded that it is in the best interests of family life or of the community that divorce cases should go to the county court at all. I know it can be argued that perhaps a bad marriage needs an unceremonious burial, but I think that if it is going to be given such a burial it needs to be done with dignity; and quite frankly I do not think that divorce cases in the county court, whether they be defended or undefended, would mean that a marriage would get a dignified burial. I think that, so far as the public are concerned, the county court is a kind of "dumping ground". I say this with great respect, and casting no reflection
132
on county court judges. The county court takes cases which are considered to be too important for the magistrates courts, and cases which are not considered to be important enough for the High Court. In these undefended cases, which I understand in many instances take only a matter of a few minutes, I do not see how the court can discharge its responsibility—if I have this correctly, and I may not—of seeing that there is no condonation, connivance or collusion. I do not know how it does it in the time.
When we move towards thinking in terms of including defended cases, I want to remind your Lordships of what Commission after Commission has said about this. I do not want to go back into the dim and distant past, but the Gorell Commission in 1912 made it quite clear that divorce was an extremely grave matter. Divorce is a grave matter, whether it be undefended or defended, and the Commission went so far as to say that such cases should be determined by the superior courts. I can come nearer home and remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce which published its Report in 1956 said:
"We accept that principle as sound and as being as applicable today as in 1912".
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend's train of thought, but is he not arguing against the principle of the Bill, which has now received a Second Reading? Is not his argument equally applicable to undefended cases as to defended cases? He is merely having another bite at his opposition to the Bill.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Silkin is perfectly right. I think probably I am guilty of doing precisely that, but it is because I feel it is wrong that undefended cases should go to the county court that I feel it is doubly wrong that defended cases should go there. If I may say so, I nail my flag to the mast of the Denning Committee, which said this:
"If there is a careful and dignified proceeding such as obtains in the High Court for the undoing of a marriage then quite unconsciously"—
and this is the point I would emphasise—
"people will have a much more respectful view of the marriage tie and of the marriage

133
status than they would if divorce were effected informally in an inferior court."
Divorces are becoming greater in number every year; there has been a steady increase in the incidence of divorce for some years now. It is important, I feel, that we should maintain the right kind of image in this country, so far as marriage is concerned, and I think we should be doing a very grave disservice if the House accepted the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Silkin, because I think that would be the thin end of the wedge and moving towards the kind of system one finds in Reno to-day. It would be only a matter of years before somebody said, "Let us take it to the magistrates' courts", and after only a matter of years before people would be going along to their local town hall to dissolve their marriage. I think this is the thin end of the wedge, and would be disastrous to family life in this country; and, while I have made my own views known in the past with regard to undefended cases, I am now dealing with the Amendment which relates to defended cases, and I hope that the House will not accept it.
9.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first remind your Lordships what happens at present? Although it is done in the name of the High Court, the county court judges do, in fact, deal with nearly all the undefended divorce cases and, outside London, with a certain number of defended cases that are likely not to last more than three hours. Of course, the Lord Chancellor is always entitled to appoint any barrister of sufficient standing, and a fortiori a county court judge, to try High Court cases, and that has happened on a number of occasions a year in different places, simply because a High Court Judge is taken ill and no other High Court Judge is available. If this were not done, those on remand in prison would remain untried too long or civil litigants would have to wait too long. The Lord Chancellor has used those powers in the past to enable county court judges to try defended cases, and he could do so again.
I mention that only because at the Committee stage in answer to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I made what I think was a rather equivocal remark. I said:
"Of course, the noble and learned Viscount knows that the Lord Chancellor may always
134
appoint a county court judge or an official referee or a barrister of sufficient standing to act as a Commissioner, therefore having power to try High Court cases."
And then I said:
"but one would not want to do that in the ordinary way without the approval of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/3/67, col. 1192.]
It seems to me a somewhat equivocal remark to have made. All I had in mind was this. If the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is not made, so that the county court judges try only undefended cases, it is still quite possible that for a time they may have to try some defended cases if it turns out that the High Court Judges now available are having considerable difficulties in dealing with this increase in work until one or more additional High Court Judges can be appointed. What I intended to say was that I should not use this power to allow the county court judges to continue doing defended cases on the whole and without time limit. I meant that to exercise my powers in that way, to do that without the approval of Parliament, would be wrong, if Parliament had taken the view which is put before them in this Bill: that county court judges should do only undefended cases.
What the county court judges should do is a question on which there are three different views. There is the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, and my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, that the county court judges should not do any divorce cases at all. Secondly, there is the view of my noble friend Lord Silkin, that they ought to be able to do not only undefended but defended cases, too, if the Lord Chancellor thinks it right. I do not think, in answer to the Amendment, that this is a matter which ought to be left to the Lord Chancellor. I think that Parliament ought to take a decision. The third view, which is the Government's view, is that they should do undefended cases but not defended cases.
Of course, the parties are vitally concerned in their own divorce case, and I think we shall probably all agree that the State also has an interest. If one were to disregard the interest of the parties and consider only the interest of the State, I could understand the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning:

135
that from that point of view the undefended case is just as important as the defended case. But from the point of view of the parties themselves there is all the difference in the world between a case in which one spouse is saying, "I am entitled to a divorce", and the other is saying "No, you are not", on which the whole of their marital future depends, and an undefended case in which there is no dispute. I appreciate the views put forward by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, but I am not sure how far he appreciates that it is the county court judges who are now doing all the undefended cases in the Law Courts. They can go on doing them in the Law Courts, or the appropriate courts, and if the Bill is passed as it stands they will simply go on doing, very largely in the same courts, by the same procedure, exactly the same as they are doing now, except that they will be doing it in the county court instead of, as at present, being really county court judges but, as I have said, dressed up as High Court Judges for the day.
The difficulties which I feel about this Amendment are, first, that one of the main reasons for giving county courts jurisdiction in undefended divorce cases is that they have done them for the last twenty years. But while they have also done some short defended cases outside London, the 24 county court judges who help in divorce cases in London take only undefended cases. Therefore, it would mean that about a quarter of the county court judges would be dealing with defended cases, which they have never done before. I suggest to my noble friend that the only logical distinction is between those which are defended and those which are undefended. Once this distinction is abandoned, one is left with the alternatives of giving county courts jurisdiction to deal with all cases, defended and undefended alike, except those which the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, thinks ought to be tried in the High Court, or as my noble friend's second Amendment suggests, leaving the matter to Rules of Court.
The difficulty about the first alternative is that nobody would ever know in advance whether a case was likely to be tried in the county court or in the High Court; no doubt variations in practice
136
would tend to develop between one county court and another, and I suggest that his proposal to leave it to the county court registrar to decide is not a very satisfactory one. If the second alternative of leaving the matter to rules were adopted, it depends of course what rules you adopt.
There is no statutory definition of what is a short defended case. At the moment it is one which is estimated to last not more than three hours. My noble friend suggests that the registrar should decide on looking at the pleadings, but it is a difficult way, I would suggest, in which to distinguish between those cases which should be tried in the High Court and those which should be tried in the county court. If, on the other hand, one tries to adopt the yardstick of the difficulty or importance of the case, then again it would not I think be satisfactory to leave this to the county court registrar.
The Bill goes some way towards meeting my noble friend's object, because Clause 1(5) requires Rules of Court to define the circumstances in which any matrimonial cause is to be treated as undefended. It is intended that where the answer is a purely formal one, the cause should not be treated as defended. For example, a petition for divorce on the grounds of the respondent's incurable insanity is one in which the official solicitor acting on behalf of the respondent invariably puts in a formal answer. He is saying in effect, "Well, you prove your case". Those cases are not in fact contested, and this might very well be included in the definition of an undefended case. Similarly, if after an answer has been filed and the case has been transferred to the High Court the answer is struck out, the petition would be treated as undefended, and sent back to the county court. Apart from obvious cases of this kind it would be impracticable for rules to draw any satisfactory distinction between a case which was fit for the High Court and one which should remain in the county court.
I hope, therefore, that on reconsideration my noble friend will not press this Amendment. I am sure myself that the basis of this rather modest Bill is right. It means, as I have said before, that the county court judges will hear fewer divorce cases than they do now, because they will no longer hear the defended

137
ones. For twenty years now they have heard all the undefended ones, and it has really only been a pretence that they are heard in the High Court. On those grounds I would very much hope my noble friend may think it right not to press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division. I am disappointed, and I should like to think about my noble and learned friend's reply when I read it in Hansard to-morrow. In the circumstances this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Remuneration of persons giving legal aid
9. Rules of court may provide that the sums payable under section 6(5) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 to a solicitor or counsel acting in an undefended matrimonial cause shall, instead of being an amount ascertained on taxation or assessment of costs as provided by Schedule 3 to that Act, be such fixed amount specified in the rules as may be applicable under the rules; and may provide for modifying the said Schedule in relation to any proceedings which by virtue of this Act are at any stage treated as pending in a divorce county court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out all words after "shall", down to and including "rules;" and to insert:
"at his election, be either—

(a) such fixed amount specified in the rules as may be applicable under the rules; or

(b) an amount ascertained on taxation or assessment of costs as provided by Schedule 3 to that Act, but excluding from those costs the cost of taxation or assessment in any case where the amount so ascertained (with that exclusion) does not exceed the said fixed amount".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a somewhat technical one. Its object is to ensure that the prescribing of fixed costs in undefended divorce cases will not prevent the costs being taxed if the solicitor or counsel so desires. As it stands, the first part of Clause 9 enables Rules of Court to provide that the sums payable to a solicitor or counsel acting for an assisted person in an un-
138
defended matrimonial cause shall be such fixed amounts as may be applicable under the rules, instead of being an amount ascertained on taxation as provided by Schedule 3 to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. It has been suggested that this provision may have the effect of excluding the possibility of taxation in the cases in which the fixed costs prescribed by the rules are applicable. This is not the intention behind the clause.
As I explained on the Second Reading at col. 173, a solicitor should continue to have the right to demand taxation if he wishes, although if he receives on taxation no more than he would have been allowed by way of fixed costs, he ought to have to pay the costs ordinarily allowed for drawing the bill and attending the taxation. The Amendment makes it clear that the rules can give the solicitor or counsel an election accompanied by a sanction against its being exercised irresponsibly. In the cases in which the fixed costs prescribed by the rules are applicable, the solicitor or counsel will have the option of accepting the fixed costs or of asking for his costs to be taxed, but if he asks for taxation and the amount allowed (excluding the cost of taxation) is no more than the fixed costs, the cost of taxation will not be included in the amount allowed.
Fixed costs will, I think, be helpful, because it will lead to a reduction in costs for the clients, because solicitors are usually prepared to take less if they do not have the trouble of having to get out a detailed bill of costs and attend the registrar for taxation. There is a danger, however, that in the absence of some sanction the right to ask for taxation might occasionally be abused. Therefore, it is only right that, should it turn out that they get no more by applying for taxation than the fixed costs that they would have got when applying for taxation, they should have to pay themselves for the costs incurred in the initial taxation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SHEFFIELD ORDER 1967
9.16 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Sheffield Order 1967 [S.I. 1967 No. 104], laid before the House on 8th February, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Prayer standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should like to express not only my own regret, but I am sure that of all your Lordships at the lateness of the hour. I offer my apologies at this time for making these few remarks, but I regard this as an important matter.
During the course of what I have to say I shall certainly be critical, and my criticism will not be on the basis of a narrow parochialism; neither will it be through lack of interest in the reform of local government.
May I just bring to your Lordships' notice the purpose of the Order? I will do this quite briefly, because of the time. It is to give effect to the proposals of the Local Government Commission which were made in June, 1964. May I say that since that time it has been a long road, a lot has been done, and to-day appears to be the last stage of what has been taking place during these last two years? I would draw your Lordships' attention to the effect that this Order will have on the administrative county of Derby. It proposes to transfer some 33,000 persons, and a rateable value of £850,000, to the City of Sheffield. But that is only part of the process. I understand that later this year there is to be another Order laid before both Houses of Parliament, respecting proposals for the south-western part of the county. The cumulative effect of this involves the transfer from the county area of 123,000 population and a rateable value of £3¾ million. My remarks to-night will refer, naturally, only to the Sheffield Order.
There are two comments that I should like to make. The first (I know that this is within the knowledge of everybody, but I think that it should be repeated) is that the Local Government Commission Which was responsible for these proposals has now been abandoned, relegated to the limbo of the past. Further, these proposals on the basis of
140
logic can by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as local government reform as I understand it. What is proposed is a territorial expansion of an existing substantial county borough—just a transfer of people from A to B. May I say in passing, because I shall refer to this later on, that this proposed transfer is bitterly resented by the inhabitants of the areas to be transferred?
The inspector who conducted the inquiry was under no misapprehension about how the inhabitants in these areas felt. I should like to quote very briefly what he said in paragraph 56 of the report:
"Throughout the inquiry it was made clear that the inhabitants in the areas to be transferred were against the proposals. In order to be able the more forcibly to express their views, they asked me to attend evening meetings in each of the four parishes concerned. All the meetings were well attended, the audiences"—
this is something of a miracle in these days—
"numbering between 300 and 500 people, and in some cases people were turned away. Twenty or 30 speakers addressed each meeting, and save for one dissentient voice the audiences were unanimous in their opposition to the proposals."
May I now submit to your Lordships the reasons why I am seeking the annulment of this Order? There are a number, and I will spell them out without a lot of detailed comment. The first is that the provisions of the Order are not at the present time in the interests of effective and convenient local government. I should like to pause here and mention one phase of this business in the sphere of education. There is a large comprehensive school, called Egginton Westfield School, which accommodates 1,100 pupils, and the site upon which this school has been built will be part of the territory which under this Order is to be transferred to the City of Sheffield. But for a number of years it is estimated that two-thirds of the county of Derbyshire children will be attending this particular school. I would remind your Lordships that the Minister, when making his decision in regard to one part of Lincolnshire, made reference to the fact that it was inadvisable for pupils of one authority to attend the school of another authority.
The second reason is that the effect of the Order is to pre-judge the planning

141
of the area. It is not at all a proper solution to the overspill problem of Sheffield. May I say here that everybody recognises that this is a real problem for the city. But the Derbyshire County Council consider that the long-term solution of Sheffield's overspill problem is a new town further afield, and this proposal has been endorsed in the first Report of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council as recently as November 14 last year.
The third point which I should like to make is that there is an inconsistency with other decisions which have been made by the Minister. I will say only that in adjacent areas, where comparable circumstances exist, the Minister's decision was the opposite to the decision he gave in regard to the Sheffield area. Fourthly—and I do not put it last because it is the least important, and I think it should have priority No. 1—there is the question of the wishes of the inhabitants. I have already made a brief reference to this. May I remind your Lordships that when the Order was debated in another place two weeks ago, 650 residents of the areas to be transferred journeyed to London to express their disappointment with the Minister's decision, and their disagreement with and resentment of this Order. I would say in all seriousness and sincerity, from my knowledge of the area and of many of the people who live therein, that if this Order passes and if these proposals materialise, it will be the infliction of a wound which will take a very long time to heal.
I now return to what I regard as the main argument in the case which I am putting. First of all, there is timing. I spoke in your Lordships' House on the Torbay Order, and the kernel of what I had to say on that occasion was: Why not a standstill? Why should there be a standstill? It is for the very potent reason that the Local Government Commission responsible for these proposals has been abandoned. By some strange coincidence even in this House tonight we have had the Second Reading of a Bill terminating the reviews which were laid down in the legislation of 1958. I believe there are 62 county councils in England and Wales, and only three of the counties completed their reviews before last August. That leaves 59 reviews which
142
have not been made, and we have had a Bill to-night saying that they are terminated and that there shall be a standstill.
In my view, the Royal Commission which has been appointed is making a fresh start. That is very necessary because, as I said on the Torbay Order, the 1958 legislation had no teeth in it at all. The terms of reference which have been given, to the Royal Commission are as follows: first, to look at the basic structure and functions of local government; and, secondly, to make recommendations for authorities and their boundaries, having regard to the size and character of the area in which those functions can he exercised. Those terms of reference of the Royal Commission are the equivalent of a major operation in the field of local government.
To me, it seems that the Government, in embarking on this course, were not satisfied that the 1958 legislation could do the job; and what has emerged therefrom has not been the most effective way of dealing with the thorny, controversial questions of reform in the field of local government. But, irrespective of what has been done arid what is now proposed, the appointment of the Royal Commission indicated, in my humble judgment, a fresh start. What has been said to them is: "Collect the evidence. Grasp this nettle. Treat the matter with urgency"—and it is hoped to have the Report by the middle of 1968. In view of this, a standstill on this Order and on similar Orders is, in my humble judgment, very desirable.
I advocate this course for two reasons: the first administrative, and the second psychological. If a standstill was ordered, it would mean that, administratively, a great deal of time and effort would not be needlessly spent. I put it to your Lordships: why run the risk—and there is a very grave risk in this—of having two upheavals in a relatively short time affecting large numbers of the population? I believe it is a reasonable assumption—and I think this is the basis of the evidence given to the Commission—that proposals and legislation are likely to emerge so far as structure, boundaries and functions are concerned. I would submit, if I may, a very humble opinion: that the Government should at this stage order a standstill in respect of this Order, and also

143
of other Orders which are in the pipeline, until the proposals of the Royal Commission are known. I applaud the action of the Government in appointing the Royal Commission, but I take the view, very seriously and sincerely, that in view of that appointment they are mistaken in not applying a standstill. I believe that what we have done in this House tonight, so far as concerns the termination of the reviews by the county councils, is very wise; and if it is right in that case, surely it cannot be wrong so far as this Order is concerned. Otherwise, one would be applying to one matter a different standard from that applied to another.
Finally, may I say that I do not regard this as a Party political matter. I listened to the debate in another place, as I have mentioned, two weeks ago, and there were two speakers on the Opposition side of another place. One was for the Order and one was against it. On the Government side, there were five speakers. Two were for the Order and three were against it. In conclusion, may I say that when my noble friend comes to reply I should like very much to hear him say—and I know many thousands of people in the areas affected would like to hear him say—that on this matter, on this Order, there have been second thoughts. I should like the Government to think again, and to say that it has been decided, in view of the pending Royal Commission Report, that, as in the case of the reviews, there should be a standstill. I should like my noble friend, when he comes to reply, to say that the process of thinking again has been put very much into operation by the Government, and that we are to have a standstill so far as this Order is concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Sheffield Order 1967 [S.I. 1967 No. 104], laid before the House on 8th February, be annulled.—(Lord Taylor of Mansfield.)
9.35 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, I am venturing to speak on this Motion for the first time in your Lordships' House, and I hope I may be forgiven if, through ignorance, I transgress at any point the customs and conventions of those who speak in this House. I hope also that I may have your sympathy
144
in speaking at this very late hour. I propose to cut out a great deal of what I might have said and to confine myself to main headings. It is never very easy to adjust what one intended to say at short notice in that kind of way.
I think this is a matter which raises issues of national policy, the future wellbeing of our people. It is not just a matter for dispute between Derbyshire County Council and Sheffield City; certainly not a matter of Party politics. It is a matter we need to look at on a long view and in the light of various issues of national policy.
It seems to me that there are four main issues, and that to each of them there is a counter-issue. I think that the Derbyshire County Council is giving account of what 1 would call the major issue while at the same time, by its nature, by the fact that it draws into itself people concerned with the country, it is looking rather more adequately at what I would call the counter-issue. There is the issue of population, of population pressure. We all agree that that is urgent. It is going to be a growing factor in Sheffield and in our whole country, as it is one of the most urgent issues of our generation on a world scale. But just because it is an urgent issue, there is the counter-issue of food. People have mouths and need to be fed. There is therefore the counter-issue of agriculture, and I am told that the Sheffield proposals for this area mean the use of some 1,400 or 1,500 acres of good agricultural land over and above the original Derbyshire proposals for the area round Eckington and Mosbrough.
There is the issue of homes for our people; and that certainly is most urgent. We should do nothing to delay or prevent the building of homes that are needed in these urgent days. That is recognised from the side of the Derbyshire County Council. If there is delay over the Order, I would certainly hope—and I expect the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, would agree—that there should be no delay in going forward with building plans that would take some of the Sheffield overspill. That is provided for; but if there are to be homes, if there is to be more and more building in England, then it becomes more and more necessary that there should be open spaces; that there should be adequate

145
playing fields for young people, and that there should be open places to which people can go for fresh air and recreation.
The Derbyshire County Council has shown a greater concern for preserving a green stretch between the built-up areas which has to come round the Mosbrough area to prevent it from becoming one vast conurbation with Sheffield. It is worth saying also that Derbyshire has its first of the National Parks, and that it received a European award not long ago for the care and preservation of an area of unspoiled beauty.
While that area is not directly involved in the area with which we are concerned under this Order, it is relevant because it is obviously questionable whether county councils can continue to be viable and to care for the open country and relatively undeveloped areas unless they keep under their care too some of the more densely populated areas. That seems to me to be the relevance of the figures about population and rates. It is not a question of power politics; it is a question of keeping a constant concern about densely populated areas and more open agricultural areas and areas of the countryside.
Then, my Lords, there is the issue of work. Of course we need work for our people and we need to build up exports to pay for imports. In that respect the name of Sheffield is famous throughout the world, but with automation and, it would seem, in developing technological interests, we are likely in the years to come to produce the things we need with shorter hours of work, and recreation is likely to be an issue in the future quite as much as work. This has been mentioned several times in our debate. Here, again, Derbyshire with its National Park, has a very strong tradition of care for young people and of educating youth and youth leaders in the things that belong to healthy creation suited to such areas as the National Parks—climbing, potholing, the beauty of the countryside, flowers, ferns and so on. They are healthy interests which are needed in our modern world, as the peace of the countryside is needed as a counterpart to the greater pressure and pace of life in our towns.
Finally, there is the issue of large-scale organisation. Obviously that is needed
146
in the sphere of transport and in other spheres. But over against it there is the issue of local loyalties, the fellowship of small communities and respect for the feelings of people in very small communities. The small communities are training grounds for responsibility. If we lose that training ground we may find that we are losing those qualities of leadership which we need in the larger communities as well.
On that issue the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, has said that the Derbyshire County Council has been showing a greater respect for the people in the mining and other villages in this part of Derbyshire. The county administration with its three-tier system—county council and rural district and parish councils—is the more likely to build and develop these local loyalties and responsibilities which again are something precious in our national heritage. All these issues will no doubt be considered, are being considered, by the Royal Comission on Local Government. We do not yet know what their Report will say. The very fact that it is imminent within a little over one year's time is a reason for waiting and reviewing these issues in the light of the Royal Commission's Report.
Looking ahead, people are talking in terms of local regions and for complete reorganisation of local government. There may well be needs for new and wider patterns of local government in various spheres. There may well be needs for adjustments of boundaries in different spheres. The part of the Gleadless Estate which is in Derbyshire is much more closely connected with Sheffield than are Beighton and Mosbrough. These things may come, but I see also the possibility that this Order may be the first step on a dangerous road.
The argument for city regions, with their commuter areas can be pressed too far. How far do commuter areas go in these days of faster transport? One can see the possibility of Manchester taking over Glossop and Chapel-en-le-Frith as far as Buxton. Sheffield may revive its earlier claim to come as far as Dronfield and perhaps Chesterfield. Burton will no doubt want to take parts of the East side of Derbyshire.
What would be left of the county, or indeed of other counties, if you applied

147
the same argument to them? What would be left of the Peak District National Park? I think it would be a dangerous prospect for our country if we saw the whole of England becoming urbanised. We would lose all sorts of things that are precious in our national heritage and quite as necessary for people living in towns as a change from the pace and pressure of town life as they are for those who live in the country and treasure the traditions of the country.
These are some of the things which we shall have to look at a great deal more thoroughly when we come to look at the suggestions of the Local Government Report for new planning of administration. But while there are all these issues before us, it seems to me a little unwise to take steps to forestall the Commission's Report, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, that it is time to say to the Government, "Let us think again".
9.49 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I rise for two or three minutes to say that I hope that on local domestic matters that arise the Government will take notice of the Back Benchers in your Lordships' House and in another place. While I know nothing about Derbyshire, though I have been there many times, I know that there are Orders to come, one of which may affect Tyneside. If we get a Tyneside conurbation—I do not know what the Minister's ideas are about it—it will have nearly 2 million people and if the local authorities, who have been municipal boroughs for a hundred years, are left to do only the cemeteries and parks, and all the little menial matters that cannot be dealt with at regional level, there is going to be trouble. The Government have got to recognise that in these matters people have local feelings and loyalties. The Government cannot just say, "This is what we think", without taking into consideration what the local people in the area think. That is the danger that I see arising with all these Orders.
Why did the Government set up the Royal Commission to review the whole circumstances of local government and then, in the interim period, bring in the "heavy boot" of these Orders, which are going to upset everybody, with the possibility that, when they have been passed
148
and are in operation, the Royal Commission may come down on the other side; and people will be upset again? It is because of the impending decisions that I, coming from Tyneside, speak tonight. I shall finish now, and I shall be quite frank. If my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield carries this issue to a Division to-night, I shall support him, because I think the Government must face the fact that they have to take into consideration at some time the feelings of the people in the areas.
9.52 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, let me first say this to my noble friend Lord Blyton, for whom, as he knows, I have a very special feeling, because I sponsored him when he first arrived in this House. We are not discussing Tyneside at the moment, and anything that we say about this Order is no precedent, one way or the other, about Tyneside. But I would say this to him. He has told the House that people have local feelings, and it becomes the Government to remember this fact. And so it does. But in all these local government Orders there are local feelings on both sides, and I think it would ill become a Government to consider the local feelings on the side which has taken more trouble with the lobbying and all the documents than those on the other side who, for better or worse, have rested their case on that presented to the Local Government Commission.
We have had the pleasure of listening to an admirable maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. I hope that it will be the first of many. I can only say this to him, as some comfort: that we are not really proposing to urbanise the whole of England with this county borough extension, or with any of them; there will be sizeable tracts left. National Parks are not affected, and I believe that if he looks at the map of the proposed Sheffield extensions closely he will see the country that is taken in is of a pretty suburban nature already. There is nothing truly rustic, let alone anything wild, in these extensions.
We have heard a sincere and convinced speech from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield. I admire his sincerity in this matter. I should not be saying that, but I do: I want to say it.

149
Let me take, first of all, his point about the general standstill. He asked whether there could not be a general standstill of all these local government Orders because of the Royal Commission. I do not want to trouble the House by putting again the case which I put earlier this afternoon on the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Bill, and which I put a few days ago on the Teesside Order. The case is that a great deal of work has been done, and we are reluctant to lose the benefit of that work because we have set up the bigger review. In all these cases that we are bringing forward the Government are convinced that there is a case for doing it now, before the Royal Commission on Local Government reports in a number of years into the future.
My noble friend said that it would not be "convenient and effective" (I quote the words of the 1958 Act) to extend the boundaries of Sheffield in this way. But the Local Government Commission said that it would be convenient and effective to do so. And the moment before my noble friend said this he lamented the demise of the Commission on Local Government as though it were a wise and valuable body which we should not have terminated.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, if I said that, I did not intend to. I do not think that I said either that I welcomed or did not welcome the demise of the Local Government Commission in those words.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord mistakes me. I took it that he was saying that we should not have terminated the Local Government Commission.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: The words I used were that I applauded the Government for having set up the Royal Commission and, by so doing, I welcomed the demise of the Local Government Commission, which has now been abandoned.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry, I mistook the noble Lord's drift. In any case, it was the opinion of the Local Government Commission that this extension would be convenient and effective—an opinion which the Government in this case, as in most of these cases, endorsed.
150
I will not trouble the House with a lengthy account of the history of this Order. It is similar to that of others which have been before the House recently. The Local Government Commission began their review of the area in question in the Spring of 1960, no less than seven years ago. They published their draft proposals at the end of 1962; they held their statutory conference with the local authorities in 1963, and their final proposals were published in 1964. There were objections to these proposals and there was a counter-proposal by the City Council of Sheffield for additional areas to be included in the city beyond what the Local Government Commission had recommended. The Minister appointed an inspector who held a local inquiry into these objections in the summer of 1965. He then laid his report before the Minister, and the Minister endorsed it. The history is one which has become familiar to the House. It is the working out of the statutory provisions of the 1958 Act.
My noble friend rightly said that this was a long story. He also said that the people of the relevant part of Derbyshire were against it. The Government know that well. That is not in dispute. The people of that part of Derbyshire are against it, as we all know, but it is not as if we could make up our own minds in the abstract. We have Statute Law on this point which says that certain regulations shall govern what the Local Government Commission are to take into account. And these regulations list many factors to be taken into account, one of which—an important one—is local opinion, and others of which are based on the concept of convenient and effective local government. In this case the hostile opinion of the relevant part of the county of Derbyshire was not held by the Local Government Commission itself to outweigh the need for convenient and effective local government, which the Commission believed could be achieved only by this extension to the city.
Now we will come to the reasons. This is primarily a housing question. The City of Sheffield has at the moment 25,000 unfit houses. Every year more houses become unfit. The population of the City of Sheffield is growing, as the population of cities will. This situation has been apparent for some years, and

151
in 1962 the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Dr. Hill (as he then was), took a planning decision. His planning decision was that a total of not less than 80,000 people could not be housed within the existing city boundaries of Sheffield over the next so many years. Where should they go? He examined the question and he came to the conclusion that they should go here and there, but that 65,000 of them could be best housed, according to normal planning criteria, around Mosbrough. This was in 1962. A planning decision can be taken, but then there remain other problems.
How is it to be done? First of all, you may say: should it be in Mosbrough at all or further out? Should there be a new town, or must we have a corn-muter settlement, a commuter settlement for which Mosbrough suggests itself as the right place? I do not need to tell my noble friend that the industry of Sheffield is a little unlike the industry in many other cities in England. It is all very closely geared to one type of production. You cannot very easily take away a section of the industry in Sheffield and put it fifty or a hundred miles away. You disrupt the whole. The smaller firms feed the bigger ones. There is a well-established system of servicing one establishment from another, largely geared to the traditional products of the city. The Ministry's inspector in his report committed himself to the judgment that the removal of even 2 per cent. of the labour force of the City of Sheffield would be "an economic disaster". One cannot go against such judgments. So a new town is out; it has to be the commuter settlement, which means Mosbrough.
What is the best way to achieve this commuter settlement? It can be achieved in either of two ways; first, under overspill procedure, which means many thousands of houses built at Mosbrough but in the County of Derbyshire. For this to happen the agreement, and not only agreement but the active cooperation and help, of the County of Derbyshire would be necessary. Those of your Lordships who know this history will know that this collaboration was not forthcoming; the County of Derbyshire were not willing to redraw the town map
152
in order to accommodate this overspill in the territory of the county. I do not think it is for me to go into their reasons. I understand they believed the new town would have been the best solution in spite of the expert opinion of the effect of a new town on the economy of Sheffield.
So one has to look at the alternative to the overspill procedure, and there is one alternative only. That is the extension of the boundary of the city so that the large new housing development would be within the city boundaries of Sheffield. This is the conclusion that, after seven years of examination and statutory procedure, the Government have come to. I noticed that my noble friend did not say which of the other two conclusions he thinks we should have come to, whether overspill in the county or a new town. It was interesting also, I should like to say in passing, to note that this argumentation was broadly accepted by the Front Bench spokesman of the Opposition, Mr. Graham Page, in the House of Commons the other day.
There is the case for this Order. It is a very awkward one, and nobody knows better than the Government the intensity of the feeling which exists in Derbyshire against the proposal, and nobody regrets more than the Government their inability to find another way to do it. If the county had agreed to redraw the town map and accept overspill procedure this would have been the way. The new town is out. Since both these courses, for one reason or another, are impossible, nothing remains but extension of the city boundary. My noble friend has asked the Government to think again. The Government and the statutory machinery have been thinking again for seven years; the Commission have thought and published their draft proposals; they have thought again about them and published their final proposals; the Minister has thought again about them and sent an inspector to investigate on the spot; the Minister has thought about the inspector's recommendations.
The House will remember that when I had the duty of introducing the first of this series of Orders, the Torbay Order, because of the opposition that was voiced to it in this House I withdrew it temporarily, and a new Minister once again considered the whole series of Orders,

153
in view of the opposition and other factors. There has been no lack of thinking again on the Government side about this Order. In conclusion, I should like only to say to my noble friend that I wonder whether he could find it in his conscience, and compatible with his great experience of local government, to think again about pressing this Prayer to a Division this evening.
10.5 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, it is a late hour to be discussing a very important piece of legislation, affecting as it does, many thousands of people—33,000, to be precise, so far as the existing population is concerned. And there are many thousands of others who may possibly be moving into this area. It seems to me that there is a different procedure with regard to this Order from that on the Torbay Order. I do not know why. I take it that the Government have the power either to put these matters in the form of an Order subject to the Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure. The Torbay Order, I believe, came under the Affirmative Resolution procedure, but here the Order is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
It will take me some little time to discuss the ramifications of this matter in relation to the way with which it is now dealt. It is no desire of mine that the House should be debating this important matter at this late hour. If the Government so arrange their business that these important matters have to be discussed at such a late hour, there is no particular reason why we should not discuss them, notwithstanding the absence of Members from the Liberal Benches—those staunch supporters of individual liberty; or, for that matter, from the Opposition Front Bench, or the Back Benches.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that it is very very unusual to wait until the Minister has made his speech as on this occasion and then intervene? He is defying the ordinary practice of the House.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I am sorry. I am such a Philistine that I am not so well versed in the practice of the House. It is not unusual in another place, after the Minister has spoken, for
154
Members to speak—in fact, it is done frequently. I see no particular reason why it should not be done in this House. If the Minister says something that I should like to deal with, I prefer to listen to him first to see what his argument is; to see whether there is anything that I want to say about what he has said. It happens that on this occasion he said a number of things on which I want to say a word.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The customs for this House are not the customs of another place. The noble Lord is defying the ordinary customs of the House.
LORD PARGITER: I am sorry if I am defying the ordinary customs of the House. I take it that your Lordships may decide that I shall "be not heard", in which case I shall be not heard. But unless your Lordships so decide, I prefer to be heard. I will leave it to your Lordships to decide. After all, this Order affects a large number of people, and, as I say, it is not of my choosing that we have it at this late hour. If the Government choose to take a lot of business, and to put this Order at the tail end of it, they must accept that at least time will be taken. I am proposing to develop my arguments unless your Lordships decide otherwise.
I want to deal with one or two things which the Minister has said about this Order. I should like to deal with the general question of development, particularly as it applies to Sheffield, and also to certain other large cities. One of the objects of creating green belts around cities the size of Sheffield, Leeds, London, Birmingham and so on, was first that it was deemed desirable to set a limit to the development of large areas: that they should not become merely urban sprawls. We should begin to think in terms of containing them within a given area and if we wanted to do more than that we should begin to think in terms of other communities outside that particular area. That is particularly the case here.
Sheffield are notorious in this respect. They have never been willing to accept this idea that they ought to start and think in terms of establishing other communities, or help to do so. The thing they have always been concerned with is that they should be able to extend the area

155
of Sheffield just as long as they so wished; so long as they had surplus population in Sheffield which had to be rehoused, then Sheffield must be extended in order to accommodate it. If this is the theory that the Government have, I wish they would say so quite frankly, because this is precisely what they are doing in this particular instance. It is not the first time that this has happened with regard to Sheffield; it has happened before. So I suppose they think it can keep on happening until Sheffield are satisfied, and we shall have another urban sprawl, another conurbation, and we shall be scratching our heads and saying, "What on earth did we let this happen for?". That is where the Government are leading us at the present time.
It has been said that, so far as Derbyshire is concerned (the Minister raised a question which I did not fully appreciate), collaboration was not forthcoming—at any rate, the implication was that co-operation on the part of Derbyshire was not forthcoming. This just is not true, and I should like the Minister to admit it. The fact was that what Derbyshire wanted to do was what was proposed, and was supposed to be generally accepted policy—that is, to preserve a green belt around existing cities. They were prepared to discuss with Sheffield the question of development, and a quite considerable amount of development, provided that the green belt principle was observed. In other words, it was not to be an extension of Sheffield as such, but it was to be a separate development and a proper development of a proper community. It might have been a commuter community; it might well have been a community in which there would have been industry as well. But it is certainly not true to say that Derbyshire refused, because it is on record that Derbyshire repeatedly invited Sheffield to discuss this question of some development beyond the boundaries of the green belt, but Sheffield consistently refused to discuss it. Therefore the people who refused to discuss it are to be favoured, and the people who wanted to discuss alternatives are to be castigated and treated in this particular fashion.
This is no way in which the Government ought to treat a responsible authority such as the Derbyshire County
156
Council, and I must say that I regret that the matter has been put in this particular form before the House, with the implication that the Government had no alternative but to agree to the extension of Sheffield because there was no collaboration—they did not say upon whose part; but the implication was that there was a lack of co-operation on the part of Derbyshire. This just is not true, and I want it clearly understood, and I am making this statement quite clearly that that is the position as I now understand it.
The argument has also been used that 80,000 people need to be rehoused. Surely, rather than talking about the continuation of an existing city, it is really time to begin to talk in terms of a new town. When one talks about the closely integrated industry of Sheffield, I wonder whether I could remind the noble Lord of what his colleagues do with regard to many industries in many parts of the country where they want to expand their factories, and where probably, from an economic point of view, it is the best thing they could do. The Board of Trade say, "Oh no, we are not going to give you an I.D.C.; we shall not give you planning consent. You go and build another factory up in the development areas. Sheffield cannot do that."
This is pure nonsense. I am surprised at the Minister putting forward puerile arguments like that to your Lordships and expecting them to be accepted. There are vast sections of industry within Sheffield which are most improperly housed at the present time, which could well be moved out into new places and helped to form part of new communities, without interfering at all with the economic life of Sheffield. Certainly in these days of modern communications, when we realise the number of factories which were established around London, but which because the Board of Trade would not give them I.D.C.s were obliged to go to places like South Wales and establish subsidiary factories, with the transport of goods and pieces going backwards and forwards between South Wales and London, to suggest that this could not happen in Sheffield is asking your Lordships to accept just a little too much.
Should local feelings be taken account of? Whether they like it or not, 33,000 people are to be lumped into another

157
area, some of whom will have moved away from Sheffield in order to be able to get out of the area anyway. They are now going to be lumped into Sheffield, and Sheffield are to have their say with regard to their future development. Well, I suppose that 33,000 people are not very many from the Government point of view and that it does not really matter, but I should have thought they would have considered the possibility of the alternative as suggested to Sheffield. Sheffield have been secure in their position. They have not been prepared to take up and discuss these matters with Derbyshire, because they had in mind that what happened in the past would happen again. Sheffield have no need to talk to Derbyshire because the Government are going to give them what they want.
Having regard to what has happened on other occasions, I should not have been surprised, even if the Local Boundary Commission decided against Sheffield, if the Minister decided in favour of Sheffield, as he may have done in other cases. That is a matter of conjecture. I am not arguing that it would or would not be so, but the Minister is not bound by the decisions of the Boundary Commission and therefore Sheffield appears to be quite secure. They have no need to discuss the matter with Derbyshire, for in the end they will get their own way and obtain the extension of the city.
I do not blame Sheffield in the slightest for doing this. From their point of view, it is more power to their elbow. But whether this is providing effective local government and whether the central Government ought to agree to do this is another matter. If this were to be the preliminary to a new local government reorganisation, one might have taken a different look at this. Certainly Sheffield has a problem, but it is a problem which can be solved in another way without necessarily upsetting and affecting the lives of these 33,000 people.
I am not unduly concerned about the rateable value aspect—I am sorry if I am interrupting a conversation that is under way. I am not unduly worried about the question of £850,000 rateable value. The rateable value should be adjusted in various ways. We might at some stage re-rate agriculture or something like that. The Government are
158
shy of it, but I would not expect them to be otherwise on that particular problem. The fact remains that the whole of the Green Belt project in this particular case is being destroyed. It may be argued that it cannot happen again now because we shall be awaiting the report of the Royal Commission. However, I sincerely hope that this Prayer will be carried. If it is not carried, I hope that it is not defeated in such a way that the Prayer cannot be repeated, and we shall await to see what happens when we come to a decision.
My final word, quite sincerely, is this. Many of these Orders need not necessarily have been proceeded with once a decision was taken that the Royal Commission was being set up to deal with this problem. The Royal Commission was to take a wider look at the matter. So that even on the Ministry's own showing this is not the answer to the problem; it is not even the beginning of an answer. The Department mention 40 major authorities, looking at the country as a whole. This is not even beginning to touch the problem. It might be argued that Ministers are not responsible for what Departments tell Royal Commissions. This is a new theory, for I should like to know what Government Department gives its views to a Royal Commission without the Government looking at them.
The Government have decided to press on with this, in spite of what the Department are proposing, which, if it does not have ministerial approval, certainly does not have ministerial disapproval, and the position may well in the end be confusion worse confounded. I am making this plea not only in regard to Derbyshire, but with a view to stopping the Orders generally speaking, and I ask the Government to call a halt at this stage. I hope that the Government will be defeated at this stage. I am not particularly interested in protest votes. I know that in another place there are sometimes protest votes on the ground that the Government are not likely to be defeated. This particular instance does not involve confidence in the Government; the Government have already stated the issues in which confidence is involved. This is a relatively small issue affecting perhaps a small number of people, but also affecting a very large principle of local government.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall not speak, because I do not wish to condone a breach of the customs of the House. But if my noble friend were as conversant with the 1958 Act as I should have thought he might be, he would know that the question whether or not one of these Orders comes forward under Negative or Affirmative procedure has nothing to do with the will of the Government of the day but is determined by the Act. The Torbay Order came forward under the Affirmative procedure because it created a new county borough. This one comes forward under the Negative procedure because it does not create a new county borough, but extends an existing one.
10.22 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I feel that I have a right to reply. I am sorry that my noble friend has not been able to give a more satisfactory answer to the case which has been deployed for the revocation of this Order. During the course of his speech he said that the population of Sheffield was increasing. As I said, I listened to the debate in the other place a fortnight ago, where it was stated by one of the Sheffield Members who was supporting the Order that the population of Sheffield was decreasing. We should have to look at some of the statistics to see what is the correct position.
I regret that by implication my noble friend suggested that so far as Derbyshire County Council was concerned co-operation was not forthcoming. That is not really the case. I shall not deploy the argument further than my noble friend Lord Pargiter has done, but when my noble friend sees in print and reads
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with
160
all the evidence during the past sixteen or seventeen years, I think he will find that what he has said about co-operation and collaboration on the part of Derbyshire County Council is not at all the case.
My noble friend made some reference to overspill and a new town. The County Council of Derbyshire has always held the view that the long-term solution to this problem is the development of a new or expanded town further afield. May I remind my noble friend that there is not a new town on the eastern side of England from Corby to Peterlee, and the Economic Planning Council of Yorkshire and Humberside, looking at these matters objectively, have made the suggestion that the real solution to the problem of Sheffield's overspill population is a new town.
The only other thing I wish to say is this. Just as I asked the Minister to suggest to the Government that on this particular Order they should think again, he reciprocated by saying that it might be very good if I thought again with regard to taking this matter to a Division. I am on the horns of a dilemma. I have been a very loyal supporter of the Party which this Government represent for more than 50 years, but I feel very sincerely that I cannot be guilty of a breach of faith to some of my very good friends in Derbyshire, who feel this position very keenly and who feel that the Government are making a mistake in perpetrating this Order. I agree with them; and, with some reluctance, I am proposing to take this Motion to a Division.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Blyton, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L. [Teller.]

Derby, L. Bp.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hall, V.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Kennet, L.

Popplewell, L.

Burden, L.

Listowel, E.

Shackleton, L.

Crook, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shepherd, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Gifford, L.

Standing Order No.51 I declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon stands adjourned.

  GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS ON COMPANY BOARDS
  GOVERNMENT DIRECTORS ON COMPANY BOARDS