Sitting of 30 April 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
    HOLY TRINITY, WEST HAMPSTEAD BILL
      SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL
      Read the Third time and passed.
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL
      UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL
      As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
      LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
      Read a Second time and committed.
      COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
      Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 9th May, at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to assist the mobility of the disabled passenger group.
    Mr. Fortsecueasked the Minister of Health what action he now intends to take in order to provide vehicles for those too severely disabled to drive, and thus in need of the services of a second person as driver.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): With the exception of certain disabled war pensioners, invalid vehicles are provided at Exchequer expense only to those who can with safety drive the vehicle themselves. I have no plans for changing the present policy in this respect.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Minister realise that these people, many of whom suffer from such diseases as muscular dystrophy, are unable to use any public transport and are less well treated than disabled drivers? We all recognise the problems involved, but should not the Minister try to set up a study in depth to ascertain the size of the problem and the difficulties facing these people so that we understand better what we are talking about when we refer to the disabled passenger group?
    Mr. Robinson: I can give the hon. Gentleman some idea of the size of the problem, because we have made estimates. The capital cost of providing cars to those eligible for a vehicle but unable to drive themselves is estimated at about £25 million. In addition, there would be annual maintenance costs of about £6½ million.
    Mr. Fortescue: Are not there more anomalies in connection with this group than with any other, because they are provided with transport when their illness is at a comparatively mild stage, but when they get worse and thus need more help the help is taken from them?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not say that this problem is without its anomalies. I have no power at present to enable additional groups of the disabled to be provided with cars. The Health Services and Public Health Bill will provide those powers, but I would not want to raise any false hopes at the moment that any wide extension of the provision is likely in present economic circumstances.
    Mr. Edynfed Hudson Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the present system for the assistance of disabled drivers great hazard is caused by the fact that the cars supplied have only one passenger door and that, if these vehicles overturn, which they are particularly prone to do, on to the nearside the passenger is trapped and, moreover,

    973
    the petrol tank is then directly above the hot engine?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not accept all that my hon. Friend says, but in any event I do not think that it arises out of the Question. If he would care to table a Question, I will do my best to answer it.
    Mr. Dean: Will not the Minister agree to have another look at this? Does he accept that there is much evidence to suggest that the greater the need for transport facilities the less can be provided under present regulations?
    Mr. Robinson: We have done a study of this. A certain amount of research has been done into the classes to whom it might be possible to make an extension when economic circumstances permit. This is one deserving group. It is not the only one.
    Mr. Tinn: Will not my right hon. Friend try to give us grounds for a little more optimism about what will happen when economic circumstances improve? Will he bear in mind the very real difficulty facing disabled drivers in singleseat vehicles in the event of breakdown or other mishaps, which might deter them from even applying for a vehicle?
    Mr. Robinson: These matters are always being studied. We are always doing our best to improve the safety of these vehicles, which I do not accept are unsafe at present. Of course I would like to extend the eligibility for vehicles, but we must wait to see how the economic situation turns out.

    Prescription Charges
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Health what provision he is planning for the exemption from paying prescription charges of patients suffering from chronic schizophrenia and other psychoses.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health whether those suffering from cancer will be exempt from prescription charges.
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Health to what extent his definition of the chronic sick for the purpose of reimbursing prescription charges will include the psychiatric patients whose
    974
    health depends upon long-term, possibly permanent medication and who, without medicine would soon become chronic sick.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health why he has not designated as a chronic sick person exempt from prescription charges one who has suffered from a coronary thrombosis.
    Mr. K. Robinson: For the reasons explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) on 21st March, it is not possible to include these conditions as such within the definition of chronic sickness for exemption purposes. Patients suffering from them may qualify for exemption otherwise than as chronic sick or because they are also suffering from one of the specific conditions listed in my earlier reply.—[Vol. 761, c. 143–5.]
    Dr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we want to be kind to him but find it very difficult when he gives replies like that? Is he not aware that the condition of chronic schizophrenia occurs considerably more frequently in the community and that if such people are to be kept fit to remain in the community they must take their drugs? Will he accept that the imposition of a charge for this treatment is an added disincentive to them to take the treatment they need in order to remain viable human beings?
    Mr. Robinson: I explained in my earlier Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood that we had found it necessary to define objectively categories in which are to be found patients certain to need continuous medication for long periods, and which admit of no discretion as to identification of individuals. This was the result of the attitude of the medical profession, which I fully understand, for otherwise doctors would have been put in an impossible position vis-á-vis their patients in exercising discretion as to which individual was or was not chronically sick.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not the Minister agree that cancer really is a chronic disease, the most serious of all chronic diseases, and that many people go home for quite long periods between operations, during which time they must have strong analgesics and other drugs? Therefore,

    975
    they should be included in the list of exemptions?
    Mr. Robinson: Different considerations arise with cancer patients. Of course, this matter was discussed with the medical profession. I had to provide the best answer I could within the limitations understandably laid down by the doctors, without whose co-operation no definition of chronically sick is possible.
    Mr. Moonman: As the success rate in these mental cases is likely to be affected by the uncertainty in the provision of drugs, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision so that some assistance may be given on this the most grave of the implications associated with the prescription charges?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not believe that the imposition of this charge will have any serious disincentive effect on schizophrenic patients taking their medication.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend withdraw the claim that he is giving exemption to the chronic sick, since it is quite obvious that in the four cases we have discussed he has not? Will he bear in mind that although he has adhered to what the doctors want, he has landed a good deal of trouble on the pharmacists?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think that the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question arises from the Question on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th January. He said that I would enter into discussions with the medical profession with a view to introducing as soon as possible a system of exemptions. This is what I have done. I have produced the best system the circumstances permit.
    Lord Balniel: What arrangements is the Minister making for the exemption of the chronically sick from the payment of a prescription charge where in the opinion of a doctor it is undesirable, as it is in many of these cases, that the patient should know that he is suffering from chronic illness?
    Mr. Robinson: The certificate the doctor signs goes direct from his surgery to the executive council. The patient
    976
    will have to make an application, but he will not know what the doctor signs.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it would be better not to introduce prescription charges at all? Instead, he is drawing up a list of exemptions which could become exhaustive.
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. The general arguments for the introduction of prescription charges have been discussed in the House and will no doubt be discussed again when the regulations are introduced.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases of chronic illness such as schizophrenia or cancer it is against the patient's interests that he should know that he has a chronic illness? For this reason no system of exemptions will operate fairly with chronic illnesses of this kind.
    Mr. Robinson: That merely illustrates one of the difficulties, but I thought that it was the wish of the House that we should go as far as possible in relieving those who are chronically sick from the effects of the introduction of charges. As I also explained in my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, I recognised that this necessarily limited categorisation would leave others who require numerous prescriptions, and expressed the hope that in due course I should be able to help them by enabling them to obtain an exemption card on the payment of a fee representing the cost of perhaps two prescriptions a month.
    Dr. Kerr: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health how many people he now estimates will be eligible for exemption from prescription charges.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Some 20 million in England and Wales.
    Mrs. Knight: Could the Minister give us the benefit of the estimate, which he must have made, as to the cost of the exemption machinery?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think that that arises out of this Question.
    Sir C. Osborne: How much will the Exchequer save now under the latest estimates, allowing for these exemptions, by the imposition of prescription charges generally?
    Mr. Robinson: I have no reason to believe that the saving in a full year will be substantially different from the original estimates.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that with the vast complications arising from the declaration of the intention to introduce prescription charges, allied to the intention to exclude the chronic sick, the best thing would be to abolish the first intention?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not accept my hon. Friend's premises.
    Lord Balniel: Does the Minister of Health still agree with the Minister of Health, who in July, 1967, said that the reintroduction of prescription charges would damage the Health Service irreparably?
    Mr. Robinson: The Minister of Health on that occasion was referring to a wholly different system of prescription charges in which no attempt whatever had been made to exempt, not only the chronic sick, but also the other hardship classes who are being quite clearly and categorically exempted now.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number that ought to be eligible for exemption has been drastically pruned because of his inability to reach agreement with the doctors regarding the chronic sick?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. When we began discussing the question of chronic sick with the doctors no estimate could be made about the numbers involved, so I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement that there has been any drastic reduction. If he has followed the answers that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security has given he will see that a very considerable number which was previously in the refund category has been added to the exemption category by the arrangements which she will be able to make.
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health when prescription charges will be introduced.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health when he now proposes that prescription charges will be introduced.
    Mr. K. Robinson: On 10th June.
    Mr. Dean: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to what he calls the interim arrangements. When does he intend to introduce permanent arrangements for prescription charges?
    Mr. Robinson: Not yet, but as soon as possible.
    Mr. Cronin: While I deplore the imposition of these charges, will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to taking other measures to reduce the general public's psychological dependence on pills and medicines which are so often prescribed unnecessarily, and thereby have finance available to improve the hospital service, which greatly needs improving?
    Mr. Robinson: I naturally do everything open to a Minister of Health to reduce over-prescribing, but perhaps to the extent that my hon. Friend's charges are substantiated the remedy lies in the hands of his own profession.

    Drug Addicts (Treatment)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health if he will now review the provisions for the treatment of drug addicts in order to provide round-the-clock clinic facilities.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Facilities for the treatment of heroin addiction are being kept under review. For the reasons given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) on 26th March, 24-hour outpatient clinics are not considered necessary or desirable.—[Vol. 761, c. 246.]
    Mrs. Short: Does my right hon Friend accept that many doctors working in the field of addiction are convinced that patients cannot be treated successfully simply on an out-patient basis? Will he further consider the action he has taken with regard to the Chelsea addiction centre, which is a centre of this kind, where the doctors are now prevented from prescribing heroin to their patients? Is he aware that they treated more than 120 patients last year and that about one-third of the patients were currently receiving heroin? Will he please look at this whole aspect again?
    Mr. Robinson: On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am aware that there is always more than one view on almost every subject in any profession, not least the medical profession, but the consensus of opinion is in the sense of my reply. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I gave the most careful consideration to the decision whether or not to license the doctors at the Chelsea addiction clinic. One of them has now accepted an appointment in the hospital service and is treating patients as a licensed hospital doctor under consultant supervision.
    Mr. Dean: Will the Minister comment on the disturbing reports now coming in about a growing black market in drugs following the introduction of the new arrangements?
    Mr. Robinson: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I understand that the reports are regarded as exaggerated.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the Minister aware that as far as the main Question is concerned some of us at least have come round to his point of view? If there is to be a choice between requiring clinics to conform to the addicts or requiring addicts to conform to the clinics there is a great deal to be said for the second alternative.
    Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the right hon Gentleman. That is certainly the advice that has been tendered to me.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend give some idea of how many addicts are coming forward to the clinics at present?
    Mr. Robinson: We were to have had an opportunity of debating this matter last night, but we were frustrated. Off the cuff, I think that the answer is that about 700 addicts are on the books of hospitals serving the London area at present.

    Family Planning Act
    Mr. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the action taken by local authorities to implement the provisions of the Family Planning Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have still not received sufficient reports from local authorities to enable me to say.
    Mrs. Short: In that case, would my right hon. Friend adopt a rather more energetic attitude towards the local authorities that appear to be dragging their feet on this matter? Does he not agree that this could make a very valuable contribution to the problem that many of us face in the Midlands? Will he see that the local authorities really carry out the responsibilities that Parliament has placed upon them?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend and the House know my attitude towards this matter. Whether or not she considers my action energetic enough, I can tell her that I have already reminded authorities and approximately 60 per cent. have so far responded.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that those authorities dragging their feet are adopting a very shortsighted attitude, not least financially? Would he consider circulating to such authorities a cost-benefit analysis, which would show the advantages of a comprehensive family planning service?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that this consideration will not be out of the minds of local authorities generally. I would not wish to be drawn to comment on this until I have had the chance to study the general picture, which will be available when the remaining authorities have reported to me.

    Medway Towns (Medical Services)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to improve medical services in the Medway Towns in view of the present acute shortage of doctors in the area and the estimate in the survey carried out by the local medical committee, a copy of which has been sent to him, that 25 per cent. of the present medical practitioners in Kent have intimated their intention of leaving the service during the next five years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The results of the survey were not sent to my right hon. Friend. I understand, however, that of the doctors who replied, 8·3 per cent. said that they contemplated retirement within the next five years and a further 14·6 per cent. that

    981
    they might possibly do so. These figures are what might reasonably be expected from the age distribution of those who replied. Initial practice allowances are available to doctors starting to practise in under-doctored areas, such as the Medway Towns, and my right hon. Friend has recently arranged for these and other allowances available in areas of greatest shortage to be publicised.
    Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the Medway Town have been designated and, as a result of a shortage of doctors, it is proving impossible to give them an adequate medical service? Is he further aware that many doctors are now called upon to serve 3,500 patients, which is absolutely disgraceful? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Snow: May I say first that I welcome the setting up by the executive council, the local medical committee and the Medway and Gravesend division of the B.M.A. of a standing committee to consider problems of the area as they arise. We are conscious of the fact that there is difficulty in certain parts of the area to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. At the same time we think it is a little early to judge the results of the publicity of the financial aids to which I have referred.

    Doctors (Designated Areas)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to remove the present restriction whereby the inducement of the extra payment of £400 is withheld from doctors entering a designated area for three years from the date on which an area is so categorised.
    Mr. K. Robinson: A review of the criteria for eligibility for the £400 allowance is in progress, but I cannot yet say what its outcome will be. There is a separate allowance which is payable immediately on entry to a designated area.
    Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling me that this matter is under consideration. Does he agree that if an area is designated, thus indicating an acute shortage of doctors, it is rather stupid that the incentive should be delayed for three years before being
    982
    introduced, when the acute shortage is already present?
    Mr. Robinson: It does not necessarily denote an acute and lasting shortage of doctors. The arrangements were introduced in 1966, in agreement with the profession. It was not thought that designation by itself should qualify an area for the allowance, because the intention was that it should be paid in areas chronically short of doctors. Very often areas cease to be designated after a short period.

    Notifiable Diseases
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health whether he will take early action to seek to codify and simplify the law relating to notifiable diseases.
    Mr. Snow: We see no need for such action at present in respect of the relevant Acts of Parliament, but my right hon. Friend proposes to revise and consolidate the numerous relevant statutory instruments as soon as possible after the passage of the Health Services and Public Health Bill.

    Health Service (Administrative Structure)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the strictures on hospital management contained in Reports Nos. 29 and 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, he will introduce legislation to replace regional hospital boards and hospital management committees by a one-tier professional system of management.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if the green paper he proposes to issue on the National Health Service will include the results of his consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education; and to what extent it will relate to the implementation of the recommendations contained therein.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would ask both my hon. Friends to await the Green Paper on the administrative structure of the medical and related services. In my review of the present structure I am taking account of the relevant recommendations of the reports to which they refer.
    Mr. Moyle: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the dedicated service of the many people on regional hospital boards and similar organisations, their general image is one of weakness, gentility and amateur do-goodism and that the best way of dealing with it is to give these organisations proper professional management for the great benefit of the public and the employees in these organisations?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not accept my hon. Friend's assertions. The fact that I am making this review of the administrative structure is not a reflection on those charged with the duty of carrying out the various arms of the Health Service. It is merely to see whether we can get a better framework within which which this dedicated work can be done.
    Mr. Pavitt: When may we expect the Green Paper?
    Mr. Robinson: I cannot say precisely, but I hope that it will be fairly soon.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: If there are to be alterations in the administration of the hospital service, would not my right hon. Friend agree that they should be part of a much wider, all-embracing review of the administration of the Health Service as a whole, taking into account public health and general practitioner services?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I think that I made it clear in my original announcement about the intention to publish a Green Paper that it would deal with the National Health Service as a whole—medical and related services—and go far beyond the administration of the hospital service.
    Mr. Dean: Can the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no change made in the structure of our world-famous teaching hospitals without the fullest possible consultation?
    Mr. Robinson: I have already said that the Green Paper is being published only for the purposes of consultation. Therefore, the answer to that question is that there will be consultation.

    Nursing Agencies
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Health whether he accepts the recommendation of Report No. 60 of the
    984
    National Board for Prices and Incomes that the use of nursing agencies should be discontinued in National Health Service hospitals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am considering this recommendation.
    Mr. Moyle: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the present system of nursing agencies is wasteful, inefficient and expensive? Would he not, therefore, agree that the supply of nursing services in London as recommended by the Board is the solution to the problem?
    Mr. Robinson: I am considering this proposal, because there are aspects of this which need very careful consideration. On 31st July, 1967, there were 1,300 agency nurses employed in the National Health Service, which was nearly 200 fewer than in 1965. Nearly 1,000 of them were in hospitals in the area of the London boroughs, and some hospitals, in particular the post-graduate teaching hospitals, rely on them heavily. But, of course, I should like to see the numbers reduced. As I say, I am considering this specific recommendation.

    Drugs (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from organisations asking for exemption from Purchase Tax or drugs dispensed on doctor's prescription; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Snow: None that I can trace.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very strange Answer, especially when we bear in mind that Scottish pharmacists are at present in dispute about the machinations or working out the prescription charges?
    Mr. Snow: The Question which we were asked was what representations we had received, and my reply was, none that I can trace. But if it is of any comfort to my hon. Friend, he should know that, broadly speaking, all ethical drugs are exempt from Purchase Tax other than those which the Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Medicines regards as being of doubtful therapeutic value.

    Slimming Pills
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the evidence, details of which have been sent

    985
    to him, given to a Senate Sub-Committee in Washington of the danger to health, and of deaths being caused by slimming pills; and what evidence he has of similar problems being met in this country.
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. The main hazard in this country is possible misuse of or habituation to preparations containing amphetamines and related compounds. My Department has recently drawn doctors' attention specifically to the potential dangers presented by the amphetamines.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States, where these deaths have been reported, clinics exist for slimming, in which doctors specialise, and that there is very little to prevent doctors from doing much the same here and dishing out these most dangerous drugs on prescriptions to anyone who cares to call?
    Mr. Snow: At present, we have no up-to-date, reliable breakdown of the use to which amphetamines prescribed have been used. The Standing Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence intends to consider the problems associated with the use of amphetamines.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend say whether over the last few years there has been an increase or decrease in the amount of amphetamines prescribed in this country?
    Mr. Snow: No; I have not that information.
    Mr. Cronin: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that being substantially over-weight is also a dangerous disease and that this is a much more serious consideration than the infrequent dangers of amphetamine drugs?
    Mr. Snow: So my hon. Friend told me three years ago.

    Mr. D. A. Goldie (Power Splint)
    Mr. Victor Yatesasked the Minister of Health if he has considered the need of Mr. D. A. Goldie of Birmingham for a power splint similar to those being supplied to the British Polio Fellowship to remedy the condition caused by a broken shoulder and paralysed arm; and
    986
    how long this man will have to wait before he is able to obtain such an aid through the National Health Service.
    Mr. Snow: A powered splint is now ready for clinical trials. Mr. Goldie has kindly agreed to take part in the trials and if it is shown that he will benefit from the device he will be provided with one.
    Mr. Yates: Does not my hon. Friend realise that I submitted this case to him nine months ago and that this man suffered very considerable pain? Does he not think it reasonable to expect that this man should be given this splint without further delay in order to relieve the pain?
    Mr. Snow: I do not think my hon. Friend understood my Answer. This unit is being developed. It is not yet ready for general use. That is why we are very pleased that Mr. Goldie has agreed to take part in the trials.

    Population
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Health whether he will undertake studies to establish the criteria for assessing the optimum population for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have no present plans for undertaking such studies.
    Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that today Britain faces very serious land use problems arising from mounting population pressure? In these circumstances, has not the time come for a long-term policy on population to be defined and to recognise the reality and dangers of the long-term predicament in which we may find ourselves?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter. He will appreciate that it cuts across many Departmental boundaries. I am replying to his Question because I am responsible to Parliament for the Registrar General's activities. But there are many studies on population questions which need to be undertaken. It is, however, a little difficult to see how the optimum size of the population could be determined by objective criteria.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would it not at least be very useful if the Minister undertook

    987
    long-term studies into the rate of the population change, as indicated by the Registrar General's report only yesterday which showed a decline in the birth rate, so that proper provision can be made for housing, schools, education and so on?
    Mr. Robinson: These continuing studies are done by the Registrar General's Department. We shall have more and more information about this as the census becomes more and more sophisticated.

    Oral Contraceptives
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Health what is his latest estimate of the risks to health arising from the use of the contraceptive pill; and what plans he has to aid research designed to minimise such hazards.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health what is his latest estimate of the risk to health arising from the use of the contraceptive pill; and what is his policy with regard to this.
    Mr. K. Robinson: It is not possible in the present state of knowledge to estimate accurately all risks to health from the use of oral contraceptives, but those risks about which some information is available, including thrombo-embolism, appear to be much less than the total risks associated with pregnancy. A number of research projects of various kinds are already in progress with Government financial support, and will, it is hoped, provide more information on possible hazards involved.
    The Committee on Safety of Drugs have advised me that they do not feel justified in recommending that oral contraceptives should be withdrawn from the market provided that they remain available only on prescription and that doctors and patients are aware of the degree of risk involved.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and broadly reassuring reply. Does he agree that there is a need to investigate the side effects which appear to be experienced by different women, since they might be found only in certain types of individuals who are vulnerable to the particularly serious consequences of the pill?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree that we need to know a good deal more about this matter.
    988
    My hon. Friend may like to know that some of the studies in progress are directed to this end.
    Mr. Dean: Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the various research projects taking place, which seem to be fairly large in number?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that one should regard the Committee on the Safety of Drugs and the Medical Research Council as the co-ordinating bodies. The Committee on the Safety of Drugs is handling the continuous monitoring. The Medical Research Council is carrying out a longterm project, in association with the Family Planning Association, and it is also supporting a project being carried out by the Royal College of General Medical Practitioners.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the number of Government-sponsored pieces of research which are taking place are adequate to investigate a comparatively new drug which is taken by nearly a million women whose numbers are increasing every day?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that the scale of research into this matter is adequate. I am speaking, of course, for this country. There is a great deal of research going on in other countries. Certainly the Medical Research Council and the Dunlop Committee are giving close and continuous attention to the problem.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would the best answer be to develop a contraceptive pill which could be taken by men?
    Mr. Robinson: This might be a solution, but conceivably this, too, might have undesirable side effects.

  HOSPITALS

    Young Children (Visiting)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Health what further action he is taking to encourage unrestricted visiting by mothers to their very young children in hospital.
    Mr. Snow: Reports received in 1966 showed that 85 per cent. of hospitals admitting children allowed either unrestricted visiting or visiting during eight or more hours a day. My Department has continued to urge the remainder to review their arrangements.
    Mr. Winnick: I appreciate that Answer that the majority of hospitals allow unrestricted visiting for mothers of young children. Could my hon. Friend put additional pressure on the hospitals refusing to do so? Does he agree that all the medical and psychological evidence supports the theory that there should be unrestricted visiting by parents?
    Mr. Snow: I think that my hon. Friend slightly exaggerates when he says "all medical opinion". I think that he will accept that there are certain cases and certain conditions where there are risks which should not be accentuated by visiting. But they are exceptional, and I accept my hon. Friend's general proposition that we should encourage progress as far as possible towards unrestricted visiting all round.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Health how many patients are on waiting lists for in-patient treatment in hospitals; and how this figure compares with the figures in the previous three years.
    Mr. Snow: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Costain: Will the Minister give us a little more information as to whether things are improving? Could he tell us whether the figures are the result of a shortage of hospital accommodation, nurses or doctors, or all three?
    Mr. Snow: The tendency, as shown by the figures which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, is for a slight worsening of the situation, but it is only slight. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that there is an uncovering of latent demand, resulting from new services being provided, such as cytology screening and other matters. There are signs, but only signs, of a slight tendency towards improvement.
    Dr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend think that the introduction of a "clocking-in" and "clocking-off" system for nurses at Northgate Hospital, Great Yarmouth, is likely to help the turndown in patients? Has this been done on his instructions?
    Mr. Snow: I would like to have a look at that one.
    Following are the figures:

    Position at 31st December

    Number of Patients on Waiting Lists

    1967

    …

    …

    …

    537,005

    1966

    …

    …

    …

    536,447

    1965

    …

    …

    …

    517,224

    1964

    …

    …

    …

    498,915

    Geriatric Beds, South Westmorland
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the need to establish more geriatric beds in South Westmorland, particularly in view of the number of people who have to be accommodated outside the area; and what consideration he has given to using the Ethel Hedley Hospital at Windermere for this purpose.
    Mr. Snow: The majority of geriatric patients from South Westmorland are treated at Kendal Green Hospital and others at Lancaster Moor Hospital, both within the area served by the North Lancashire and South Westmorland Hospital Management Committee. The future of the Ethel Hedley Hospital is under consideration by the Manchester Regional Hospital Board whose proposals my right hon. Friend expects to receive soon.
    Mr. Jopling: Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be a great shame if the use of the Ethel Hedley Hospital has to change and it should be closed down? First, would he give an undertaking that it will be kept on, and, secondly, does he realise that it would be of the greatest convenience for any of the patients who have to go outside the area to go to that hospital?
    Mr. Snow: I should explain perhaps that accommodation provided by the H.M.C. is for the area as a whole rather than on a limited county basis. Also, a small addition of beds is shortly to be made at Kendal Green Hospital. But I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. This is a matter which first comes within the discretion of the regional hospital board, but it can be counted on to ensure an adequate provision of this type of bed.

    Mental Patients
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Minister of Health under the new hospital building programme, what special provision is being made to accommodate and supervise mental patients transferred for rehabilitation from the special hospitals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Such patients are normally transferred to National Health Service psychiatric hospitals where their rehabilitation is continued in the same way as for other patients. A special unit at Balderton Hospital for patients transferred from Rampton is being planned.
    Captain Elliot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although the rehabilitation of these patients in special hospitals is most important, measures should be taken to protect the interests of the staff at general hospitals and of the public, too?
    Mr. Robinson: As I said, I think last week, in answer to a similar Question about transfers from Broadmoor, transfers are made only when the opinion of the consultant in charge of the case is that transfer is appropriate. Therefore, patients who have been transferred from the special hospitals should be regarded by all concerned as being on a par with the patients already being treated in National Health Service hospitals.

    Psychiatric Hospitals, Birmingham Area
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health what consultations he had with outside bodies before he decided to regroup the psychiatric hospitals in the Birmingham Regional Hospitals area.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have not yet made a decision on the proposals for re-grouping submitted to me by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I understand that the Board consulted widely before making their proposals to me.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister aware that the hospital management committees concerned are extremely worried about the way in which this decision has been reached?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Lady should understand that no decision has been
    992
    reached. This is a recommendation by the Board which was submitted to me earlier this month. Under the proposals psychiatric hospitals which are now in eight separate groups under their own management committees would be grouped with neighbouring general hospitals under new management committees. I am considering these proposals not only in the light of the views of the Board, but of the hospital management committees and the other interests which have been consulted.
    Mr. Victor Yates: Is the Minister prepared to receive a deputation of hon. Members from both sides of the House—which I have already asked him to do—so that we can put this matter clearly to him, because there is strong feeling about it?
    Mr. Robinson: I am always willing to hear the views of hon. Members of this House on matters of this kind.

    New Hospital, Dorchester
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Health when he anticipates that work on the new county hospital at Dorchester will now begin.
    Mr. Snow: It is not yet possible to give a date. The project remains in the Wessex Regional Hospital Board's programme among the later developments expected in the period after 1970.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that originally this hospital was to have been started this year and that, in the opinion of doctors, we cannot have efficient medical services in Dorset without it?
    Mr. Snow: Services in existing hospitals will be maintained until my right hon. Friend is satisfied that satisfactory alternative provision can be made. During the last six years £415,000 has been spent on improvements in Dorchester, Weymouth and Bridport hospitals.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord President of the Council at Basildon on 29th March about the

  993
  need for new methods of economic planning and incomes policy to be followed by Her Majesty's Government represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Lord President of the Council on 29th March at Basildon, on the subject of new methods of incomes policy, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that Answer mean that the Prime Minister accepts his right hon. Friend's view that there is a widely felt need throughout the Labour Party for strong collective leadership capable of taking the necessary decisions, and, in view of the implication about his own leadership contained in that, what does he propose to do about it?
  The Prime Minister: The phrase that my right hon. Friend used in the context of the Question was:
  "This will involve making the collective approval of strong measures and the collective acceptance of sacrifice prevail over our specific personal and group grievances"
  This is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and we have always operated on the basis of collective leadership.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Lord President that a General Election now would settle the fate of the Labour Party, and why not have a go?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is free to express an opinion. I do not intend putting this matter to the test, because I have full confidence that, when it is, we shall have the same result as we had last time.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On the incomes policy part of the Question, can my right hon. Friend say whether it is now the view of the Government that the unions should be free to negotiate whatever increase they can get so long as the Government can be satisfied that that increase is less than the increase in productivity resulting from it?
  The Prime Minister: It has always been our position, in successive White Papers, that the criterion on productivity is of the greatest importance. Certainly there need be no limit of the amount set in the White Paper if an addition beyond that limit is earned by clear and guaranteed arrangements about productivity.
  Mr. Sandys: While it is doubtful whether any new planning methods would be an improvement, is it not a fact that up till now the Government's economic planning has been nothing but a disastrous fiasco?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his personal opinion on this as on other matters. But he will also be aware of what had to be done, not only in terms of the balance of payments, but in terms of the long years in which nothing was done to deal with the problem of industrial drift which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues allowed to persist for so many years.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: On the incomes policy, can the Prime Minister explain why Ministerial salaries have gone up from £591,000 on 4th April to £613,000 on 23rd April?
  The Prime Minister: I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the figures for this year.
  Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I may put my question again. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Question No. 77, which I put to him but which he referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will see that I asked why the salaries of Ministers had risen from £591,000 on 4th April to £613,000 on 23rd April this year, and this is taking figures issued by a Department of his own Government.
  The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to study that question and arrange that either the Chancellor or I will answer it to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman.

  SPACE POLICY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint one Minister to be responsible for space policy.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a

  995
  similar Question by him on 11th April. 1967. The arrangements I then outlined are I think still the most appropriate to our circumstances.—[Vol. 744, c. 963.]
  Mr. Marten: As space, and particularly communications satellites, will obviously be one of the new technological industries of the future for this country requiring a long-term attitude towards investment, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government intend to go ahead with a vigorous national space programme in the interests of the commercial life of this country?
  The Prime Minister: The question of Ministerial responsibility is one to which I have given a lot of thought, and I still feel that it is right to adhere to the arrangement made by our predecessors in this matter. With regard to the future of the space programme, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very full statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology on the day that we came back last week.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman next time he is in Washington consider looking at COMSAT and realise the benefit of having in this country one individual in charge of both military and civil developments which are going on so fast in North America?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Foreign Office. He will realise that there is a strong Foreign Office responsibility here for our negotiations with other countries, and that other Ministers are concerned. Like our predecessors, I feel that it is better not to centralise all the responsibility in one Department. I think, in the way that it has been put to the House before, that the Ministers responsible for celestial affairs are those who are responsible for their terrestrial counterparts.

  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
  Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister whether he will establish a Commission to examine existing and proposed legislation in order to ensure conformity with the United Kingdom's obligations under human rights conventions.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is a normal responsibility of the Government
  996
  to ensure that existing or proposed legislation conforms with the United Kingdom's obligations under any international instrument to which it is a party.
  Mr. Archer: Without impugning the admirable record of this country in this field, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is better systematically to prevent infringements before someone gets hurt, and would not this also have the effect of reducing the appalling delays before ratifying such international obligations as the Genocide Convention?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is why I think the House was moved last week by the quotation by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) of part of the Human Rights Convention which he felt was binding and over-riding on us all. That is why we have introduced the Race Relations Bill which was debated last week. We always have a problem, and have had under successive Governments, in respect of these human rights conventions and others of the special problems in one or two dependent territories, of the position in Rhodesia, and there has always been a derogation made which one day will have to be discussed with the Government concerned in respect of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hogg: As the Prime Minister has referred to the Race Relations Bill, may I ask whether he will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to an Amendment standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members to that Bill which will enable the Government to take advantage of his hon. Friend's suggestion?
  The Prime Minister: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it, but I shall be surprised if he has not already studied it and realised its full implications. Obviously I would not wish to anticipate what will be said on both sides of the Committee when this matter is considered upstairs.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the latest results of his efforts for peace in Vietnam and on what help

  997
  Great Britain will be prepared to offer for peaceful reconstruction there.
  The Prime Minister: On the first part of the Question, I have at present nothing to add to the Answers I gave on 4th and 9th April to Questions by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). On the second part, we shall of course be prepared to participate as best we can in any international campaign to help repair the ravages of war in Vietnam which may be mounted once peace has been restored.—[Vol. 762, c. 605 and c. 1075.]
  Mr. Whitaker: As the majority of the people in this country are less concerned with politics in Vietnam than with human suffering there, and since if the money spent on the war in Vietnam had been spent on peaceful developments Vietnam would, per capita, be the sixth richest country in the world, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will will take the initiative at the United Nations peacefully to reconstruct both sides of Vietnam as soon as there is a cease-fire?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that we gave full support to the proposals of the President of the United States in his Baltimore speech in April, 1965, three years ago, for massive resources for the Mekong Delta area and for Vietnam in general. We fully support that initiative, and any other which may be proposed. The problem is to get the parties to agree on the site for a conference table. I would certainly be prepared, and so would my right hon. Friend, to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend to try to get international co-operation to repair the ravages of war there.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Has the Prime Minister reminded President Johnson of his frequent expressions of readiness to enter into peace talks with Hanoi at any time, anywhere, and if so, is he satisfied with the response?
  The Prime Minister: It would not be appropriate to inform the House at this moment of the consultations which my right hon. Friend and I have had with all those concerned in this matter, including our fellow co-Chairman. It is our view, and this we urge on both
  998
  sides, that they should reach rapid agreement on a site at which these talks can begin with a view to ending the war.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I press my right hon. Friend further? Will he represent to President Johnson the dismay felt among friends of America by his apparent hesitation to honour his pledge to go anywhere at any time, and the apparent attempt by the powerful United States to gain an advantage even in preliminary talks about talks?
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of advantage. It is a question, and both sides are concerned, of deciding where the appropriate site is which will be most likely to lead to agreement to leave the battlefield for the conference room. My right hon. Friend and I urge all parties, the two principal parties as well as our fellow co-Chairman, to reach rapid agreement on an appropriate site. We would be ready at any time, with our fellow co-Chairman, to take an initiative in this matter to help if that were desired by the two sides.
  Mr. Bessell: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us who have given unqualified support to the Government's policy for Vietnam are nevertheless deeply disturbed by the failure of the President of the United States to agree on site, in view of the pledge that he gave, and this is doing great damage to Anglo-American relations? Will he press the President personally to fulfil his obligations in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concern, but so far it has been a failure by both sides to agree on an appropriate site. A large number of sites have been suggested by the United States Government. I know the impatience of the House in this matter. We as a Government share that impatience, and we shall do everything in our power to get the two parties to come together and get the talks started as soon as possible.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one modest contribution which Britain could make at the moment to clearing the air over the whole question of Vietnam, as who is to blame and not to blame. who is more to blame and who is less to blame, would be to admit Madame Bui Thi Cam and Madame Ha Giang, who for

  999
  the last three or four weeks have been waiting in Paris for visas to enter Britain?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the position of those two ladies. No doubt my right hon. Friend is aware of the matter. I think that my hon. Friend knows the Government's general policy about visitors from Vietnam. Anyone who is prepared to come here and make a positive contribution to peace, and by peace I mean peace, and not either propaganda or "Victory for Vietcong", will be encouraged.

  CABINET COMMITTEES
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister whether he will now answer questions about the membership and functions of Cabinet committees.
  The Prime Minister: The House knows that it has long been the practice normally to refuse detailed information about the Government's internal arrangements for the discussion of public business, although very general information about arrangements for the collective consideration of important matters is sometimes released when this is thought to be in the public interest. It has not been the practice to disclose the membership of individual Committees.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As the Prime Minister has seen fit to blazon the formation of the Parliamentary Committee across the headlines, has not he an obligation to tell the House about the membership and functions of this body? If it is just a sort of Winter Emergency Committee for all seasons it does not matter, but if it is an inner Cabinet should not the House know who are its members and also who are not?
  The Prime Minister: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman was going to pay a tribute to the work of the Winter Emergency Committee in widening availability of productive capacity in the industries concerned compared with the situation which existed when we set it up.
  I have blazoned nothing about the Parliamentary Committee. It is proper for it to be known that there is such a Committee, but it would be contrary to all precedent to indicate here or else-where the membership of the Commit-
  1000
  tee. There has been a lot of ill-informed speculation about it but that it not my responsibility.
  Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend explain whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will be attending these meetings in his capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chief Whip, Patronage Secretary, or Deputy Leader of the House? If he does so in the last named capacity, will he relate it to his duties to the House?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is also "Yes".
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not it be more suitable if colleagues of the Prime Minister, such as the Home Secretary, made announcements about these committees in the House and not on "Panorama?"
  The Prime Minister: There is always a problem which all right hon. Members have of having these questions shot at them, but the existence of an Immigration Committee was announced by me in this House as long ago as 9th March, 1965. What is new about this is that a few weeks ago it was decided that responsibility for community relations in the widest sense, and the kind of problems that we were discussing last week, would be within the purview of this collective discussion. I think that that is helpful. I do not think that my right hon. Friend did anything improper in the answer that he gave last night.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering these very important functional matters, would my right hon. Friend give due regard to the relations, industrial and political, of Scotland with the rest of Europe, particularly Russia and the Far East?
  The Prime Minister: All relevant questions affecting both Scotland and Europe and the areas covered by my hon. and learned Friend will, of course, be dealt with adequately on a collective basis in the future as in the past.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Has the right hon. Gentleman not failed to observe that what the whole country wants to know is whether his position in the Government

  1001
  today is the same as it was on 16th January last, or whether it has in the interim suffered a profound change for the worse?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must not believe all he reads in the newspapers, especially the Tory newspapers. The position is exactly the same, but these questions relate to the functions and membership of Cabinet Committees and it has never been the practice to reveal them to the House. For example, even now, right hon. Gentlemen opposite have never informed the House of the terms of reference, membership and functions of the so-called "Pretext Committee" set up in August, 1956, to examine the circumstances in which it would safe to invade Suez.

BOTSWANA (GIFTS)
3.32 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: This House gave leave of absence to four of its Members to present on its behalf a Parliamentary Library and silver inkstand to the National Assembly of Botswana. The delegation consisted of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton), my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and myself. We were accompanied by Mr. Michael Lawrence, Clerk of the Overseas Office.
It is my pleasant duty to report that our mission was carried out in the Chamber of the National Assembly in Gaberones. I know that my colleagues would wish me to express our appreciation of the very cordial reception which
1002
we received, the excellent hospitality which we enjoyed and the very interesting programme of visits arranged for us. We are grateful to the House for entrusting us with such a pleasant task.
The Speaker of the National Assembly desired us to thank you, Mr. Speaker. for your personal letter of good will which we carried to him on your behalf. The Leader of the House, Dr. Quett Masire, expressed on behalf of the National Assembly their warm gratitude for the gifts, and the following Resolution was then unanimously passed:
"We, the National Assembly of Botswana here assembled, express our sincere thanks to the Honourable Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the gift presented to us by their delegation to mark the attainment of Independence by Botswana."
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that, in accordance with precedent, you will order the Resolution to be entered in the Journal of the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House—and, from what I hear, it is —that Resolution will be entered in the records of the House. The House would wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and his colleagues for carrying out the pleasant task entrusted to them. I would add my own thanks for the kind personal message which they brought me back from Botswana, by hand, from the Speaker of the National Assembly.

WATER RESOURCES BILL
Referred for consideration on Report to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Concannon.]

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT)
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Harold Gurden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of subsection (3) of section 203 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 to protect the property of any person arising out of the use of a vehicle on a road.
As it now stands, the 1960 Act requires a motor vehicle to be insured against the liabilities of third parties who suffer death or bodily injury only. Also, the policy holder is bound to complete the policy conditions by submitting a claim form to the insurance company supplying the information of the accident. This works very well for death and bodily injury, even though it may only be a cut finger, but if the damage is to property, no matter how serious, the offender is not obliged to claim from his insurance company. If he wishes to run the risk of civil action, he may not come to any harm even through that.
The insurance companies say that, if an insured refuses to fill in a claim form for any purpose, they are not liable for the damages and will not pay. All that is left is resort to civil action for property damage, no matter how serious, and this could cause great hardship. In the days of wider car ownership, the people involved are not always well off, and cars and other property are severely damaged daily through no fault of the owner. One might be resting in the garden on a Sunday afternoon and suffer considerable damage even though one is not under-insured and has been guilty of no negligence. Delays, of course, are involved, as well as great hardship and loss of earnings.
This is very awkward for those in the working class community who are now car owners. This occurs daily and almost hourly. A Royal Commission, way back in 1929, rejected the proposal to cover property damage, and my inquiries of the Ministry suggest that there is little interest in Government circles in extending the 1960 Act.
It is often said that there is little evidence of widespread hardship because of the lack of this provision, but I suggest that the amount of hardship is increasing
1004
continually with the wider ownership of vehicles. Many car owners take the absolute minimum of insurance and are very loath to lose their no-claims bonus.
I have evidence from my constituents and others—and similar evidence has been published in many daily newspapers—that people do avoid their liabilities and responsibilities by refusing to claim on their insurance companies. One such case was highlighted in the newspapers. A very rich man, owning a Rolls-Royce, refused to fill in a claim form. I suppose that he would suffer the risk of the insurance company refusing to insure him at all if he made further claims, so he let the case go on until it reached the civil courts, with considerable trouble, loss and injury to the person whose car he damaged. It is very expensive and troublesome for people without considerable means to go through the courts in a civil action; and, of course, they are worried about finding the money to start such actions.
Mr. Speaker, my Bill seeks a simple amendment to Section 203(3,a) of the Road Traffic Act 1960. It would, I suggest, be quite fair and reasonable upon all motor vehicle owners, requiring that they should complete their responsibilities. I will not take up the time of the House by quoting the many instances that come to mind. We see them every day on the roads and often wonder whether or not the injured person will receive compensation, or whether the insured will fill in a claim form at all. The simple amendment is that after the words "bodily injury" there be added the words "or property of".
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gurden, Mr. Speed and Mr. William Wilson.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT)
Bill to extend the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 to protect the property of any person arising out of the use of a vehicle on a road, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 31st May. [Bill 136.]

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
3.45 p.m.
Order for Second Reading read.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill designed to make certain improvements in the law relating to restrictive trade practices. It has two main purposes. On the one hand, it makes it possible to exempt from registration under the 1956 Act trade agreements which may be needed to promote efficiency, raise productivity, or hold down prices. On the other hand, it strengthens the existing legislation and the power of enforcement in certain respects where experience has shown this to be desirable.
It may be useful, Mr. Speaker, if I try to show how the Bill fits into the sequence of post-war legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices, and how it relates to the Government's other industrial policies.
Ever since the 1944 White Paper on Full Employment, Parliament has proceeded with a broad measure of agreement on this subject. There have, of course, been important differences of emphasis, but generally the House has not been deeply divided on party lines. This was true when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then President of the Board of Trade, introduced the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act of 1948 which set up the Monopolies Commission and, for the first time, provided that the exercise of market power, whether by individual firms or through restrictive agreements, could be investigated and, where necessary, brought under a measure of public control.
Then in 1956, the party opposite brought in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which provided for the registration of restrictive agreements relating to goods and set up the Restrictive Practices Court. The Resale Prices Act of 1964 was specifically directed against resale price maintenance and sought to abolish it except where it could be specially justified.
More recently, in the Monopolies and Mergers Act of 1965, the present Government extended the field of work of the
1006
Monopolies Commission to cover both important mergers and take-overs and also restrictive agreements relating to services. Throughout this process of evolution, the underlying objective has remained the same. It has been to check restrictions on competition and undesirable forms of market power, without at the same time hindering improvements in efficiency or necessary changes in industrial structure.
Throughout, the basis of the legislation has been pragmatic and not dogmatic. It is true that the 1956 Act introduced a presumption that restrictive agreements would generally operate against the public interest. This reflected the view—shared, I would think, by most economists and certainly by most hon. Members—that such agreements more often than not produce the disadvantages of monopoly, the feather-bedding and protection, without giving the advantages of greater size and greater strength in the individual firm.
But this presumption can be rebutted, and agreements accepted by the court, where it can be shown that they produce specific benefits and advantages outweighing their detriments. In the case of monopolies and mergers there is no presumption in the law that market power works against the public interest.
So much for the general background. But there is now a new factor in the situation, and a new emphasis in Government policy. The Government do not believe that the unaided working of market forces will always be sufficient to bring about the needed rationalisation of industry. There are always strong influences tending towards inertia and the maintenance of the status quo. So the Government have increasingly found it necessary to take a view about the structure of important sectors of industry, and to try to bring about desirable changes both directly through the sponsoring Departments for industry, and indirectly through the work of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the Economic Development Committees, the "Little Neddies".
These changes, which are all designed to encourage long-run productivity and innovation, may involve co-operative action between firms in an industry; or they may involve a deliberate process of merger and rationalisation.

1007
I do not think that this policy is, in principle, inconsistent with the existing law on monopolies and restrictive practices, though it is sometimes said to be. If I decide, for example, to refer a merger to the Monopolies Commission, a commentator is sure to say that this is at odds with the policy of promoting rationalisation through the I.R.C.
In my view, however, it is not. On the facts of the case, out of nearly 250 mergers examined by the Board of Trade, only eight have been referred to the Monopolies Commission. The Government have no doubt that the leading firms in our major industries must take their place in the big international league and must operate on a worldwide scale. This will often mean that they must be of great size and strength, and may need to be vertically-integrated concerns covering several stages of manufacture. Moreover, it may be quite inappropriate to measure their market power simply by reference to the home market; in an open economy like ours, we need to look at it in relation to their place in world markets.
So there will be many situations where the long-term advantages of large scale, and the better use of resources through massive research and development expenditures and confident investment policies, will outweigh the possible detriment of monopoly power. In short, in particular situations market power may be a necessity.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. All he has said is entirely consistent and cogent in so far as one is referring to monopoly power. But, of course, the Measure introduced by his predecessor did not confine itself to that but introduced a £5 million test, quite irrespective of monopoly power; and it is to that that most of the criticism and alleged conflict to which he has referred has been directed. Would he deal with that?
Mr. Crosland: The answer to this alleged conflict, if it does not lie in the arguments I am giving, lies in the figures I am quoting; that out of about 250 mergers examined only eight have been referred to the Monopolies Commission. We could make a reference either under the monopoly criterion or, as the hon.
1008
Gentleman rightly pointed out, under the criterion of the capital sums involved.
On the other hand, as the T.U.C. Economic Review put it, it is
"… dangerous to assume that all takeovers and mergers necessarily lead to major gains in economic efficiency".
Just because market power is often necessary, we must have a suitable means of watching and checking its effect; hence the need for laws on monopoly and restrictive practices. But provided that we keep a proper balance between the long-term dynamic considerations and those more immediately affecting consumers, there is, in my view, no inconsistency whatever in making use in particular cases of our powers to investigate the possible detriments of market power.
While there is no general inconsistency with the existing law, the new emphasis in Government policy requires some amendment to it, and particularly to the restrictive practices legislation. This legislation has done an excellent job in ridding the economy of many hundreds of restrictive practices designed to preserve the status quo and impede desirable change. At the same time, it has provided a sieve through which beneficial agreements could pass. It has been a fine sieve in that only 11 of over 2,000 registered agreements have been successfully defended—though there is no evidence that agreements that would have been in the national interest have been condemned.
However, although the law has generally proved satisfactory, the work done in the Economic Development Committees and elsewhere to find new ways of increasing industrial efficiency has shown the need for some amendments to it, and this is one of the reasons for this Bill. It has been represented to us that the law as it stands is impeding schemes, which, through the E.D.C.s or as a result of recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, or in other ways, the Government are urging industry to adopt. Industry takes the line, naturally enough, that it will not embark on such schemes if to do so might involve it in the trouble and expense of defending a registrable agreement before the Restrictive Practices Court.
For example, several E.D.C.s have suggested forms of co-operative action

1009
which might depend on making a registrable agreement. The E.D.C. for the electrical engineering industry has recommended a reduction in varieties—for example in cables and transformers—to reduce costs, but firms may be unwilling to reduce the number of lines they offer unless other firms agree to do the same. The E.D.C. for the building trades has recommended standard form contracts in the building industry, as was proposed also by the Banwell Committee. The E.D.C. for the chemical industry has suggested tiat its work on import saving might go ahead faster if companies did not feel inhibited about agreeing on their investment programmes.
A change in the law is needed to meet the requirements of the prices and incomes policy. The most effective way of ensuring that an industry holds down its prices may be for the trade association concerned to recommend its members not to increase prices, or only to increase them by a figure agreed with the Government. But such a recommendation might give rise to a registrable agreement. So, too, might an agreement to reduce prices, though this could hardly be seen as exploiting monopoly power.
I am certainly not saying that every argument of this kind should be accepted. There may be other and better ways of solving the problem. But I accept that in certain cases, and subject to proper safeguards, co-operative action to improve efficiency may be not only justified but positively desirable, and it would be absurd to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of action designed to carry out the Government's industrial policy.
The other main reason for amending the law is quite different. It arises from the need to remove certain weaknesses which have become apparent in the-operation of the 1956 Act. First, there is at present no effective deterrent against failure to register an agreement. In the early years of the legislation, parties to an agreement usually registered it of their own accord. But now it has become widely recognised that there is no penalty for failure to register, and three-quarters of all registrations are now made only after prodding by the Registrar.
Secondly, information agreements, particularly relating to prices, are being used to circumvent the object of the 1956 Act, and often replace agreements which have
1010
themselves been swept away by the Act. The parties can evade the Act in this way because the definition of a registrable agreement is not wide enough to include all information agreements which can be so drawn as to produce the same effect as common price agreements.
These are the broad objects of the Bill, and I now come to its details. Clause 1 gives the Board of Trade a discretionary power to exempt from registration under the 1956 Act—and so from judicial examination by the Restrictive Practices Court—for a specified period agreements of national importance which promote industrial efficiency or provide for new capacity.
I realise that this gives the Government wide powers of administrative discretion, and might be thought incompatible with the philosophy of the 1956 Act. I therefore stress that there is no question of the Board of Trade operating in the area of the court's jurisdiction.
What I propose is a separate procedure to deal with urgent problems of industrial structure and efficiency, where it is a matter of national importance for an agreement to be made and where it would be unreasonable, therefore, having accepted the need for an agreement, to force the parties to bear the cost of defending it before the court. There is no question of sharing jurisdiction with the court, and for agreements outside these categories the court's jurisdiction remains absolute. I fully recognise the essential contribution which the court has made, and will continue to make, in ridding industry of undesirable agreements.
This exemption procedure is subject to a number of safeguards. The Board of Trade must be satisfied that, on balance, the proposed agreement is desirable in the national interest, that its object cannot be achieved in a reasonable time except by means of the agreement and that the restrictions it contains are no more than necessary to secure this object. The Bill also provides for exemption orders and copies of exempted agreements to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and for copies of exempted agreements to be made available for public inspection, save in certain exceptional cases.
On the other hand, industry must have some assurance that an exempted agreement will be allowed to run for a

1011
reasonable period. So, although the Board has certain limited powers to withdraw exemption before the period for which it was granted has elapsed, it may not do so in the first year of its operation, except where there has been misrepresentation or where important new facts come to light. In administering Clause 1, I shall, of course, work closely with the Departments responsible for the industries to which such agreements relate.
Clause 2 relates to the administration of the prices and incomes policy. In operating a prices policy on a voluntary basis, Government Departments will often wish to secure the acceptance by industry of restraints on price increases. In particular, they need to secure undertakings, under the early warning system, that industry will give them advance notice of proposed price increases, and that such price increases will be deferred or limited in amount. But such undertakings, if they affect trade associations or two or more suppliers, may involve industry in making an agreement which would be registrable under the present law; and industry is naturally unwilling to risk the consequent proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court.
Clause 2 therefore empowers those Government Departments which are concerned in operating the prices and incomes policy to exempt from registration agreements made at their request for the purpose of reducing prices, or preventing or restricting increases in prices. Exemption may be given for a period not exceeding two years, and it may be either extended or withdrawn for misuse. exempted agreements must be made available for public inspection.
Clause 3 makes various supplementary provisions which follow from Clauses 1 and 2.
The present law already exempts from registration agreements to make goods in accordance with a British standard. Clause 4 widens this exemption, both to cover agreements about the acquisition or supply of goods made in accordance with British standards, and agreements about standards approved by the Board of Trade and made by standard-making bodies other than the British Standards Institution. This Clause supplements the provision exempting agreements of importance to the national economy.
1012
With Clause 5 we come to the second main purpose of the Bill, which is to remove certain weaknesses in the operation of the 1956 Act. The first of these is the use of information agreements to circumvent the object of that Act. Clause 5 therefore empowers the Board of Trade, by Statutory Instrument, subject to the negative Resolution procedure, to require any class of information agreements to be registered.
The Board is given a wide power to classify agreements. The power is an enabling one, and it is not my intention to call up for registration obviously useful types of agreement, for example, agreements made to support work on inter-firm comparisons. This provision is similar to that proposed in the previous administration's White Paper of 1964.
The other weakness to which I referred was the difficulty which the Registrar has experienced in securing compliance with the provisions of the 1956 Act. While that Act imposes an obligation to furnish particulars of an agreement to the Registrar within three months, it imposes no penalty on those who fail to comply. The Bill therefore seeks to strengthen this part of the legislation.
Clause 6 lays down the periods within which particulars of agreements are to be sent to the Registrar for registration. The period is normally three months, as at present, or before the restrictions in the agreement come into force, whichever is the earlier. Special provision is made for transitional cases; for amended agreements; for information agreements newly called up for registration under Clause 5; and for agreements exempted under Clauses 1 and 2, when the period of exemption has expired, or the exemption has been revoked.
Clause 7 makes unlawful any agreement which is not registered within the period laid down by Clause 6. It does not impose criminal sanctions, but persons damaged by the operation of an unlawful agreements can seek civil remedies. This follows the precedent of the Resale Prices Act. The Registrar is also empowered to seek an injunction to prohibit parties to an unlawful agreement from operating it; or from carrying out or enforcing any other registrable agreement if they have not duly registered it.
Under the 1956 Act, the Registrar has a statutory duty to refer all agreements

1013
to the Restrictive Practices Court, including agreements which have been determined, or whose restrictions have been removed or abandoned. I am using as far as possible the legal language of the Act. To relieve the Registrar and the court of much unnecessary work, Clause 9 gives the Registrar discretion whether or not to refer such defunct agreements to the court. The only purpose of instituting procedings in respect of an agreement which is genuinely defunct is to seek a court order precluding the making of a fresh agreement to the like effect. Such proceedings are likely to be rare, but will sometimes be necessary.
The Board of Trade already has power under Section 12 of the 1956 Act to exempt insignificant agreements from examination by the court on the ground that they are of no substantial economic significance. In practice, we have found that the definition of such agreements is too narrow. There are a large number of agreements on the register which do not warrant legal proceedings, but which do not seem to satisfy the criteria of Section 12. Moreover, the requirement that the Registrar should remove particulars of insignificant agreements from the register has in practice proved a nuisance. One agreement has been removed and then restored because of trivial amendments no less than six times.
The Bill, therefore, repeals the existing Section 12, except for certain transitional purposes, and substitutes for it a power for the Board of Trade to direct that an agreement should not be referred to the court, if it is not of such significance as to call for investigation by the court.
Clause 10 provides a new ground for defence which will allow parties to plead before the Court that a restriction is not contrary to the public interest because it does not have the effect, directly or indirectly, of restricting competition to a material extent. This ground is intended mainly to provide a defence for information agreements, for which the other so-called "gateways" in section 21 of the 1956 Act are not likely to be appropriate. But it is not confined to information agreements. It can be used in defence of any restriction. This is also in line with what was proposed in the previous administration's 1964 White Paper.
1014
Article 15 of the E.F.T.A. Stockholm Convention recognises that certain types of restrictive and monopoly practices may be incompatible with the Convention. Like other member States of E.F.T.A., we have accepted the obligation to implement decisions under this Article. Clause 11 therefore provides that the Board of Trade should have a discretionary power to declare void any agreement registered or notified under the 1956 Act which the E.F.T.A. Council has found by formal resolution to be in breach of Article 15. This will not apply to restrictions which were successfully defended before the court before the Bill becomes law.
The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement contains a similar provision to Article 15 of the Stockholm Convention, and Clause 11 will, therefore, also apply to agreements which are incompatible with that agreement. The House will recall that powers were taken in the 1965 Monopolies and Mergers Act to enable the Government to honour international treaty obligations in relation to monopoly situations.
The remaining Clauses deal with relatively minor and consequential matters.
In introducing this Bill I have two objects in mind. The first is to ensure that our restrictive practices legislation does not fortuitously inhibit the over-riding national need for higher productivity and higher efficiency. The second is to ensure that the legislation works effectively to achieve the purposes which Parliament has in mind. I hope that both objectives will commend themselves to the House.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Those of my hon. Friends who were here 12 years ago in 1956 when the Act to which this Bill is an amendment was passing through the House, and those of us who since then have read the debates which took place on the Act, will have been astonished by the eulogistic attitude displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade towards the 1956 Act. He said that there had been broad party agreement on legislation of this type since the war. He declined to mention that his own party voted against the 1956 Act on a Reasoned Amendment.

1015
I can well recollect the argument which raged in the House and in the Press. Hon. Members opposite denied that there was any room in a system for controlling restrictive practices for the activities of a court. They argued that these issues were not justiciable issues; they were the function of Parliament.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that the 1956 Act was much improved in Committee and on Report, thanks to the efforts of the then Opposition, and was a better Measure when it reached the Statute Book.
Mr. Jenkin: I shall be quoting from the Third Reading debate, which no doubt will lend weight to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
Looking at what was said on Second Reading with regard to matters of principle on which there was no change throughout the passage of the Bill, though there were many changes in detail, perhaps I can do no better than quote what was said on 6th March by the then legal spokesman for the Labour Party, Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas:
"The Bill hands over to this court governmental and parliamentary power. All judgments are founded upon law or upon facts, but in this case the decision which really matters will be a decision founded neither upon law nor upon fact. It will be a political and economic decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2030.]
Yet the President of the Board of Trade has told us today that the court still has an essential rôle to play in this legislation.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, was not slow in his criticisms of the Bill. On Third Reading, after all the changes to which he has referred were made, he said:
"… there is a danger that we shall simply have a series of decisions whitewashing the restrictive practices of industry".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 897.]
What an astonishing proposition. What is industry's main complaint about this legislation today? It complains of the extreme rigour of the law. The Confederation of British Industry repeatedly has made its view known to Governments of both parties. It regards this legislation with the utmost distaste. In a recent paper it pointed out how few of the agree-
1016
ments have survived the procedures of the 1956 Act. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this in his speech. The Confederation said:
"The position which faces firms who contemplate a new agreement today is even more forbidding. They know that they will eventually have to defend the agreement before the Court. They know that their chances of success are slender and that the effort they will have to make to present their case will be costly and a serious burden on their senior staff. Few agreements are likely to be so potentially attractive that they will justify such risks and uncertainties."
All that I can say is, some whitewashing!
Perhaps the most astonishing forecast was made by Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas when adverting to the chances of success that an agreement would have to negotiating the obstacles placed in its way by the Act. In the same speech, he said:
"I do not believe that a single one of the multitude of agreements which come within Clause 5 could not be brought under one or other of the tests laid down in Clause 16."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2030.]
What is the history? Only a tiny handful of agreements which have gone into the court have been approved. It might be said that a rich man has a greater chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven than has a price fixed of securing the approval of the Restrictive Practices Court.
I will not weary the House with any more prognostications of gloom and doom which emanated from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during the passage of the 1956 Bill. They adverted to the prospective futility of the Bill; yet today we had a eulogy which showed that those prognostications were wholly without foundation. It would have been nice to have had some recognition of that from the President of the Board of Trade.
However, the right hon. Gentleman has provided perhaps the best evidence of the complete reversal of his attitude in the Government's own proposals in this Bill. He has come before the House not with massive provisions to tighten up the Act. Instead, in the first Clause, he proposes to exempt from the operations of the Act certain activities because the Act is operating too stringently. The major tightening that he proposes is one which was put before the House over four years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath).

1017
Perhaps it is difficult to measure the effects of the Act over the years. There is little doubt that many hundreds and perhaps thousands of agreements were abandoned and never appeared on the register at all. Many others have appeared on the register and, subsequently, were not defended. Many others have been varied to make them harmless. Many have been found contrary to public interest and have been declared void.
In his third report, the Registrar made some attempt to assess the results at that stage, and that took one up only to 1963. In paragraph 13, he said:
"In some such industries there is clearly now keen competition between the former parties in price and in the various aspects of service."
In paragraph 14, he said:
"The effect of the termination of agreements it some industries appears to be that large buyers can obtain competitive offers or discounts although any distributed price lists show few differences."
There is no doubt that the Act has had a soundly beneficial effect on the growth and increase of competition. It is bringing to consumers lower prices, greater choice and better service. It is bringing to industry a greater stimulus to higher efficiency, and to the country as a whole a more vigorous and competitive industrial environment.
Although it has been criticised by industry as being harsh and rigid with procedures which are narrow, legalistic, cumbersome and expensive, and although it has been criticised by some economists as operating too slowly, there is no doubt that the Act has been one of the outstanding legislative successes of the decade.
It has operated most successfully when there has been in the economy an atmosphere of growth and enterprise which characterised the now famous 13 years of Conservative government. The point was put very well by Sir Reginald Mathys, in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 7th January of this year. He said:
"The most important single fact to remember about monopolies and restrictive practices is that they are an inherent part of life, and the way to reduce their more harmful effects is to encourage enterprise and initiative, and so create a more positive climate in which it really pays the individual to be more efficient and outward looking than to be restrictive. Moral indignation is no help."
1018
During the past two or three years, there has been a sight too much moral indignation and too little encouragement and incentive from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is evident that those attitudes are highly prevalent among Ministers today. Only on Sunday, the Secretary of State for Productivity and Employment exhorted the shopworkers' conference at Margate. As reported in yesterday's edition of The Times, she said:
"Harold Wilson has put me in this job to find ways by which we can all help ourselves to an improvement in the quality of our lives within the context of the essential economic policy."
The right hon. Lady went on to say that the purpose of the new Department was to keep prices down by
"not accepting slipshod methods or hollow excuses from anyone: manufacturers, retailers or nationalised industries."
Mr. Dan Jones: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Jenkin: With great respect, there is nothing wrong with it. We are waiting to see if it is simply more moral indignation, or is intended to be a serious contribution to our economic problems. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will wait and see. Time alone will tell. The next six to nine months will show all too clearly and will provide the acid test of whether the right hon. Gentleman's fine words are anything more than mere pious verbiage.
Of one matter we can be certain, and it is that any success that there has been during the last two or three years in holding down prices has owed infinitely more to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act passed by my right hon. Friend Lord Thorneycroft, to the Resale Prices Act, piloted through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley, and to the monopolies legislation, piloted through by both parties, than the whole rigmarole of the prices and incomes legislation which has been foisted on the country. There is plenty of evidence that that legislation and many other aspects of Government policy have been counter-productive. The prices and incomes legislation is not the only example. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman stood condemned—qui s'excuse s'accuse.

1019
Businessmen are baffled and confused by the conflicting policies imposed on them by the Government. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act bans restrictive agreements. The National Board for Prices and Incomes recommends them. I need only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report on the bakers, which recommended the standardisation of types and shapes of bread by agreement between the bakers and the apportionment of bread rounds by the allocation of streets between different firms. If any bakers had attempted to indulge in that they would immediately have fallen foul of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and I cannot think that any of those scheme would have been included in the Bill now before us.
The I.R.C. aims to promote mergers. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North insisted, despite pressure from both sides, on including in his Monopolies Bill the silly £5 million test which resulted in 250 mergers being referred to the Board of Trade and only eight to the Monopolies Commission. The Government asked for further rationalisation in the now defunct National Plan, and yet continued to demand keen competition. The Ministry of Technology seeks to avoid wasteful duplication by exchange of information on investment intentions in the chemical industry but the new Bill will now require the registration of information agreements of exactly the sort that the Ministry of Technology urged the industry to carry out.
I cannot do better than to quote the Economist of 12th November:
"Like children whose parents have extreme and opposite views, businessmen are already confused by the non-creative tension between free trade sections of the government like the Board of Trade, and the more collectivist departments and quasi-departments like Neddy."
This is an example of the basic schizophrenia which characterises the Government's whole approach to economic problems and gives rise to great uncertainty in industry.
I am convinced that this is a very material factor in the widespread loss of confidence which has been so marked a feature in the last two or three years. There is a fundamental dilemma which will arise whenever a Socialist Government try to operate what is still substantially a free market economy. The late
1020
Lord Attlee said that it was impossible. He said:
"A Labour Government cannot run a market economy because they do not believe in it".
Of course he was right.
With some modesty I can claim to be one of the earliest who pointed out this basic inconsistency two years ago. On 17th February, 1966, I asked the then President of the Board of Trade whether he intended to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to promote the rationalisation called for in the National Plan. I was answered by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling):
"No, Sir. There is no a priori reason why rationalisation proposals designed to improve the competitive efficiency of industry need involve restrictive agreements."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 1511]
It was a different story which was given today by the President. Now they have seen that this is necessary and Clause 1 is intended to solve the problem by giving the Board of Trade the power which the President described to the House. The right hon. Gentleman gave the background to this new power and the reasons why he thought it necessary. He emphasised, and I was glad that he did, the narrow and stringent limits within which the power is to be exercised.
It is right that one should offer some comment on this. The basic need for this power stems from two quite different causes which have emerged in recent years. One is outside the Government's control and one is within the Government's control. The first is the great surge in technical innovation which is going on all over the world in mass marketing and production, the growing importance of factors of scale of marketing, production and research, and the rapidly mounting costs of research. The second cause, within the control of the Government, is the growing pattern of intervention by Government in the long-term, medium-and short-term in the decisions of industry.
If one looks at the legislation brought before the House during the last three years the list is formidable. Corporation Tax, discriminating against distributed profits, the investment grants with an unreal distinction between manufacturing and services, the same unreal distinction is the S.E.T.——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a Budget debate. We must keep to the Bill.
Mr. Jenkin: I am attempting to argue, and I will come to it as quickly as I can, that the Bill arises as an inexorable result of the cumulative effect of the policies pursued by the Government.
We have had the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation building licences, restrictions on overseas investment, and all this represents a massive interference by the State with the working of a market economy. Every new measure which the Government introduces leads inexorably to the next. New disincentives require a new pattern of inducements. Money extracted from industry in one form has to be handed back in another. Fetters on competition in one sphere lead to demands for cartels in another.
If this rising tide of Government interference were the sole origin of Clause 1 we would have no hesitation from this side of the House in condemning it out of hand. As it is, the other cause, the growth of technical innovation, is also a major factor which cannot be ignored. It leads one to the belief that it is right that one should take a cool look at Clause 1 and its possible merits. After much heart-searching we on this side of the House have come to the conclusion that those who have sought this suspension of the operation of the 1956 Act may have a case.
The United Kingdom market is small by international standards. Large-scale industry needs to operate in huge units in many cases. I think particularly of the industry with which I am most familiar, the chemical industry, in which often only one plant may be necessary to meet the total United Kingdom requirements. Sometimes this can be achieved by merger, but sometimes only by phasing of investment or sometimes by one firm building and others buying from it.
In the latter two cases the 1956 Act even precludes conversations leading to what might appear desirable, yet this may be the only way of solving the problem. I believe that, on balance, this should not be automatically illegal. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the recommendations of the N.E.D.C. for "Little Neddies", I do not necessarily regard that as a guarantee of respectability. Producer interests un-
1022
doubtedly dominate "Little Neddies" and they can lead to cartels just as easily as trade associations.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I wonder in this connection if the hon. Gentleman has studied the view of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the reactor industry.
Mr. Jenkin: I have not given the matter the attention which the hon. Member has given to it, so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow him too far into that labyrinth for the one in which I am engaged is complicated enough.
It is very easy for "Little Neddies" to constitute a trap for Government which would lead one to equate the interests of a particular industry with the public interests. Therefore, it is right that there should be no general blanket consent for the schemes put up by the "Little Neddies". The full rigour of the 1956 Act should be reserved for all but a very few special cases. There may be a case for an occasional very special exemption, but how are we to secure that this shall not be a major breach in the dyke against the resurgence of restrictive practices? The Financial Times, a year ago, rightly said:
"Economists tend to become suspicious whenever businessmen suggest that restrictive practices are justified."
I recognised in that a watered-down version of the famous dictum of Adam Smith who said, about 150 years ago:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices."
This attitude may be regarded by some as being over-suspicious, but in this field, I believe a healthy suspicion is the right attitude. I would add—and I am glad to have support from hon. Gentlemen opposite—doubly so when it is the Government, the Government of any party, who take upon themselves the function of being the arbiter. Having looked at this most carefully, I agree with the view of the Economist last month, which was that if there is to be such a power as is now contained in Clause 1
"The Board of Trade solution is the only possible one."
I do not believe that we need necessarily conclude the Government have got

1023
it right. In the meantime, perhaps the Minister of State, who is due to wind up this debate, could be a little more explicit about how this power is intended to be used.
What does this curious phrase—"national importance"—mean? I do not recollect having seen it in legislation before, although I may be wrong. How does it differ from "the national interest" or "the public interest"? Does it imply a certain size of project, or the importance of the product to the national economy? Does it imply the material or product which is to be produced is essential in British industry? Does it imply that it should be important in relation to the balance of payments? If so, what sort of saving have the Government in mind on this? Is it a project of national importance if it saves £10,000 a year on the balance of payments, or is it £100,000, £1 million or £10 million?
What safeguards will there be? How is the consumer to be protected from the exploitation which is one of the easiest pitfalls into which a restrictive agreement can lead? How are we to ensure that agreements of this sort are not used to shelter inefficiency or failure to innovate? How are we to ensure they are not used to preserve rather than readapt an outmoded industrial structure?
The President of the Board of Trade referred to the need to give a reasonable duration to these agreements. How is the Board of Trade to decide upon the duration, the situation which has created the need for the agreement in the first place, or the progress of the scheme which has been introduced under it? On these and, indeed, on many other points—some of them will no doubt be referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis)—we shall need to be satisfied before we would be prepared to let this Clause go on to the Statute Book.
The former President of the Board of Trade, when forecasting the Bill, said that he would use the power very sparingly. I would certainly hope so, but I do not believe that that, by itself, is enough. I suggest that he looks at some of these important safeguards which may make the power more acceptable in a competitive economy. I would suggest he takes a very hard look at tariffs for
1024
instance. A cartel of the sort which the Bill envisages is just what might be dealt with by the sort of advice which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley referred to in his speech on the Government cuts on 18th January, when he said that the Government could conduct a
"tariff review in those fields where monopoly is likely or possible."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 18th January, 1968, Vol. 756, c. 1966.]
Market-sharing arrangements, price stabilisation arrangements, agreements not to compete in certain fields can lead—and it is important to emphasise that in thousands of cases in this century have led—to the exploitation of consumers, to the misuse of resources, to sluggishness and lack of enterprise. It is essential that Clause 1 should not be allowed to become a vehicle for the return of old, bad habits, so recently eradicated after so much travail. The recent Report of the Monopolies Commission on "man-made cellulosic fibres" shows the harm that can be done if agreements—in that case with other European producers—are allowed to continue indefinitely against the public interest.
I would propose one more safeguard—and we shall move an Amendment to this effect in Committee—that the Clause itself, and not merely the Orders under it, should have a time limit. This must be only a temporary power for the Government. It stems basically from the fact that the British market is too small in which to allow the rationalisation which we all require to take place. All this is changed if we join the Common Market; if we find ourselves part of a giant Continental market I do not believe that there is a place for a dispensing power of this sort.
In short, we on this side of the House view this Clause with great reserve, verging on a deep suspicion and we require much more explicit information as to how it will work. We shall insist on full safeguards, and I must add that under no circumstances must the consent of the Board of Trade be accompanied by a demand for a shareholding in the venture. Nothing would be more guaranteed to ensure the permanence of an arrangement which is intended to be temporary than that the Government themselves should put money into it and become a shareholder.

1025
I believe that the President of the Board of Trade may have made out a prima facie case for the Clause, but I that he will have to prove it categorically in Committee.
May I turn briefly to the rest of the Bill. Clause 4 is a welcome extension of Section 7(3) of the Act and would allow such valuable bodies as the Engineering Equipment Users' Association and the Oil Companies' Materials' Association to continue to operate without the need for registration.
Clause 6 seems to be a sensible Clause, establishing the need for registration before the agreement takes effect. We have looked at Clause 7 very carefully and I believe, on balance, this is necessary. No honest trader will object to the existence of sanctions on the dodger and it is certainly right to give the injured party a remedy in damages, although I believe that the President of the Board of Trade has been right to resist the temptation to imitate the Americans and introduce triple damages.
We note that the gateway in Clause 10 on restriction
"does not directly or indirectly restrict or discourage competition to any material degree,"
and it is not likely to do so. Again, we welcome that.
Finally, I come to Clause 5, which deals with information agreements. I must go into this at a little greater length. One of the Registrar's earliest complaints was that an information agreement was a method of circumventing the 1966 Act, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley's White Paper of 1964 indicated an intention to legislate. It is unfortunate that there has been so long a delay on this matter.
The basic slag case in 1963 represented a very great extension of the interpretation of what constitutes an arrangement—and that is a technical word. Under the 1956 Act, this was a considerable extension of the law and it has the effect of making a great many information agreements—certainly any of those that constitute restriction—registrabl under the Act.
One learned commentator, in a fascinating article in the Modern Law Review on this subject, has even suggested that no further legislation is necessary, because the basic slag case and the mean-
1026
ing given to "arrangement" is adequate to catch all the information agreements that one would want to strike at. I disagree with this because we are introducing here new penalties for failure to register, and it is necessary that it should be clear beyond a peradventure what the agreements are that require to be registered. Industries and firms must not be put into grave doubt as to whether their agreements are registrable or not. However, I do believe that Clause 5 may have gone further than the circumstances of the case require. I recognise that at the moment it is merely an empowering Clause and the categories of information agreement will have to be brought before the House in a Statutory Instrument.
I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to give some thought to this, and perhaps the Minister of State might comment on it in winding up. Why is it necessary to go beyond information agreements regarding prices, terms and conditions, which include discounts, rebates, and so on? The right hon. Gentleman has included in the Bill agreements on information about quantities, descriptions, costs, processes, customers, areas, and so on. At first sight, I believe that he has gone much wider than is necessary. If Orders are brought forward relative to these agreements, the right hon. Gentleman will sweep into the net, and compel the registration of, tens of thousands of entirely commonplace, harmless commercial agreements.
One example is a price list which offers quantity discounts. It is easy to postulate an agreement that the same discounts are to be offered to all customers of the trader. That, therefore, will be caught. The licensor of a process who licenses his process to several firms and provides for an exchange of technical information is clearly caught, if such agreements are brought forward. Take the case of trade associations, which goes even further. The Confederation of British Industry provides the Board of Trade with the names of chemical manufacturers. The President of the Board of Trade may not have realised it, but that may be a registrable agreement.
If the Scotch Whisky Association—I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has left—agrees to give a Member of Parliament figures of the production and

1027
sales of Scotch whisky, that will be a registrable agreement. This goes very much too far and I do not believe that the House ought to give the Board of Trade these powers.
There is a further difficulty, Subsection (2) provides for what is to be the effect of these agreements—how they are to be interpreted—by the device of a statutory hypothesis that the information agreement is deemed to be a restriction. In other words, the court, if the agreement ever comes before the court, will not be required to consider the information agreement which actually exists, but an entirely different agreement containing a hypothetical restriction of a different scope.
The query to which we must have an answer is: how will the gateways in Section 21 apply to Rich a hypothetical restriction? If the agreement is already restrictive, such as an agreement to inform about proposed price increases, which is clearly restrictive, the hypothesis is quite unnecessary. If the agreement is not a restrictive one, it cannot be made a restrictive one, or at any rate not so as to be amenable to the provisions of Section 21. It just will not work. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will have to look at the Clause very carefully again, because I believe that it is misconceived.
We recognise that something needs to be done. We recognise that it is entirely unclear as to what are the agreements that ought to be registered as embodying a restriction, but we do not believe that the President of the Board of Trade has hit on the right answer yet. Surely what is important here is that the mere provision of information is a perfectly harmless activity. What is damaging to the economy is the misuse of that information.
I want to quote a statement by a very distinguished judge in an American case—United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in 1948:
"The Sherman Antitrust Law does not…force men to buy or sell without knowledge of what they must compete against.
In the absence of any combination or agreement or conspiracy in restraint of trade … manufacturing competitors may legally exchange current price lists and cost information …
A manufacturer may legally ask competitors whether the information he has received from his salesmen … is accurate, and he may,
1028
if he wishes, legally make such information or portions of it available to competitors.
So long as these activities are done for the purpose of gaining or exchanging accurate information concerning current market conditions, they are normal and necessary to the running of the business and are not unlawful."
"Unlawful" is in the context of the American antitrust law, but if we substituted "harmful" for "unlawful" that doctrine could well be transported to this country. I believe that that is the right objective. I cannot believe that it is right to clutter up the Register with a great welter of agreements which by no stretch of the imagination could be regarded as restrictive. I suggest that between today and the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman takes the Clause back and has another very careful look at it to ensure that he is not asking Parliament for a power which is unnecessarily wide.
I want to end by joining the right hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to the Registrar and his staff, who perform what is now an essential function in any modern industrial state. They have proved that the Act can work, and work well, despite the grim forebodings of right hon. and hon. Members opposite a decade ago.
Much of the Bill is welcome. Some of it is overdue. Some of it is right in aim but wrong in method. Some of it must be viewed with suspicion. In the meanwhile, while we cannot offer it more than a moderate welcome for itself, we can recognise, with a rather greater warmth, that it represents a most notable conversion of the Labour Party to a system to which, only 12 years ago, it appeared to take very grave exception.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on his typical flexibility of mind and approach in introducing this revising legislation to the 1956 Act. The intention is to assist the Government in improving in present circumstances the effective working of the prices and incomes policy—particularly, I should have thought, the prices leg of that policy—and in some special circumstances, where the previous legislation is perhaps working against rather than for industrial efficiency, to assist that efficiency.

1029
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who, as usual, made an interesting speech, was just a little plaintive when he complained that the Conservative Party had not been praised for bringing in the 1956 legislation. If that is all that is required, I suppose that most of us would be prepared to say immediately that the Conservative Administration did at least one, or even two, good things during the years that it was in office.
To be serious, in the 1950s there was a great movement of opinion against restrictive trade practices in general. Some of it, but not all of it, was well informed. There is always a fashion in these things, and today perhaps the pendulum has swung a little in the other direction. Many of us concede that, although the 1956 Act was generally good and has probably increased industrial and commercial efficiency all round, it has not always at the same time improved the extent of consumer or customer choice.
I can give an example from the heavy electrical engineering plant industry, of which I have some small personal knowledge. A decade ago there were more heavy electrical engineering firms in Britain—in turbines, cables, transformers, switchgear, and so on—than exist today. There were at that time many ring prices and restrictive agreements which indirectly often helped quality and which certainly aided research. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that those agreements kept smaller, and not always very efficient, firms in existence, not that I am arguing all the time that every small firm is necessarily inefficient.
Now, due to the effect of the 1956 Act and of parallel economic trends, over the last decade there has been a large number of amalgamations and mergers in the heavy electrical engineering plant industry, the latest and most remarkable of which is the merger between A.E.I. and the General Electric Company. The result, we hope, is certainly much greater efficiency, but it has hardly increased customer choice.
As the hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept for chemicals, we could easily soon reach the paradoxical situation where for heavy electrical plant in this country there is a single publicly-owned monopoly buyer served by a single privately-owned monopoly supplier. The net result may be to
1030
increase all-round efficiency, but, as I say, it does not necessarily result in greater customer choice.
However, my intention is not to speak about technology, tempting as that normally is to me, but rather to give shortly some of the experiences of the Co-operative movement, in which I have an interest, of the working out of the 1956 Act. The devotion of consumers' co-operation in this country to the principle of sharing trading profits among members according to the extent of their purchases is well known.
It was on that historic principle that the retail Co-operative movement in this country was founded, has grown, and largely holds its supporters today. But an interesting example of one of the anomalies that can arise under this kind of legislation is that when the Co-operative Union, some time ago, advised its members, the retail societies, that they should stick to dividends and avoid the temptation of gift stamps it was rebuked by the Registrar. That is rather like ticking of a bishop for advising his clergy that they should continue to extol the traditional advantages of virtue.
It was the opinion of the Co-operative Union that it was not Parliament's intention in 1956 to inhibit recommendations of a general character on matters of public interest given by a trade association to its members. But in a letter from the Assistant Registrar to the Union two statements by the Co-operative Union were quoted as evidence of the need to register a restrictive practice in the circumstances I have mentioned. They were:
"Approaches from trading stamp companies should, therefore, be firmly declined"
and:
"Stand firm against the introduction of gift stamps."
This does not sound very restrictive to me.
I appreciate that this is probably a Committee point, but the issue is really over the interpretation of Section 6 (7) of the 1956 Act. The question is whether the term "goods" should be interpreted widely or narrowly. From the point of view of the Co-operative movement this is a difficulty because, as is well known, the Co-operative societies do not deal only in goods but render a wide range of services. One can get one's hair cut by the Co-op or be buried by the

1031
Co-op as well as buying one's groceries there.
However, the Co-operative Union took the very plain hint of the Registrar and has registered its so-called agreement. The question I want to put shortly is whether this new revising legislation should not give commonsense relief, which I think is necessary, on such a point. I am doubtful that Clause 1 or Clause 2 will help very much, but that can be explored further in Committee. Clause 10 might provide grounds for defence in proceedings before the court but it is bound to be a rather negative and cumbersome procedure under the terms in which the Clause is drawn.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I am sure the House will congratulate my right hon. Friend and welcome the Bill if it will do something to bring about greater stability in prices by collective trade action. But it is a pity that the opportunity has not apparently been taken to give more general relief where it is necessary in the light of the experience of the working of the 1956 Act. For the Co-operative movement it is not just a question of trading stamps as against the traditional dividend policy. There are other issues, such as the rationalisation of milk and bread deliveries, which seemed to be brushed aside by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford as unnecessary. I believe that there is a very strong case for such rationalisation. That was certainly the view of the Davies inquiry into milk distribution and of the Prices and Incomes Board in its report on bread prices.
It is surely perfectly consistent to oppose monopoly and restrictive trade practices in general and where competition is beneficial while arguing at the same time for sensible rationalisation in parts of the economy where this will also be in the general public interest. That is the view of the Co-operative movement, which has had, and continues to have, vast experience in milk distribution and of bread production. But the intentions of the Davies inquiry and the Prices and Incomes Board in this matter cannot be applied, because of the restrictive trade practices legislation which stands in the way.
1032
The Bill was an opportunity to look at a number of anomalies which have appeared in the 1956 legislation in the light of experience. It was an opportunity to remove some of the absurdities which have arisen and which were not intended by the House, I am sure. It is a pity that the opportunity has not been taken as far as I can judge.
Nevertheless, I join with those who will yet take part in the debate, I hope from this side of the House, and, perhaps, the other side, in welcoming the Bill as a step forward.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: As it would appear that this is to be a short debate, the Minister of State will appreciate that this may involve my reiterating some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). I make no apology for that. I have found in my comparatively short sojourn in this House that sometimes Bills of very considerable significance pass by without a great deal of comment. Not being a member of the legal profession, I would add that sometimes phrases that do not attract a great deal of attention in Bills turn out to be of particular importance when they are interpreted in the courts.
My first comment is on the general attitude of the parties and the country toward restrictive practices and this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade went a long way towards paying tribute to his predecessor, Lord Thorneycroft, and the success of his Measure. He said that there was a degree of agreement between the parties on this Bill and on the attitude to restrictive agreements.
I am not at all sure that we are not reaching a watershed in this direction, and that the attitudes of the parties are beginning to diverge, not because my hon. Friends and myself are changing our attitudes, but because the interventionist outlook of the Government inevitably leads them to find themselves from time to time not only thwarted by, but perhaps in conflict with, market forces, and therefore, anxious to free themselves from the restrictions of the type of legislation embodied in the 1956 Act.
The President of the Board of Trade was very frank in his comments as to

1033
what lay behind Clause 1. He went to some length to emphasise the fact that there would be very few occasions, and they would be very exceptional—to paraphrase what he said—when the Clause would be used. Surely, if the occasions are to be so few, and if the nature of those occasions is to be so unusual or of such significance, would it not be better, rather than cast doubts upon the whole basic attitude of the Government, for these to be dealt with by special legislation?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I come from that part of the country, Lancashire, with which successive holders of his office have been very much concerned. He used the phrase—and I hope I am being fair to him—that a new factor was that the Government did not believe that the unaided working of market forces would always bring about the desired structural changes. This is not entirely a novel concept, because the Textile Reorganisation Act was produced precisely to bring about structural changes more quickly and less painfully, and perhaps more definitely than market forces could have done.
It was done by means of a special individual Measure which could be debated in this House and where the merits of the decision could be fully discussed before action was taken. There is a case to be answered as to why it is necessary to embody in general legislation, in general terms, provisions that could be covered by special legislation, since it appears that there are occasions when the House is not over-pressed for time.
We should realise the extent to which the 1956 Act achieved the purpose for which it was introduced. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford, I was not in this House when the Act was passed, and I have been reading and studying the debates. It is fair to say that on a technical, complicated and somewhat controversial subject, it is remarkable how well the then President of the Board of Trade framed his legislation in order to achieve the desired purpose. Although it is perhaps too much to say that the 1956 Act changed the mood of industry, it is very important when discussing amendments, to recognise that the Act confirmed and reinforced the trend, which at that time was none too firmly established.
1034
Some of the quotations that we have heard support that. The trend was to view it as a prima facie operation against the public interests to enter into an agreement in restriction of competition. At that time, there was still a very wide fear of unemployment, and there was a persistent belief in many quarters, not confined to one political party, that in some way it was competition and not lack of demand that created unemployment. If we have learned one lesson since 1956, it is that periods of excess home demand have led eventually to unemployment and that a lack of competition, or at any rate an inability to be sufficiently competitive, has been a danger to the success of our economy and the maintenance of full employment.
I would like to put on record that I believe that any unemployment we may suffer in future is more likely to result from over-cossetting ourselves against the competition than from over-exposure to it. The 1956 Act has stood the test of time and changing circumstances well. This is nowhere more evident than in the reports of the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court. Those reports make fascinating reading. I am quite certain that industrial historians in future, and perhaps even the Minister of State, if he ever undertakes an historical work of this kind, will find the reports of the Registrar to be most fascinating reflections of industrial practices in this country in the period since the war.
Experience has shown that certain amendments are desirable. The intentions of the last Government were set out in the White Paper of March, 1964. Some have been incorporated in the Bill. Certain provisions in the Bill arise directly from the recommendations of the Registrar. Clause 5, for instance, relates to information agreements which were the subject of comment in the White Paper, and on a number of occasions by the Registrar. I would like to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend and ask the Minister of State if he could be a little more explicit as to the type of agreements he envisages might require the invoking of the full provisions of Clause 5. Some of them seem to be designed to restrict activities which have been encouraged, and thought desirable by successive Governments.
I cannot see why subsection (1)(d) of Clause 5 should be in the Bill and I would

1035
like the Minister of State to give us further information as to why a simpler Clause, restricted more to prices and terms and conditions of sale, would not have met the purpose. Clause 10 was foreshadowed in the then Government's White Paper of March, 1964, and in the Report of the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court. I have certain reservations on the effect that Clause 10 will have on restrictive practices agreements. I hope that I am wrong, I do not attribute any deep design to the right hon. Gentleman, but I just feel that this innocent, small Clause may well be subject to a very wide range of interpretations when it comes to be considered by the Restrictive Practices Court.
I wonder whether the intentions behind it will be best served by the wording of subsection (1)(h). My first reaction to the Clause was that it was very negative in its approach. I felt that the layman in industry looking at the Clause, wondering whether to become a party to an agreement, might feel that all he would need to do to justify the agreement would be simply to declare before the court that the agreement would not restrict competition, and that the onus would then lie with the Registrar to prove that it would.
This was my first reading, as a layman, of the Clause. I then spoke to my learned friends in the legal profession, who took an exactly opposite view. They drew my attention to the opening words of Section 21 of the 1956 Act and to the concluding paragraph of that Section. They said that the onus would be on the party to the agreement to show that there was no restriction of competition. They then went on to say that the establishment before a court of a negative situation such as Clause 10 demanded of the party to the agreement was perhaps the most difficult thing of all to do. So we had gone full circle.
My initial thought was that it might be easy for the party to an agreement to throw the onus on the Registrar. I was then given the opinion that it would be most difficult even in the most simple cases for the party to the agreement to establish it, and I then thought that instead of opening the door too wide the clause would not open it sufficiently or at all. Finally, there came into my mind the words of the Lord Chancellor, in the
1036
House of Lords debate on Second Reading, about Clause 21 of the 1956 Act. I should like to quote these at length, because I do not consider myself to be an authority on these matters, and I make that quite clear to the Minister of State, but I feel that this is a clause which might produce a much greater effect than is appreciated.
The Lord Chancellor said:
"What the parties to the agreement will have to do here is to show, in the first place, that the restriction comes within certain exceptions, which the Bill defines, to the general principle laid down by Parliament that restraint of competition is prima facie against the public interest. I submit that all reasonable grounds of pleading are covered by paragraphs (a) to (g). They mean that a restriction must confer some specific—I repeat, specific—benefit, or prevent some specific—again I repeat, specific—harm. A specific benefit would be, for example, the promotion of the interests of consumers to the development of better techniques by co-operative research."
That is a point my hon. Friend commented upon.
"A specific harm would be the prevention of abuse of economic power by a dominating buyer or seller, or the adverse effects of export trade or on the general level—I emphasise 'general level'—of unemployment in an area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th June, 1956; Vol. 198, c. 17.]
If Clause 21 of the 1956 Act is examined it is seen to be entirely different in the justiciable issues it lays down from the present Clause 10, and I hope that the Government are confident that when this Clause comes to be interpreted by the court it will not have effects far beyond what they are anticipating, or that it will not be so difficult for the party to an agreement to establish or validate that it will be of little use at all.
Another point about the construction of the Bill is that for the first time it reverses the trend towards recognising that the efficient use of economic resources depends upon the existence or the creation of competitive conditions. I am not trying to be provocative, but I think it fair to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite would want to qualify this by saying that this is so outside the public sector.
That certainly is the principle upon which the 1956 Act is based and this underlying attitude is very clearly reflected again in Section 21 of that Act,

1037
what I call the overriding provisions—which I will return to later—where it says that
"a restriction accepted in pursuance of any agreement shall be deemed to be contrary to the public interest unless the Court is satisfied of any one or more of the following circumstances …"
and unless
"the restriction is not unreasonable having regard to the balance between those circumstances and any detriment to the public or to persons not parties to the agreement (being purchasers, consumers or users of goods …"
I feel that the omission of that type of overriding consideration from Clause 1 is a reason for regarding it with some degree of suspicion.
I think that we can say also that the introduction of Clause 1 goes directly contrary to the legislation to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred—the monopolies and mergers legislation, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and certainly the European Free Trade Area Convention, as well as the underlying attitude which gave rise to the Kennedy Round negotiations. All these operate and, I believe, were intended to operate to secure the efficient use of economic resources by the existence or creation of competitive conditions.
Here, in Clause 1, we find the Government taking a step in the exactly opposite direction and I believe, in view particularly of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is a decision taken directly by the Government because they feel that a more interventionist policy is justified, that this removes the Bill from the category of a minor Measure and gives it a good deal more consequence than has been appreciated.
The circumstances which are given in Clause 1 as justifying a restrictive trade agreement are comletely different from those in Section 21 of the 1956 Act. So far as I am aware, they are circumstances to which no reference is made in any of the previous legislation—in the Monopolies and Mergers Act or in the international agreements to which I have referred. That is why I think that this Clause requires a full and detailed explanation and justification by the Government.
There is one particular feature of the Clause which, I think, is certainly in
1038
accord with a trend in the Government's legislation and particularly, I am afraid, the legislation brought before the House by t Board of Trade. It is the trend towards the extension of administrative direction and administrative discretion. My hon. Friend has referred to the Bills which have been brought forward in this Parliament which, over and over again, have given a widened field of administrative discretion to the Board of Trade.
In this particular case, it is not only that in Clause 1 the Board of Trade has taken unto itself administrative discretion, but, as the President has said quite frankly and openly, that it is administrative discretion which may well arise and be exercised as a result of administrative or executive direction or pressure brought upon industry by the Board of Trade or by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I think that in view of this double conjunction of administrative direction and discretion the Government should consider very carefully whether some provision should not be made for the public interest to be represented at some stage in the operation of this clause. The Registrar represents the public interest element in hearings before the Restrictive Practices Court.
As I understand, it is quite possible under Clause 1 for the machinery to operate in such a way that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade feels that, as he would put it, some structural change in industry is required and that this can only be brought about by an agreement between industrial concerns which would constitute a restrictive agreement under the terms of the 1956 Act, and, therefore, the matter is considered and an Order is made by the President of the Board of Trade giving approval to that agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase in his speech which touched upon a point I was going to introduce here when he said, I think, that in normal circumstances the Order would be laid before the House. I am relying on my memory: he made a very lucid speech with little repetition and I think that he said that in normal circumstances an Order resulting from Clause 1 would be laid before the House.
What are the circumstances in which the Order would not be laid before the

1039
House? Is the Minister referring to the special section of the register kept by the Board of Trade or by the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court? Is he referring to agreements involving export or national interests which under the present procedures would be kept in the special section of the court's register? If he is, it is very likely that a high proportion of these Orders would not be laid before the House.
Surely the sort of situation which would justify what the right hon. Gentleman said would be an exceptional procedure for matters of very considerable importance would be such that the whole purpose of the operation could be jeopardised if the agreement was laid before the House and would be just the type of agreement which would qualify for inclusion in the special section of the register kept under the 1956 Act. I ask the Minister of State to make this point clear.
That brings me to Clause 1(5), which deals with the question of laying a copy of any Order before each House of Parliament. It is not bringing Parliament very closely into supervision of the actions of the Executive to bring it in at the tail end of this procedure. Members are quite right to be vigilant in this type of matter. Here we have a procedure which from start to finish may be carried on in private—I will not say in secret—and which culminates in laying an Order before the House, but not in such a way that it requires the affirmative resolution procedure or is subject to the negative Resolution procedure. I understand that this is purely an informative action under the Statutory Instruments Act making the Order available to the House. This sequence suggests that there must be a better and safer procedure to follow to achieve the right hon. Gentleman's rather doubtful objective.
I contrast the wording of the criteria in Clause 1 with the clarity and exactness of the criteria in Section 21 of the 1956 Act. This is an indication of the difference in attitude between the present Government and the Government of that day. The Government who introduced the 1956 Measure laid down justiciable issues in language which surely the experience of the Restrictive Practices Court has shown was clear, definite and easily interpetable. The language of Clause 1(2) is of the
1040
woolliest kind. It is just as well that it is the President of the Board of Trade who will interpret the powers which he is giving himself in this Clause, because any legal court would have great difficulty in doing so.
I take particular exception to the use of the phrase "national interest". The phrase "public interest" is used in Section 21 of the 1956 Act. As far as I can see, it is used invariably. Never is the phrase "national interest" used. I have always felt that the "public interest" was what the public regarded as being its own interest and in the achievement of which it could often count on the support of the courts. I regard the "national interest" as something which Governments regard as in the interests of the public and impose on the public, whether it requires it or not.
It is significant that the wording of the original announcement and the replies to Parliamentary Questions made by the Minister was different. Then we had reference to agreements which were "positively beneficial to the national economy". I do not know whether that is any more exact, but I prefer it to the phrase "national interest".
The Bill has certain features which are unexceptionable and generally acceptable. However, it contains a number of disquieting provisions about which the President of the Board of Trade has not allayed our apprehensions. Although he is comparatively new to his office, this is not a new field for the Minister of State, and, since he has plenty of time available, I look forward to listening to him. Perhaps he will reply to the points of substance made with clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford and the points which I have endeavoured to make, perhaps with less clarity, in such a way that the Committee stage will be even more constructive and perhaps a little more abbreviated than would otherwise have been the case.
The Bill will benefit from and will receive a constructive examination in Committee, although I do not altogether accept the right hon. Gentleman's feeling that, since perhaps his intentions are good, the Bill will be accepted as not having the fundamental significance to which I feel it may give rise.
5.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I should be glad to think, after this surprisingly short debate considering the importance of the subject, that I could give an answer today which would make it possible to discount the Committee stage altogether, but I am afraid that, despite what I say in answer to the questions raised, we shall have a Committee stage. I thank hon. Members opposite for indicating the sort of points which they will raise in Committee. This will give us an opportunity to consider them between now and the Committee stage.
I expected that hon. Members opposite would not miss the opportunity to give a paeon of praise to the 1956 Act. Obviously, that legislation having worked very successfully for the last 12 years and having cleared away the vast majority of restrictive agreements which existed at that time, the sensible thing to do is to build on that legislation, to accept the success which it has had, to improve it in the respects which the Bill proposes and not to change the basis of restrictive legislation. Nevertheless, there was a genuine debate in 1956, and not a debate which had a clear and definite answer, namely, whether one should proceed by judicial review or administrative review.
There are clear advantages in those two methods. Different countries have used one or other of them. We have used the judicial method, and it has been successful. That does not mean that the other method would not have been successful. One of the interesting things about the Bill is that it provides for a greater degree of administrative discretion than was embodied in the 1956 Act, because experience has shown that it is necessary to have a degree of administrative discretion in operating legislation against restrictive practices.
Hon. Members opposite have said that they view Clause 1 with some suspicion, but that they accept it. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) gave two reasons why Clause 1 might be necessary. He was very unhappy about the reason which related to the Government's industrial policy. The other reason related to what he called the growth of technological innovation. He accepted that as a
1042
reason for some such power as exists in Clause 1.
Although we have had a very rapid rate of technological innovation in 1968, we did also in 1956. Many of the characteristics of our industrial society which are present today were present in 1956. For example, 1968 is not the first year in which we have heard of information agreements. All these things could have been dealt with in the 1956 Act. We have to deal with them now.
The main lesson of today's debate is the importance of providing in this legislation for administrative discretion to create some degree of flexibility in operating this type of legislation.
One of the consequences of choosing the judicial review procedure in the 1956 legislation was that there had to be a presumption in favour of competition and that restrictive agreements were against the public interest. That presumption had to be in the legislation so that the court could have a basis upon which to operate. No doubt that presumption was right in the conditions of 1956. But equally—and this is an inevitable consequence of this presumption, and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), in talking about Clause 10, expressed anxiety about this presumption which will still exist in the operation of the Restrictive Practices Court—this presumption means that it is a difficult, costly and very uncertain procedure to secure exemption, even for beneficial restrictive agreements.
Apparently it is now accepted on both sides that there are certain types of restrictive agreement which can be beneficial and which, therefore, in some way, have to be provided for. This is what we are doing in this legislation. Industry has asked us to do this. Industry has expressed disquiet about the operation of this legislation and has suggested that there should be some sort of adminstrative discretion vested in the Board of Trade. This is what we are doing now.
Of course, I accept what the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said about this sort of representation from industry. It has to be looked at with considerable care, because obviously it is self-interested representation, and industry may not have as good a case as it argues.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman by implication is chiding my right hon. Friends for not having recognised the need for this power in 1956. But he will remember—and I quoted what was said to me by his predecessor only two years ago—that in the view of the Government there was no need for this power. Surely this is totally inconsistent.
Mr. Dell: What was said in relation to mergers is somewhat different from what has to be embodied in legislation regarding restrictive practices. Concerning the suspicion of the purposes or intentions of industry, to which expression was given, particularly by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, it has to be remembered that in the 1956 Act not all restrictive agreements had to be registered. Provision was made in that Act for certain types of agreement not to be registered. Indeed, reference has been made to the provision regarding standards and the fact that in the Bill we are extending that provision—again on the representations of industry which thinks it important we should do so. These were the types of agreement which did not have to be registered under the 1956 Act and are included in Sections 7 and 8 of that Act.
Equally, even in the 1956 Act, room was provided for, at any rate, some element of precisely the kind of administrative discretion that excites such suspicion in the mind of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale. For example, Section 7(1) gave administrative discretion regarding iron and steel, and Section 12 gave administrative discretion to the Board of Trade regarding insignificant agreements. The question really is where the line regarding administrative discretion has to be drawn.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford asked what safeguards there would be in the operation of Clause 1. I accept that it is important there should be safeguards, but safeguards are embodied in the Bill and no doubt we can consider them further in Committee.
First, there is the safeguard by making reference to the national interest. I will come later to the question of what "the national interest" means. This is a limiting criterion and in itself provides a safeguard. There are other conditions laid down relating to the exercise of the powers in Clause 1. Where the object
1044
cannot otherwise be achieved in a reasonable time, exemption is provided for a limited time. The restrictions must be no more than necessary and there will be publicity of the fact that there is an exception, and exemption orders and copies of exempted agreements will be laid before Parliament.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale asked what the exemptions were and he correctly indicated their nature. He said that the public interest should be represented in this procedure. It is agreed—and I understood it to be agreed by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford—that the only body that can do this job is the Board of Trade. Together with the other safeguards and the publicity which will be given to its decisions, I consider that the safeguards in Clause 1 will prove adequate.
I am asked what "national importance" means. Reference was made to possible criteria of "national importance". Such criteria, for example, are the size of the project, the size of the industry and its importance to our balance of payments. There are other criteria which might be of importance in this regard, such as the fact that there has been a report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We will have to judge in the light of the circumstances.
The object of the Clause is to provide flexibility. It would not be sensible, when one is providing this degree of flexibility subject, as it is, to the safeguards to which I have referred, to immediately start limiting it to an undesirable degree. This, again, was one of the problems with the 1956 Act. One cannot always meet the wishes of lawyers to have everything cut and dried. But I think that here we are providing a useful flexibility together with adequate safeguards.
None of this implies that the Registrar and the Restrictive Practices Court have not done a first-class job. They have. For this reason we are building in the other section of the Bill, strengthening the powers against restrictive practices. We are meeting the representations made by the Registrar in his fourth report about current inadequacies of the legislation. We are meeting most, though not all, of the points which he thinks should be improved by subsequent legislation. Some of the points that he makes have been met since he made that report

1045
by the decision of the court in certain cases, which will be known to hon. Members, to impose very severe fines where there were agreements in like effect.
There is also the new fact that there is now no significant backlog of cases. Therefore, new agreements can be rapidly brought before the court. Therefore, in essence we are meeting the points made by the Registrar about the ways in which the current legislation should be strengthened.
I was asked specifically about information agreements, and reference was made to the Basic Slag case. It was suggested that some people thought the Basic Slag case made it unnecessary to have this provision regarding information agreements. We do not take that view. Indeed, the 1964 White Paper, published by the party opposite, made it clear that while they were in power they did not take that view. We think it is necessary to have this Clause for a variety of reasons, among which is the need for certainty regarding what is registrable. In deciding what is registrable, we will have full consultation with those who might be concerned.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford why in this respect we were going beyond agreements covering prices. He listed a whole series of desirable information agreements which he feared might be called up under this Clause. I think that those fears are rather exaggerated.
We have here what is in fact merely an enabling Clause under which we will call up by Order. These Orders will be made only after the fullest consultation to ensure that as far as possible we do not call up desirable information agreements. We have inserted in the legislation—this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale—the new material effect gateway in Clause 10 because, as has been made clear on many occasions, including by the Registrar, if we are proposing to call up information agreements, we must have a material effect gateway. If we do not, it will make the practice of the court very difficult in respect of information agreements.
Under Section 12 as it will be when amended by the Bill we will have new powers in respect of insignificant restric-
1046
tions. We decided that we must have power to call up information agreements other than those covering prices because there is a danger—and it is a danger against which we are right to safeguard ourselves—that other kinds of information agreements could, in certain circumstances, be a cover for agreements relating to prices.
However, on this point as on others, if hon. Gentlemen opposite have doubts which they wish to discuss in Committee we shall be glad to consider them all because we have no desire other than to make the legislation as good as it can possibly be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked about recommendations by the Co-operative Union. I should like to give a considered answer after I have read exactly what my hon. Friend said. My immediate reaction is that a recommendation by the Co-operative Union to its members about the conditions under which they should supply goods, for example, that they should not give trading stamps, is registrable. Whether it will be let out by Clause 9(2), as
"not of such significance as to call for investigation"
will be for consideration in the first instance by the Registrar. I cannot say that it would be. It would almost certainly not qualify under Clause 1 dealing with administrative exemptions for agreements of national importance.
Mr. Palmer: The Co-operative Union is not seeking any special privilege, but its dividend policy is fundamental to its whole method of trading. It is bound up with its philosophy.
Mr. Dell: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. I should like to give it further consideration when I have read exactly what he said.
This is a useful Bill. It looks as though it will prove to be, at any rate in part, non-partisan, and I hope that we can proceed with it with the support of the whole House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60A (Second Reading Committee) 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).

AGRICULTURE (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY)
5.44 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry) Order 1967 (Amendment) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 343), dated 7th March 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
It is unusual to start discussing a Prayer at a quarter to Six in the evening, and I am delighted that we have enough time to debate in full whether this Order should be annulled.
Not long ago we debated the original Order which Order now being discussed amends. At that time many arguments were put forward from this side of the House, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), to show why the Order was a bad one, and why the cost involved was too high. The Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate. He was adamant that it was necessary to maintain the levy at that level, that the work of the Board would be worth while, and that it was essential to maintain it. Not long after that the hon. Gentleman came back to the House and said that, having had second thoughts, he had decided to reduce the level of the levy, hence this Order.
I do not wish to weary the House by going through all the arguments which we put forward last time to show that the level of the levy was far in excess of anything that was needed. We said that there should not be an Agricultural Trading Board, but that if there had to be one it should not operate at the level
1048
proposed by the Government. The strength of feeling throughout the country, and particularly in the farming industry, is the reason why the Parliamentary Secretary has changed his mind and reduced the rate of levy.
The arguments which we advanced on the previous occasion still hold good. The plans put forward by the Board are such that they do not warrant the money which it is proposed to provide. This is one reason why I am seeking to have the Order annulled. I have not heard any argument in support of any levy at all.
The Government have had to spend quite a lot of money to keep the Board in operation. Producers are being asked to provide money for the Board, but they want to know what they will get in return. If they were to receive something worthwhile in return, something which would improve efficiency in the industry, they would not object to the levy, but many of the plans put forward by the Board are impractical. It does not make sense to suggest that an industry which consists of a number of small farmers can have its apprentices trained in the way suggested by the Board.
Let me consider the amount of money that is required. Although the levy is now £3 instead of £6, it is still too high for the benefits which the industry will reap. The Minister will probably say that this is a necessary scheme, that the industry must contribute a certain amount towards it, that it will help young farmers to become better trained and make them more efficient and increase their productivity. He will no doubt say that it is necessary for the Board to raise the money in this way.
I think that the House will agree that unless the Minister can show conclusively that this levy will increase productivity in the industry he has no case for imposing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has been unavoidably detained. I know that if he were here he would be much more severe in his strictures on the Board and on the idea of having a levy. I do not know quite how far he would have gone, but he might even have called for the Minister's resignation——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It is not in order on this Prayer to debate the desirability or

1049
otherwise of the Order, or the desirability or otherwise of the levy. It is in order only to discuss whether the proposed levy should be reduced from £6 to £3.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that I want the Minister to reduce it from £6 to nil. Presumably the Board will use the levy to carry out some functions. I am querying those functions, and, indeed, I am querying whether the Board should exist at all. If the levy was reduced to nil, it would be up to the Minister to supply the Board with money from Government sources to keep it going.
However, this is not what we are debating. I am glad that the Minister has reduced it half way, but I want it reduced to nothing at all. That is why I am asking him to think again. I am encouraged in this, because the last time we asked the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about the Order he refused, but within two weeks had agreed. Perhaps he will do so again and reduce it by another £3.
The arguments against the levy and the Board were conclusively argued in our previous debate, and nothing has changed: there have been no improvements and no ideas of value since then. Therefore, I do not know how the argument for even £3 can be sustained. That is why I am asking for the Order to be withdrawn, since that would be much more in the industry's interests.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: We have gone over this subject at considerable length already, but since our last debate I have seen nothing to suggest that the Industrial Training Board is prepared to put its house in order. Nothing suggests that it is prepared to cut the very large administrative costs. This is what is annoying the agricultural community. I do not believe that it is quite so annoyed now that the levy has been reduced but it is still concerned about the attitude of the Board and of the chairman, who is not prepared to give a little and make severe cuts.
Has the Minister heard whether the Board is prepared to do anything about this? If these costs could be slashed, the Board could get on with its task
1050
with our agreement. The chairman has been completely inflexible and his attitude to this problem and to the resentment of the farmers has been distressing. I would have thought that he would at least try to gain the good will not only of hon. Members, but of the farmers, and he has not. Is the First Secretary of State prepared to see whether she can ask the chairman to take a more reasonable line? As I said last time, unless he has the co-operation of the agricultural community, this will not work.
I have a levy form at home, but have not sent the money and I do not intend to send it until I see a change in the chairman's attitudes. If the First Secretary of State wants the Board to work she should have a polite word in the chairman's ear. Without a change of attitude by the chairman, this will not work. I represent a remote area with very small farms and I have not heard what help the Board can give these farms, which have perhaps one workman or none. But they will have to pay the levy nevertheless and will get little benefit.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will answer those three points—about the administrative costs, the chairman's attitude and how the Board will benefit remoter areas with hundreds of small farms—it would give me some heart not only to pay my levy, but to encourage other farmers to pay theirs. The First Secretary of State should beware. Without the co-operation of the agricultural community, the whole thing will collapse. If she has not realised that already, I am afraid that she is in for a very big shock.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since our last debate on the previous Order which was withdrawn, an incident has come to my attention which the Minister should know. I have written to the Chairman of the Agricultural Training Board, Mr. Neame, about it and received a totally unsatisfactory reply.
The largest horticultural producer in my constituency, whom I have known for seven years and for whose veracity I have the greatest respect, told me that, several months ago, without any prior arrangements, a representative of the Board suddenly arrived at his office. My constituent was naturally very busy, and

1051
when he got the telephone message that this man wished to see him immediately, he had to say that he could not see him then because he was heavily engaged, and the training officer had given him no advance notice. Although the officer had a discussion with my constituent's manager, he sent my constituent a message to say that he was in much greater demand than supply, that far more people were waiting to see him than he could get around to, and that, unless my constituent saw him immediately, he would leave and never come back.
When I reported this extraordinarily arrogant incident to the Chairman, I received the extraordinary reply that this was but another example of the ill-will and prejudice of the agricultural industry towards the Board. I can conceive of no more topsy-turvy reply. If the Board intends to conduct its relationships with people trying to earn their living in the industry in this extraordinarily arrogant manner, it cannot be surprised if it meets suspicion and resentment.
If these training officers are busy and want farmers and horticulturists to drop everything and discuss their business when they arrive, they should take the precaution of ringing or sending a postcard beforehand. Large producers with many customers cannot tell customers who are visiting them to go away for an hour while they talk with someone who has given no advance notice but indulged in a sort of apostalic visitation.
I would therefore ask the Minister himself to make strong representations to the Chairman of the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board, who is not himself over-endowed with tact or the ability to get on with others, and to impress upon him the necessity of employing as training officers people who have the gift of getting on with individual producers and impressing upon them the necessity of conducting themselves in a courteous and reasonable manner towards those whose co-operation they are going to need if they are to make a success of the scheme.
If they do not get that co-operation the £3 levy in the Order which is before the House for approval at the moment will not just be wasted, it will be scandalously wasted; because this is a
1052
statutory imposition placed on the industry which can be justified only by results—results which will not be forthcoming unless the representatives of the Board conduct themselves in a courteous and reasonable manner towards the individual producer. Certainly, the example which I have quoted, from a constituent whom I have known for more than seven years, leads me to suppose that there, at any rate, these elementary preconditions do not exist.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Bert Hazell: I rise to express the approval of workers employed in the agricultural industry. I recall, as does the House generally, the very long debate we had when the previous Prayer was moved in January last during the course of which various aspects of the proposed training in the agricultural, horticultural and forestry industries were discussed at considerable length. It is fair to say that the Training Board has so far hardly had an opportunity of getting on its feet; and debates of this nature will be considerably unsettling for those who have entered into this work which requires, and will require, a good deal of patience and understanding on both sides of the industry.
If there has been a measure of reluctance—and one recognises that there has—on the part of employers within the agricultural industry to accept the Board, it is equally true, I believe, that the workers too, perhaps particularly some of the older ones, are a little reluctant to accept the idea of training. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House would but agree that training is an absolute "must" within an industry so complex and so changing as modern agriculture. I do not believe that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would oppose the idea of training as such.
One can, of course, understand that irritation is caused if a newly-appointed officer goes about his task in a ham-fisted way. Certainly, I would not be one to condone anything of that kind. I believe that, in the main, the field officers who are appointed have a good deal of knowledge of what is expected of them, but I suppose it would be fair to say that there might be the odd individual here and there who might tackle his job

1053
in the wrong way. I am pretty certain that he will not be working with the Training Board and coming up against farmers and workers for very long before he realises that he will have to approach both sides in a more tactful manner.
During the past three months I have been privileged to attend conferences of my organisation from Devonshire to the north of England, and I have had the opportunity of talking informally with, and listening to, training officers in the areas where these conferences have been held; because we have deliberately followed a police of inviting the area training officer to our conference, recognising as we have the need for him to make known clearly to workers within the industry what training is about and how essential it is that they should recognise their responsibilities in this matter.
We felt—I believe probably quite rightly—that it would be an excellent opportunity to introduce these training officers to our branch officers at county conference level; and I have been impressed by the general quality of the field officers whom I have met. Obviously, there have been among them some who have not had the practical training one would have wished, but they will not be doing much of the training themselves. Their responsibility will be to ensure that at the machinery depôts, Royal Agricultural Colleges or progressive farms, facilities are made available to provide a training class for a small nucleus of workers interested in a particular facet. Theirs will be the job of unifying the work of management, with proper and adequate training facilities.
I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills)—that small farmers will not derive much benefit from any training scheme instituted within the industry. I believe they will stand to gain more advantage, perhaps, than some of the larger units; for if one takes the pattern of industry generally, it is the larger manufacturer who provides the training facilities in his workshop and allows his workers to go on day-release courses and so on. Often when those men are trained they migrate to smaller businesses so that the smaller businesses take advantage of the training facilities provided by larger undertakings. I believe
1054
that this will prove equally true of farmers.
It will be the larger farmers who allow their workers to go for training, and without doubt the small farmer, looking to the future when recruiting labour, will recruit from people trained on larger farms. I believe that it will largely be the bigger farmers who will provide such training opportunities, because the absence of workers on courses always causes inconvenience and it may well be that larger farmers, after having had their workers away on training courses for half a day, a day or two days, as the case may be, will later find they have lost them to small farmers who had not sufficient manpower to enable them to offer training facilities for their own workers. I believe this will affect all sides of the agricultural industry, and all farmers, be they small or large, and that nothing but good can come, ultimately, from the facilities that will be made available.
I will mention just three results which I feel sure will be experienced after the scheme has been working for some time. First, I believe that efficiently trained workers will be able to do much of the minor maintenance required on tractors and farm implements, and substantially to reduce the heavy maintenance costs that every farmer has to meet at present in having his agricultural machinery repaired by his agricultural machinery dealer or possibly the local garage. Men who have been even partly trained can be of tremendous advantage to farmers in reducing maintenance costs and the small outlay involved will be recouped time and time again.
Secondly,—and I believe this to be all important—trained workers will act more responsibly towards their jobs and we might, as a consequence, see a substantial reduction in the heavy toll of nearly 10,000 accidents which occur on British farms annually. That would be of advantage not only to the worker who suffers the consequences of accidents but also to farmers who find their work-load upset and their plans disarranged because a worker is off for a few days, or perhaps for a week or a fortnight, suffering as a result of an accident that, with some care and responsibility, could have been avoided
Thirdly, as a result of training, workers in agriculture will take a greater interest

1055
in the work they are doing. Instead of regarding a task merely as a job, they will have the knowledge that, by performing a task in a certain way, they are increasing output. I am a member of an agricultural wages board—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he can refer only to the merits of the scheme as a whole in relation to the proposal in the Order to reduce the levy from £6 to £3.
Mr. Hazell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing that to my attention, but of course without the levy one cannot have a training scheme.
In the development of an agricultural wages structure, the categories into which workers will be fitted will be dependent on the training and skill of those workers. The Training Board will obviously be of help in ensuring that workers have the skill and knowledge to make them capable of receiving the rate of pay that will ultimately be determined for each category in such a wages structure.
Perhaps it is a good thing for the air to be cleared by the levy being discussed openly, as it is today. I hope that the time has come when the Training Board can now be allowed to show its worth to the industry. Grants are already being paid from the levy, and while the levy is not yet being collected, farmers are enabling their workers to be trained. Now that the scheme is more clearly understood—as a result of the debates in Parliament and elsewhere—I hone that it will be allowed to progress because in the long run this modern and complex industry, as it now is, needs highly trained workers. The scheme must succeed because other methods have not proved successful.
6.12 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) pouring oil on troubled waters in support of his right hon. Friends. The waters are troubled, and nobody knows that better than the hon. Member for Norfolk, North. The hon. Gentleman has been telling us how pleasant the situation is. I suggest, on the contrary, that of the Minister, the chairman of the Board or whoever else it is who must apply this concept, someone is well on the way to ruining a very good idea.
1056
The idea of an industrial training levy was inaugurated by the Conservative Party. Now it is being ruined because of the way in which this scheme is being handled. Those concerned do not like the way it is being presented and represented to them on their farms; and evidence of that has been supplied by my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North said that grants are already being made out of the fund, which is made up of levies, but the levies have not yet been collected and, as yet, I understand that there is no authority to collect them. In what position is Parliament? The Parliamentary Secretary is good at answering these sorts of debates—he has had a lot of practice at it lately—and suggest that the Order should be completely withdrawn in view of the evidence which shows that even if we must go back to having an industrial training levy in agriculture, now is not a good time to have it.
The whole atmosphere has been made sour. For the sake of this concept, not only in agriculture but in engineering, the hotel industry and other trades which have training levies, the scheme in this case should be withdrawn so that, at a later date, those who must operate it and pay the levy can be more in sympathy with the concept and we can have rather more public relations from the chairman of the Board and his officials who eventually must sell the idea.
In urging the Minister to withdraw the Order, I should make it clear that I believe that training is a good idea. In every industry—and certainly in an industry as complex as modern agriculture—the idea of giving guidance on how to use the latest implements and new techniques which are being introduced almost daily is highly desirable. However, I do not believe that a case has been made out for having a statutory training—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing in this Order whether the levy should be reduced from £6 to £3.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but I am suggesting that the whole thing should be withdrawn. I am not asking for a reduction in the levy

1057
but that, since it is still within the power of Parliament to do something about it, we should abolish it. Perhaps this is the last moment when we can ask the Government to withdraw it, in the interests of the industry. It is our duty—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The only Instrument which the hon. Member can ask to be withdrawn is this Order, not the original Order which it amends. We are here discussing whether the original sum of £6 in the original Order should be reduced to £3.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I understand that if it was withdrawn the Government would not have the authority to collect any levy whatever for this industry.
Mr. Hazell: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the original Order relating to the sum of £6 was approved by Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: I am endeavouring to convey that fact to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, as this Order represents an amendment to the original Order—in that it is designed to reduce the levy from £6 to £3—if this were withdrawn, the Government would not be left with statutory authority to impose a levy. I gather, from the acquiescence of the Parliamentary Secretary, that this is so.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley)The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley) indicated dissent.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: We still have time to ask the Government to reconsider the full effects—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss the full effects of the parent Order on an Order which is designed to reduce the levy mentioned in the parent Order from £6 to £3. He can only discuss whether the sum should be £6 or £3.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Although I would have thought that we could press for the whole Order to be withdrawn, I will not pursue that line of argument since it seems, from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that I would be out of order.
Even an. amended levy of £3 should not he proceeded with because even if we did not have a levy—and it has been
1058
pointed out that it has not been collected—that would not mean that this great industry would not have a training scheme. Those of us who have served in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I was a junior Minister and I note that one of my successors in title is on the Treasury Bench—are aware of the amount of training that goes on. When we attended agricultural shows—I refer not only to the large exhibitions but the small country shows as well—we saw the training facilities that were already being provided by those who supply tractors and other farm equipment. Those training schemes have produced amazingly good results, without there being any statutory obligation on farmers to pay a levy of £3 or any other sum. In view of the great success of this voluntary training system, as one might call it, I suggest that the Government have no need for even a reduced levy of £3.
Whether or not we approve the order today, I hope that the Government will take heed of the ham-handed way in which the people who have to implement the Order carry out their public relations. Whether or not the chairman of the Board is an able man, dedicated to his task, it is unhappily the fact that he has given the impression of being so bureaucratic and high-handed that he has prevented the easy acceptance of what was a good idea.
Even at this late hour, I feel that there is a sufficiently strong case for the Government to consider withdrawing the Order. By withdrawing it they will let the farming community know that their genuine protests are being heeded. They can then re-present it, if they so wish, having produced a better and more co-operative atmosphere than at present exists.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot propose amendments. He can debate whether the levy should be £6, £3 or some other sum.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am trying very hard. You, Mr. Speaker, are very much on the alert. I apologise if I am straining your discretion too much. I am not asking for £6, or £3; I am asking for nothing; and the only way for me to do that is by asking the Government to withdraw the Order. I can see no great urge in the House to press them to do that.

1059
If they do not do that, I urge them to work very hard to try to recreate an atmosphere of co-operation and understanding. If this debate does no more than impress upon the Ministers concerned the need to do that, then it will have been worth while.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Tony Gardner: With very great respect to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I recall that we have been through all this before. The arguments which are being rehearsed now were rehearsed over two evenings on the parent Order. At that time some hon. Members opposite, with whom I felt some sympathy, supported in general terms the need for agricultural training and eventually the levy, because of the very considerable difficulties which the industry faced in the winter. On that occasion we on this side supported the Order which the Government were bringing in, but we shared some of the fears of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It seems most strange that this afternoon, when the Government have recognised the difficulties which were then discussed at great length, and in fact cut the levy by half, we are now discussing the same old arguments.
We might debate at great length exactly how much the levy should be, but if hon. Members opposite pursue the line that the industry appears to be able to pay nothing, since this is the ultimate effect of their Prayer, whatever their arguments will be, we are saying that agricultural industrial training is just not worth even the £3.
The hon. Member for Peterborough was talking about the agricultural training that is already being given. I agree completely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the Training Board. We discussed that on a previous Order. That previous Order fixed the amount of levy at £6. This Order reduces it to £3. We can discuss only whether it should be reduced to £3 or left at £6.
Mr. Gardner: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I was tempted by some of the arguments. In that case, there does not seem to be a great deal that we can discuss. I have made my main point, that this is a major
1060
concession on the part of the Government, who recognise the difficulties which the industry has faced this year. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not look this gift horse in the mouth, but will join with us in supporting the need for the reduced amount of levy, if only to show that we support the need for training in agriculture.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: Two fundamental differences have arisen since the parent Order was debated, and I will endeavour to direct my remarks entirely to the change in the levy.
The first difference is that within 48 hours of the previous debate the Government ate their words. They said at the previous debate that it could not be changed, and it was changed.
As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), the Board is already paying out the money, although the levy is not yet fixed, which calls into question the Parliamentary authority for this action. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has said that we should not look this gift horse a in the mouth, but the extra £3 must come from somewhere, and it is coming from the majority of taxpayers. If the farming community do not want the Training Board at any price—and I shall seek to prove this in a moment—why then should the taxpayers have to find the balance?
Since this matter was previously debated, hon. Members in several parts of the House have asked the Government if they will hold a referendum of the view of the farming community, and the Government have consistently refused. In my county of Kent, not in my own area but elsewhere, a branch of the National Farmers' Union have held a poll of their members to ascertain their views on this point. They put out two questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have discussion on the existence or the need for the existence of the Board. That has been decided. We have also decided that a levy shall be made. This Order seeks to reduce the levy from £6 to £3. This is what we are discussing tonight.
Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The point remains that the farmers have been asked what levy they would like to pay, and most of them have said they would like to pay no levy at all. If the farmers would like to pay no levy, I see no reason why the majority of taxpayers should pay the lot. I therefore ask two specific questions of the Minister. First, will he wind up the Board, and, second, will he dismiss the Chairman?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, The Minister cannot, in winding up, answer either of those two questions.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I have two points to put before the Minister. The first is that in all the speeches which have been made this evening the message that has been conveyed to the Minister is that unless the Board is able to convey to the country that it is winning the confidence of the farmers, it will not be very successful.
There has been very strong resentment against the levies, not only in my county of Sussex, as doubtless the Minister knows, but throughout the country. The hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) have all suggested various ways in which confidence in the Board could be won. The hon. Member for Torrington wanted to ensure that the administrative costs were kept low, which is most important.
My second point is that an assessment notice has been sent out during the last few days asking for the balance for the year 1967–68 to be paid. As the Minister knows, conversations have been taking place between the National Farmers' Union and the Board. It is a pity that such levy notices should have been sent out before the end of those discussions. This has resulted in opinion in the country hardening against the Board. I have received a letter from a very responsible member of the farming community in my own county, expressing it in this way:
"I am genuinely convinced that unless the Agricultural Training Board adopts more realistic, prudent and practical methods, it will fail. The Board has alienated itself to the industry and to those whose backing it cannot afford to be without: whether the position can be recovered or not is a moot point."
1062
I hope the Minister will convey to the Board how important it is to obtain the confidence of farmers and of workers in the industry. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) explained four reasons why training would be of value. Unfortunately, I cannot pursue that, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure that it would not win your approval.
6.30 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): A number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have had to leave the Chamber, but all of them have expressed their apologies to me and their understanding that I may have to make comments about their speeches in their absence.
I turn immediately to the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and the suggestion that I was so adamant in the defence of the previous Order and so certain that £6 was the only conceivable figure, that there could not be any reason to assume that I now proposed an appropriate figure. Had the hon. Gentleman been here, I would have urged him to read the final paragraph of my speech on 29th January in which I made it clear that at that time I was discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture the application from the Board and from the National Farmers' Union for additional Government assistance in the financing of the Board.
It is clear from the words with which I ended my speech that the possibility of the amended Order which is now before the House was in my mind. In my final sentence, I said:
"While that request is under consideration the Board must continue to exist, because it is in the interests of the industry, and it can only continue if it is financed by levy. It must be financed by the Levy Order which I commend to the House now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1050.]
That is a clear implication of the possibility of change. In fact, it was so clear that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who followed me, described my speech as leaving the House in the worst of both possible worlds. The clear implication of his remarks was that I had left the House not knowing what the exact levy position would be.

1063
While I think that his criticism was unjustified, his conclusion was reasonable. It is certainly at variance with the suggestion that the original Order was so definite that something approaching negligence is implied by asking for this reduction.
That I could imply the possible need for a reduction on that occasion stems from two causes. The first was the structural problems which always affected training in the industry and made our original intentions by their very nature liable to alteration. To organise training adequately, it had to be organised in the counties and on the farms and not from London. To organise training adequately, it had to be organised amongst the small units which make up the bulk of the industry and are the units most in need of training. Both necessities posed problems for the Board from the word go.
We knew on 29th January that, as well as these structural problems, there were immediate problems facing the Board because of the greater problems facing the industry at that time. Because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, farmers were unable to move from farm to farm, as were union officers and training officers of the Board. As a result, the training programme was seriously curtailed. The campaign of explanation and description of the work of the Board was equally curtailed. I have told the House on two previous occasions of the number of meetings and schools which had to be cancelled and closed down because of that necessary immobility. It was that which obliged the Government to intervene and look again at the general financial support which we were prepared to give to the Board in these altogether extraordinary circumstances.
Because of the curtailment in activities as a result of the foot-and-mouth epidemic and the Board's inability to meet all the demands for training which it anticipated, and because of the special circumstances associated with the acceptance of the Board since the Board had been unable to justify itself to the industry, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an extra grant of £450,000 should be given to the Board so that it could continue for a temporary
1064
period on a reduced levy. The levy was to be reduced by 50 per cent., and that is the levy which is the subject of the amended Order that I am defending tonight.
I announced the intention to amend and I announced the agreement that a grant of £450,00 should be made to the Board in the House on 14th February. Tonight's Order is a direct consequence of that announcement.
It is worth recalling that on 14th February the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) asked me:
"Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is very much in line with the proposal I made in a recent debate, and that I welcome it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1348–9.]
As I recall my reply, I said that it was immaterial to me from where a good idea sprang but that, if it was a good idea, I hoped that he and I would join together in welcoming it. I only wish that other hon. Gentlemen shared our view that the decision to reduce the levy in this way was one which was in the interests of the industry and one which should command the unanimous support of the House.
In defence of the Board, I should make it clear that when I met the Board, together with representatives of the National Farmers' Union, I made two things clear. The extraordinary circumstances affecting the industry justified the special grant of £450,000. It was, however being made during a time of economic stringency. The grant of £½ million should not encourage it to believe that more might be available. There was an obligation on the Board, which I imposed as part of its undertaking and agreement to accept an offer, to make itself self-sufficient and to create a viable Board, which, after the £450,000 was spent, could stand of its own feet and run its own affairs.
My stipulation stemmed from two main reasons. The first is that the Board needs to be part of the industry and accepted by the industry. The application of an acceptable grant and levy system is a step in that direction. The second is that if training is to be organised in accordance with the provisions of the 1964 Training Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Grantham, it is essential that the industry itself should finance that

1065
training. The £3 levy to which I am asking the House to agree is a measure intended to enable the industry to finance its own training.
I made other points to the Board at that time which in many ways are identical with some of the expressions of opinion which we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, although I trust that I said them in a rather different tone. I pointed out that it was essential for the Board to work in harmony with the industry. I think that I have spoken on this subject in the House on five previous occasions. Every time, I have said at least twice, and I make no apology for repeating it now, that it is essential that the Board should work with the industry. I hoped that the fact that the Board could say to its constituent farmers that during these troubled times the levy was being reduced by 50 per cent. would help the industry and the Board to work together in harmony.
In a sense, that has been achieved already. The National Farmers' Union is now holding discussions with the Board and has made a series of proposals which must remain confidential at the moment. But these are material proposals which the Board is considering and which may result in a great deal more harmony than we have yet had.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Are the discussions likely to affect the level of the levy, or is it fixed, whatever happens?
Mr. Hattersley: Since I am under an obligation to keep the proposals confidential, I do not want to pursue that in any detail, but I hope that the House understands that, whatever the union's proposals may be and whatever their outcome, they are about the long-term future of the Board. The £3 levy seeks to make the Board viable at the moment.
The Board needs this money for running today. It has needed it for running every day since 1st April. I hope the House and the parties to this discussion will keep separate in their minds the problems which the N.F.U. is discussing with the Board and the obligations of the Board to raise a levy to keep it in being until those problems are sorted out and a mutually agreed solution—as I hope it will be—becomes part of the Board's policy.
1066
The levy is necessary because no other source of finance is possible if the Board is to continue. There is no possibility of any additional Government grant being available. The only source is the very modest levy which the Order recommends. I think I am in order in telling the House of the progress of the amended Order to date. It has been said that levy notices have already gone out on the amended figure. So they have, to farmers, except in areas affected by the foot-and-mouth epidemic, to whom the levy will be sent later. The notices went out on 5th April.
Most farmers have responded in a different way from that of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). About 400 payments a day are being received and to date the Board has received £76,000. This is the sort of response one would expect from a responsible industry, from an industry which knows that both the Government and the Board are anxious for the industry to work in harmony with the Board. It is the sort of responsibility which I hope will characterise the work of the Board in the years ahead.
I must tell the House of the general attitude of the National Farmers' Union towards the amended Order as it stands. It is important to remember that originally the Board came about because of the National Farmers' Union request that it should be set up, a request sent to my right hon. Friend on 13th February, 1965 in the name of the then Vice-President who is now the President of the National Farmers' Union. It is important to remember that the National Farmers'. Union even remained enthusiastic for the Board raising the original levy of £6, until immediately before the levy Order was debated in this House in January. Indeed, the anti-levy committee set up in the county of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells)—not, of course, connected with him, but coincidentally in his county—was greeted officially by the N.F.U. Press office with the description of "Luddite". That was the attitude of the National Farmers' Union until the very eve of the original debate on the original Order.
I hope that that attitude, which certainly has hardened in the last few months, will be softened by the knowledge that the Government remain

1067
determined that the Board and the industry—both sides of that industry not just the farmers but the employees as well—should work in harmony. I hope that the reduction in levy which the Order recommends to the House will be taken as an indication of our determination to work in harmony with the industry.
Mr. John Wells: The hon. Gentleman must realise that when he speaks of the National Farmers' Union he speaks of the hierarchy in London, whereas it is poles apart from the membership in the country on this problem.
Mr. Hattersley: I acknowledge that the enthusiasm shown by the leadership of the National Farmers Union, which was shown up to 29th January, is not reflected everywhere among its membership. Equally I am sure the hon. Member will acknowledge that the 400 letters a day containing the levy received by the Industrial Training Board do not come from the council of the N.F.U. but from ordinary farmers meeting their statutory obligations. While there may be disagreement as to the way in which the Board is working, there is general acceptance that its job needs to be done. I ask the hon. Member to read again the many articles which have appeared in the technical and professional Press in the last few months—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be tempted to go beyond the Order.
Mr. Hattersley: —none of which, I am sorry to say, referred to the reduction of the levy. I referred to the reduction of the levy in meetings with the National Farmers' Union and made two points about the decision to reduce the levy. The first was that it was intended as an indication of our enthusiasm for the industry and the Board to work hand in hand. The second was my hope that there would be no temptation to do what I fear the hon. Member for Torrington said would be done—not to pay the levy until the last moment. Any hon. Member or any farmer who complains about the administrative costs of a board but intentionally increases the administrative costs by not responding to the first application and waiting for the second or third seems, to say the least, inconsistent.
1068
Irrespective of that, there is the basic fact, which I cannot stress too strongly, that the only way in which the Board can be financed is by a levy, on this occasion the reduced levy of £3. Since it is the intention of the Government that the Board shall continue, since it is the view of the Government that it is in the interests of the industry to continue and that the reduced levy must be paid, it becomes—if the House approves it—a statutory requirement. Members of the industry who choose not to pay it are only buying a very short amount of time. It will become an obligation on them, an obligation which the Board will have to pursue to continue its effective and important existence.
Question put and negatived.

LAND DRAINAGE RATES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has indicated to a Minister that he wishes to raise a subject and has given the Minister notice. This is important. Sir Douglas Glover.
6.46 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: I confirm that, Mr. Speaker. When I found that the debate today looked as if it would terminate at a more reasonable time than usual, I thought this an opportunity to raise a very important matter for my constituents. I have a reputation, I believe, for from time to time keeping the House a little later than it would otherwise be kept. It is therefore appropriate to show how reasonable is the hon. Member for Ormskirk. I have been in this House for 15 years and this is the first Adjournment debate I have had and it is starting at exactly 12 minutes to seven o'clock. That shows how false a reputation an hon. Member can get. Having shown the reasonableness of my attitude towards the Government and the convenience of hon. Members, I hope that my reputation of the past will disappear for good.
When I first became a candidate for the great constituency of Ormskirk, I was told that it was of little use enunciating

1069
on the great problems of national politics because the bulk of members of my constituency were interested in only one thing. That was the problem of the drainage rate. The difficulty about the problem of the drainage rate is that I suppose there are only about 10, or at most a dozen, hon. Members of this ancient House who have such a problem in their constituencies, or who even have the slightest idea of to what we are referring when we speak of the problem of the drainage rate. A great many think that we are talking about the ordinary rate, or the water rate. They have no idea that there is another rate which some people have to pay.
It would be reasonable, therefore, particularly from my constituency's point of view, to give the House some history as to how this drainage rate arose originally. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) are probably the only two areas in Britain which are more akin to Holland than the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1795 the bulk of my present constituency and the land abutting on to it was virtually all marshland; it was a succession of lakes. At that time there was only one narrow track between Ormskirk and Southport. One had to know one's way very well otherwise one would be drowned en route. The total population of the area was almost nil.
The Hesketh family—one of whom was the Member of Parliament for Southport in recent years—then started to drain the area, much to their own personal benefit and also to the benefit of the agricultural community. The difficulty with such land is that the land itself, the soil and subsoil, contracts and therefore, over the years, the level of the land sinks. In addition to that, the channel of the Ribble was altered and the result was that by the early 1920s the drainage system, which had worked satisfactorily for a very long time on a gravity basis, was rapidly failing because the Ribble had silted up the perimeter of the district. The land had sunk in the middle and we were faced with the problem of a vast saucer, where the land in the middle was below sea level and, because of the silting up, the perimeter was above sea level.
1070
The gravity drainage therefore became gradually more and more inefficient.
My predecessors in Ormskirk had had this problem for many years and had not been successful in persuading the Governments of the day to take action. The problem had become so serious that the farmers were being flooded out and were losing their crops on an average of every other year; in 1954 and 1955 it became two years out of three. This was a disaster.
I then had a certain stroke of luck in that I was able to persuade a very great Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of Agriculture, the present Lord Amory, to visit my constituency at the height of one of the floods. If I might advise hon. Members—always persuade the Minister to come when a disaster is at its height and not when it has died out, some weeks later. The result was that Lord Amory, as Minister of Agriculture, sanctioned a new drainage scheme for my constituency, costing over £1 million. The Exchequer agreed to pay more than 50 per cent. of the cost. The result was that the farmers think that their present Member of Parliament is by far the most outstanding Member the constituency has ever had!
Nothing in this world is all roses. I must now explain to the House how the system of drainage rate works. The landlord is responsible, under the present drainage legislation for the capital cost of any drainage work, but the tenant is responsible for all the day-to-day running costs or administrative costs. This comes to a higher yearly sum than the repayment of the interest on the capital and the capital projects. My farmers are delighted; they now can be sure that they will harvest the crops from what is some of the richest agricultural land in Britain and they themselves—although they pay an increased drainage rate on the capital side if they are the owners—if they are the tenants their increased income is such that they do not complain about it.
Another problem has arisen. When the drainage rate system was evolved whereby the tenant was responsible for the administrative costs, it was a perfectly reasonable system because the bulk of the people who lived in the area were either directly or indirectly connected

1071
with the agricultural industry. It was therefore to the benefit of the owner and the tenant—even if they were cottagers—because they were employed in agriculture. It was in their interests that the drainage system was highly efficient. The system of levying the drainage rate, going back a great number of years, was originally a fairly reasonable thing. My constituency has altered a great deal. It is now, in addition to being an agricultural constituency, a large residential commuting area. People are living in the area as a result of the industrial development in Liverpool and elsewhere. They buy houses; they have never heard of a drainage rate. They are horrified and shocked when, about 12 months later, they get a demand through the post for something about which they have never heard or understood. This certainly does not apply in any part of the country from which they came. Even if they came from as close at hand as Liverpool, I doubt whether they realise there is this problem with the drainage rate. There is always a great deal of ill-feeling amongst those who pay the drainage rate.
It would perhaps not be so sore a point with the people who pay the drainage rate except that this is arbitrarily fixed. One pays the drainage rate only if one is eight feet above a drainage point, and anything above that level is considered to be above the flood level. If one's house happens to be an inch higher than someone else's, one might avoid a drainage rate. A slightly ludicrous situation exists, in that people on one side of the road might pay the drainage rate and people on the other side of the road might not. It is even more ludicrous because the people on the side of the road where they do pay the drainage rate are sometimes on a sandy subsoil which drains very quickly and those on the other side of the road are perhaps on a clay subsoil where the drainage water takes much longer to clear away and yet they do not pay the drainage rate. This is bound to lead to a great sense of injustice among the residents in my constituency.
When Mr. Christopher Soames was the Minister of Agriculture, he alleviated the situation to some degree in his Agriculture Act. It is now permissible for a
1072
local authority to levy the drainage rate on all its ratepayers if it so desires and to pay the rate to the drainage board as a lump sum. As I told my right hon. Friend at the time, it really does not operate in practice. It is asking a great deal of local councillors, who have to stand for election from time to time, to have to say in their election programmes that if they are returned to power for the West Lancashire Rural District Council they propose taking half the rate paid by Douglas Glover and putting it on to other ratepayers. The result is that, although there is this permissive power, in practice it certainly does not operate in my constituency. I should be very surprised if it did operate to any great extent anywhere in the country where this drainage rate is involved.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest, and I understand his grievance. But if it can be solved only by the local authority or by altering the law, it cannot be discussed on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman must suggest something for which the Minister is administratively responsible.
Sir D. Glover: I was giving the background to the case, Mr. Speaker, because I think that it is relevant. Otherwise, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) probably would not understand the problem.
I pointed out that the owner pays the capital charges and the tenant pays the administrative charges. I should also make it clear that I am not asking the Minister tonight to make concrete proposals as to how the problem could be solved. I doubt whether there is unanimity on either side of the House among those who understand the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely may have something to say about the problem with which I would not agree, and he may disagree with some of the things I say in reviewing the problem. It is so technical and affects so very few people that I think a different approach is needed to it.
I feel that at present the rate is levied over too narrow an area. It would probably be wise to alter the system so that it is levied over the watershed from which the water comes. Ormskirk, which stands up as a sort of small hill in the middle of

1073
my constituency, has had an enormous increase in the number of its houses, and it seems to me that the people in those houses have a responsibility which at present they are not meeting. The rain falls on the houses and metal roads and therefore runs very fast. It is down into the drainage area in half an hour, and therefore the whole drainage system must be that much bigger. Now, as a result of Lord Amory's scheme, it is all pumped drainage which is very expensive to run.
The system is based on the historical view in this country that the responsibility is that of the person where the water settles, that wherever one lives on a hill it is only at the lowest common denominator that it becomes one's responsibility. That is the ancient law of this country, but it originated at a time when England was very much more an agricultural community—I do not mean by that the total production of agriculture. Therefore, it is at least a reasonable suggestion that people who get away scot-free today should be considered for liability to pay the rate by altering the area over which it is levied, by altering the system so that it is made more equitable to the community as a whole.
The whole question of the drainage rate is a very specialised subject. There are many pros and cons, and few people in the House who are knowledgeable on the subject. It affects such a narrow field that I feel strongly that it would be a good idea to call a conference or have a study group on the problem. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic to that idea, so that the whole question can be examined and given a bit of the publicity that this sort of discussion inevitably arouses.
It can be said that the drainage rate does not impose any additional burden on the householder, because the value of his property is reduced. That is the theory of those who support the present system. They say that because of the drainage rate the householder's assessment for the general rate is that much lower, and in total he does not pay any more money. That argument would apply in a country with a surplus of houses, but it certainly does not apply in one where there is a shortage. I do not think that there is any difference in the value of the houses in my constituency according to whether they are below the
1074
datum point and pay the drainage rate, or above it and do not pay, because both are desirable areas in which people want to live. Some areas may be taken over by a local authority for overspill and that sort of thing. Therefore, the value of those properties is not altered, as they would have been in olden days, because of the additional drainage rate burden.
The hon. Gentleman's Department could do a great deal to investigate the matter, which I do not believe has been investigated for many years, that could investigate the changing pattern of British life and consider the fact that people are living in areas, not by choice, but of necessity, who have no connection with the agricultural community and derive no benefit in more secure employment or increased incomes because of the increased profitability of their crops. The original system was almost entirely devised to deal with the problem of a rural agricultural community. Certainly my area, and I believe in others where there is a drainage rate, is no longer purely an agricultural community but is a large residential community as well. In that residential community is a narrow group of people with all the feelings of injustice that any normal person would experience because of the narrow division between those who do and do not pay.
The time has come for a really deep, searching review of the whole problem so that it can be shown with clarity to those involved that they are not suffering an injustice, or, if I am right in my belief that they are, to produce the evidence which would probably decide the House to take the appropriate steps to put the matter right.
I apologise to the Minister for the very short notice I gave him. I have no criticism if he says that he would sooner answer many of my points by writing to me, but I thought that this was an opportunity to raise the matter in the House, because it is in the interests of my constituents to do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Department will take serious notice of my points.
7.9 p.m.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is always dutiful and assiduous in seeking to protect the interests of his constituents. I should not in any way wish to criticise his motive

1075
in raising the matter this evening, but unfortunately he stopped too soon in his historical summary of land drainage legislation, because in this very Session we have had the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Part IV of which goes a very long way to meeting his anxieties. If in saying this I inadvertently happen to give credit to the Government, I am sure that the Government will join me in paying tribute to the internal drainage boards for the work they have done in helping the Government to draft the Amendments they have now embodied in legislation.
I declare the unpaid interest of being a Vice-President of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I do this as a labour of love because, without the work that drainage authorities do, my constituency would consist only of the original Isle of Ely and a few other little islands dotted about the Fens. In view of what land drainage can do, care must be taken when dealing with the vexed question of drainage rates not to underestimate what would happen if the internal drainage boards failed to carry out their work.
I believe that the Government are right to assume that to carry out effective drainage work there has to be an element of rough justice; there has to be an element of authoritarianism, otherwise the work would not get done in time. I am certain that the scheme which has been carried out in the constituency of my hon. Friend would never work effectively unless somebody was prepared sometimes to stand up to some public criticism.
All of us recognise that we have in our constituencies, especially where there are internal drainage boards, people who live on the borderline. Sometimes, as frequently occurs in my constituency, they live on the borderline between two separate internal drainage boards each of which levies a different rate. The same type of problem arises there—sometimes a more grievous one—as that which arises between the person who lives below 8 ft. above the highest known flood level and those who live above that level.
Incidentally, I think that my hon. Friend was not quite correct in his definition of this question of 8 ft. above the highest known flood level. A person can live at any level below 8 ft. above the
1076
highest known flood level to be rated and those who live above 8 ft. above the highest known flood level are not on the ordinary drainage rate, but subject to the general charge. I think that river authorities have a duty to report to the House each year the amount of the special drainage charge or general drainage charge which they raise on areas outside those covered by the internal drainage board. As my hon. Friend rightly said, Mr. Christopher Soames, when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, brought in the general charge, about which some of us have grave doubts. The decisions which have been taken and embodied in Part IV of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill have gone a long way to meet our anxieties on that point.
I recognise that there is a continuing grievance about differentials in drainage rates, but I call my hon. Friend's attention to Clauses 30 to 33 of the new Measure. I am not quite certain where the Bill is at the moment, because there is no copy of the Act available. I do not know whether their Lordships have finished with it and whether we shall now get a copy of the Act.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate either the Bill or the Act tonight.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I entirely accept that, Mr. Speaker. My point merely is that it is very difficult for hon. Members to know the state of the law if there is not yet a printed copy of the Act in the Vote Office. The Measure contains appeal machinery which will enable all the grievances to which my hon. Friend referred to be aired.
7.14 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has raised an interesting point tnoight. The hon. Gentleman's reputation has certainly been enhanced by his raising this subject and his fear that because he detained the House his reputation would suffer is groundless. I thank him for telling me that he does not expect me to have readily available all the answers on how the problem can be solved.
I know of the problem of drainage rates. When an area moves from being an

1077
agricultural one to being a mixed one or, in some cases, to becoming completely urban this changes the situation entirely from that which obtained when the area was first drained. I was interested to hear the history of the hon. Gentleman's area, but I assure him and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge Bourke) that theirs are not the only areas which are thus affected. There are many other areas. The Ministry's mailbag on this subject indicates not only the size of the problem but where the difficulties arise.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that he had pressed Governments for a long time but little action had been taken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely for saying that action has been taken all along the line—not so much on the point raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, although the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is now going through another place, contains a provision which will alleviate the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Sir D. Glover: I do not want to be misquoted. I did not say that I had approached the Government and that little action had been taken. After all, I got £1 million. I said that my predecessors had made those approaches.
Mr. Mackie: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the cost of land drainage works carried out by river authorities is met by the general ratepayer through the river authority's precept on local authorities. Special areas with drainage boards are rated additionally to pay for special conditions.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely said that Mr. Christopher Soames when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had alleviated the position by giving local authorities permissive powers but that they were not being sufficiently used. I believe that some authorities are now taking advantage of those powers and seeking to alleviate the position. I am not sure whether this is enough, and I will certainly study that question, but this is the duty of local authorities and they have the powers.
I take the point made about a local councillor, who, like us, may be seeking
1078
re-election. But he could say "these people down in the hollow below the 8 ft. mark are being hard done by and we must spread the load". The way to make it more equitable is for councils to use the permissive powers that they have.
I agree that the issue is very complicated, but many people understand the drainage situation, particularly people coming from agricultural and flood areas. The Ministry's postbag suggests that many Members take an interest in this matter. I will consider having a conference, as has been suggested, to review this problem and see if we can do something to alleviate a problem which has caused a lot of ill-feeling in some areas.
I was amused that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely was loth to give the Government some credit. I thank him for mentioning the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, although he gave the strong impression that he was loth to give any credit. On Third Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill my hon. Friend dealt with the point he made. It would be worth reading the OFFICIAL REPORT again to see what the new Measure does on this vexed question.
I agreed that there must be problems of people falling on either side of a drainage board area line. Where there is any local government or local drainage board there must be a line between the two. It is then inevitable that there are differences. In any agricultural legislation—for instance, hill farming—lines have to be drawn and these create anomalies.
I do not think I need say anything more except to thank the hon. Member for raising this matter, and to promise that I will look into the problem and write to him. He will appreciate that to do anything further would require legislation, and I understand that that is not allowed to be suggested in an Adjournment debate. We will certainly look at this problem again.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles
  Disabled Persons' Vehicles
  Toxic Pharmaceutical Preparations (Labelling)
  Toxic Pharmaceutical Preparations (Labelling)
HOSPITALS
  Dead Bodies (Medical Use)
  Dead Bodies (Medical Use)
  Leucotomy Operations
  Leucotomy Operations
  Royal Hospital, Richmond (Casualty Department)
  Royal Hospital, Richmond (Casualty Department)
  County Durham
  County Durham
  Victoria Hospital, Lewes
  Victoria Hospital, Lewes
  Nurse Tutors (Salaries)
  Nurse Tutors (Salaries)
  Hospital Beds (Occupancy)
  Hospital Beds (Occupancy)
  Senior Administrative Medical Officers
  Senior Administrative Medical Officers
  Teaching Hospitals
  Teaching Hospitals
  Abortion Act, 1967 (Private Nursing Homes)
  Abortion Act, 1967 (Private Nursing Homes)
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  District Base Hospital, Neath (Rebuilding)
  District Base Hospital, Neath (Rebuilding)
  Nurses (Overtime Payments)
  Nurses (Overtime Payments)
HOUSING
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Three-Bedroomed Council Houses (Cost)
  Three-Bedroomed Council Houses (Cost)
  Rent-Controlled Dwellings
  Rent-Controlled Dwellings
  Local Authority Housing (Rents)
  Local Authority Housing (Rents)
  Old Houses into New Homes (White Paper)
  Old Houses into New Homes (White Paper)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Meriden (Proposed Green Belt)
  Meriden (Proposed Green Belt)
  Rate Rebates (South Shields)
  Rate Rebates (South Shields)
  Rate Rebates (Bolton)
  Rate Rebates (Bolton)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Scotland (Financial Statistics)
  Scotland (Financial Statistics)
  Purchase Tax (Drugs)
  Purchase Tax (Drugs)
  Mortgage Interest and Insurance Premiums (Tax Allowances)
  Mortgage Interest and Insurance Premiums (Tax Allowances)
  Members of Parliament (Car Allowances)
  Members of Parliament (Car Allowances)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Reserves and Liabilities
  Reserves and Liabilities
  Borrowings
  Borrowings
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  East of Suez (British Forces)
  East of Suez (British Forces)
  Malaysia and Singapore (Defence Agreement)
  Malaysia and Singapore (Defence Agreement)
  Gibraltar (Taxation)
  Gibraltar (Taxation)
  Falkland Islands (Taxation)
  Falkland Islands (Taxation)
  Gibraltar (United Kingdom Defence Costs)
  Gibraltar (United Kingdom Defence Costs)
  Falkland Islands (United Kingdom Defence Costs)
  Falkland Islands (United Kingdom Defence Costs)
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  ARMS (EXPORTS)
  ARMS (EXPORTS)
  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  New Telephone Exchange London (Site)
  New Telephone Exchange London (Site)
  Waiting Applicants, Bellshill
  Waiting Applicants, Bellshill
  Public Telephones, British Railways Stations
  Public Telephones, British Railways Stations
POST OFFICE
  Two-tier Delivery
  Two-tier Delivery
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SPECIALIST COMMITTEES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SPECIALIST COMMITTEES)
  CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CABINET OFFICE (STAFF)
  CABINET OFFICE (STAFF)
  LORD CHANCELLOR (APPOINTMENT QUALIFICATION)
  LORD CHANCELLOR (APPOINTMENT QUALIFICATION)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nigerian Federal Government
  Nigerian Federal Government
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Suspected Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Scotland
  Suspected Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Scotland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools of Exceptional Difficulty (Birmingham)
  Schools of Exceptional Difficulty (Birmingham)
  Mr. M. Duane
  Mr. M. Duane
  Circular 10/65 (Birmingham Education Authority Submission)
  Circular 10/65 (Birmingham Education Authority Submission)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY
  HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Visas (Eastern European Countries)
  British Visas (Eastern European Countries)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Index of Retail Prices
  Index of Retail Prices
  Service Industries, Scotland (Regional Employment Premium Payments)
  Service Industries, Scotland (Regional Employment Premium Payments)
GAS
  Employment
  Employment
COAL
  Smokeless Fuel Plants
  Smokeless Fuel Plants
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Official Motor Car (New Palace Yard)
  Official Motor Car (New Palace Yard)
SCOTLAND
  Parole Scheme
  Parole Scheme
  Housing, Glasgow
  Housing, Glasgow
  Dental Practitioners (Disposable Syringes and Needles)
  Dental Practitioners (Disposable Syringes and Needles)
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Educational Building
  Educational Building
TECHNOLOGY
  Institute of Technology, Northern Highlands
  Institute of Technology, Northern Highlands
  Metrication in Industry
  Metrication in Industry
BOARD OF TRADE
  Non-Scottish Manufacturing Companies
  Non-Scottish Manufacturing Companies
  Office Development, Bedford and Wellingborough
  Office Development, Bedford and Wellingborough
AVIATION
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
PORTS
  Invergordon, Scrabster and Loch Eriboll
  Invergordon, Scrabster and Loch Eriboll
RAILWAYS
  Disused Track, Wales
  Disused Track, Wales

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

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES: THE METRIC SYSTEM
2.35 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: 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 plans they have, if any, regarding the metrication of weights and measures.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Government support the plans of industry to change to the metric system as its primary system of weights and measures by the end of 1975. The Minister of Technology has set up a Standing Joint Committee on Metrication, with industrial and Government membership. The extension of metric weights and measures to the rest of the economy is now being studied by this Committee, and its Report is expected very shortly.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I am very glad to hear from my noble friend's Answer that we are not going to be rushed into kilos, kilometres and other such things, but may I ask whether the Government are aware that the building industry are in difficulties because they have very sensibly standardised by metric module but they have by law to receive materials in imperial measurements? Will the Government give their urgent consideration to promoting legislation to permit the sale of things in metric measurements?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords. Among the planks of Government policy in this respect is the removal of legal obstacles to the use of metric units. I understand that the construction industry
974
hopes to be in a position to demand that all tenders should be expressed in metric units after 1972, and the Government will play their part in removing obstacles to their use.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, will this extend to beer in pubs?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we must await the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the extension of this change from industry to all other matters, including beer.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could the Minister say why the metric system regarding currency and the metric system regarding weights and measures are not to be introduced at the same time? Does he not feel that it would have been much easier for consumers and shops if it had been done in that way?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it might have been so, but in both these fields there were so many problems to be settled that the Government felt that a kind of super "D-day" on which everything changed in one crash movement would really be more confusing.

BREAKDOWN OF 1964 BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS DEFICIT
2.38 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish a simple breakdown of the £800 million deficit which they allege they inherited when they came into office in 1964.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, a simple breakdown of the balance of payments in 1964, together with a considerable amount of detailed analysis, is published in the latest Balance of Payments Pink Book, United Kingdom Balance of Payments, 1967, produced by the Central Statistical Office, a copy of which is in the Library.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Would he use his influence with

975
the other members of the Government to prevent the spreading of this allegation which, at best, is distorted, bearing in mind that at least half the deficit was capital investment? And does the noble Lord support the allegation that was made by his right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in another place recently?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not know about the latter half of the noble Lord's list of allegations, but as to the first part there is no question of allegation here. The facts are there in the Pink Book, which I advise the noble Lord to read.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the breakdown was in consequence of the deficit?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I fear that that is a bit too subtle for me.
LORD RHODES: My Lords is my noble friend also aware that the Tory Government of the day knew that this deficit was building up and did nothing at all about it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is perfectly true. If, as I thought, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, wants to make a political point out of this, the facts are that in 1964 the deficit on current account was £402 million and last year the deficit on current account was £514 million. But the difference between the two, as my noble friend Lord Rhodes says, is that the first deficit came after 13 years of "never having had it so good" whereas in the second case we are now, for the first time, interpreting our economic difficulties in a Budget which, if unpopular, is certainly realistic.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, has the Minister compared the figures of the deficit that the Tory Government inherited from the previous Labour Government in 1951; and has he noticed that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe pointed out the comparative figures in a debate, and that his allegations have never been answered?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to go further back, I would point out to him that that deficit was after a war in which all of us had
976
used our resources in order to preserve freedom in the world. I really do not believe there is much good to be gained in bandying these deficits about. What I do believe is that we must now look to the future.

RHODESIA: BRITISH AIR LINKS WITH SOUTH AFRICA
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any Rhodesian-registered aircraft operate between Rhodesia and South Africa; and if so, whether they intend, pursuant to paragraph 4 of their Draft Security Council Resolution, to restrict British airlines operating to South Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I understand that aircraft which are registered in Rhodesia continue to provide a service between Rhodesia and South Africa. As to the second part of the Question, the answer is, "No, my Lords".
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
2.41 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will prohibit the distribution of the contraceptive pill in view of the serious warning issued by the Medical Research Council and the Dunlop Committee on the Safety of Drugs that there is a risk to life from pulmonary thrombosis and cerebral thrombosis to women who take the pill.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the warning to which my noble friend has referred is, I take it, the article by Dr. Inman, of the Committee on Safety of

977
Drugs, and Dr. Vessey, of the Medical Research Council, which was published in the British Medical Journal of April 27. This, and another article in the same issue, reported in greater detail on the link between thrombo-embolism and the use of oral contraceptives, about which a preliminary report was issued last year. The Committee on Safety of Drugs have carefully considered the evidence in the newly published articles, and have advised that in view of the considerable therapeutic as well as social value of oral contraceptives they do not feel justified in recommending that these preparations should be withdrawn from the market, provided that they remain available only on prescription and that doctors and patients are aware of the degree of known risk which their use involves. The Government have accepted this advice, and accordingly do not propose to prohibit the distribution of oral contraceptive preparations.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as it was apparently only a short time ago that the country was assured that there was no danger in the use of the contraceptive pill, would not my noble friend agree that, now that it has been definitely revealed that a woman taking the contraceptive pill is ten times more liable to get thrombosis than the woman who is not taking it, the time has arrived for the Government to take action?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not know to what assurance some years ago the noble Baroness refers; nor do I know from where she got the figure when she said "ten times more likely".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to read the first leader in the British Medical Journal of this week on the subject? He will then get the answer to the question he has asked me. It is ten times more likely. May I also ask him particularly to read the last paragraph of that article, in which the British Medical Journal warns the doctors and the country that there should be no complacency in this matter? Does he not think that the Ministry of Health are being too complacent?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I would entirely agree with what the noble Baroness has said: that there should be no complacency in this matter. There
978
is a known risk, and doctors should explain it to patients. This is the doctor's responsibility. I daresay that the House would like me to quote some figures, because I have implied that "ten times" is not correct. The risk of death from thrombo-embolism among users of oral contraceptives aged between 20 and 34 is, so far as present knowledge goes, about 15 per million; the risk among non-users is about 2 per million. So, the likelihood is seven times greater, and not ten times. Among women aged between 35 and 44, among users, the risk is 39 per million; among non-users, 5 per million. Once again the risk is about seven times greater.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the women we are talking about are not diseased but are healthy young women with small children whom they will leave, I would ask my noble friend: does he not realise that the figures he has given it themselves demand that the Ministry take some action?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the House may be venturing into rather deep technical waters, can my noble friend give an assurance that the Ministry will keep a very alert eye on further investigations that are carried out and will be prepared always to modify its present attitude in this matter?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Loads, are there not many other risks to which all of us are subject, such as traffic, cancer and Heaven knows what? Is this not a minimal risk, having regard to the advantage that many people find in taking the pill?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that is a very valid point. If I may, I will enlarge upon the figures I have given. The estimates of death are as follows: 15 per million among users of the contraceptive pill aged between 20 and 34; 49 per million from motor accidents, and 228 per million from the normal risks attendant on pregnancy and childbirth.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the figures he has given are not relevant? By giving the pill we are killing the individual deliberately. He has read to the House statistics of accidental deaths.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the standard preparations do not kill any individual; they prevent conception.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should perhaps just say that the purpose of these two Amendments to the Standing Orders of the House is to give effect to paragraph 2 of the First Report from the Procedure Committee made on April 3. The Committee recommended that Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be amended so that Special Orders would be given the same precedence on the Order Paper as Public Bills and Measures. This Report was agreed to by the House on April 10. If your Lordships accept the two Amendments standing in my name, the effect will be that Special Orders will lose their present position on the Order Paper which allows them to come before Public Bills.
Until the war, the great majority of Special Orders were of a Private Bill nature, and it was therefore logical for them to be given the same precedence as Private Bills. Since the war, however, the vast majority of Special Orders have been of a Public Bill nature and it seemed logical to the Committee to class them with such Bills on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should add that I hope these Amendments will enable Special Orders to be set down with rather greater flexibility than hitherto, and that this will prove to be for the convenience of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following Amendments be made to Standing Order No. 35:
Paragraph 4, line 3, after ("orders") insert ("(other than Special Orders)")
Paragraph 5, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("and Measures") and insert ("Measures and Special Orders")
Paragraph 5, line 6, leave out ("and Measures") and insert ("Measures and Special Orders").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly.

FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1968
2.49 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1968 be approved. It may also be convenient to your Lordships if we discuss the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1968 at the same time, since the two Orders are complementary. The two Orders were laid before the House last month and came into operation on April 1. They cease to have effect unless approved within forty days of being made.
May I first speak generally about the Fatstock Guarantee arrangements? These provide for deficiency payments to be made on fat cattle, fat sheep and fat pigs to bring the average return to the producers broadly up to the guaranteed level. The first Scheme was introduced in July, 1954, when post-war food controls came to an end, and the first Payments Order was made in the following year. Since then, the precise arrangements have changed a good deal and new Orders were necessary in 1957, 1960 and 1964. The changes we are now making in the Payments Order are mainly technical. Power is being taken to provide for the delegation of certain functions to the Meat and Livestock Commission in Great Britain. It was made clear in 1965 that functions relating to certification for the guarantee would be transferred to the Commission in due course. This body was set up last year. The date of transfer is not yet settled but we wanted to have the necessary powers available in good time. In addition, minor changes are being made in the provisions relating to certification procedures so as to give greater clarity or flexibility where this is desirable. At the same time, the power to make special quality premium payments on pigs in addition to the guarantee is being deleted because it is no longer in use.
I turn now to the Protection Order. Large sums are paid out on fatstock guarantees. Over £60 million was paid last year, and it is essential to provide safeguards for the payment of the subsidies. That is the purpose of the Order

981
which was made in 1958. This Amendment Order provides, like the one I have already mentioned, for the delegation of certain functions in Great Britain to the Meat and Livestock Commission. It also widens the provision relating to the marking of carcases approved for guarantee so as to strengthen the safeguards against fraud. It makes one or two other changes designed to bring references up to date. My Lords, I commend these Orders to the House.
Moved, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1968, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for explaining to us the purposes of these two Orders, and extend a word of welcome to them. With regard to the first one, which provides particularly for moving the function of certification of fatstock from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Meat and Livestock Commission, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would answer one or two points. I welcome the Commission's having the function. I am sure that the direct contact with the market which the Commission will have as a result of their being responsible for certification will be a help to them in learning the complexities and intricacies of the fatstock market—and, Heaven knows!, those are infinite. This will help them in due course to face their very difficult task of trying to improve the general structure of marketing, and particularly of introducing quality grades, which I think will be of great benefit to the trade and to the housewife.
I should like to ask the noble Lord three short questions with regard to the change. First, would the noble Lord tell us what payment the Government will make to the Commission for carrying out this function and on what basis that has been assessed? Secondly, can the noble Lord tell us what was the cost last year, and what is the estimated cost this year, of administering the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme as a whole? I am asking not for the cost of the deficiency payments but for the actual cost of administering the Scheme. Lastly, can the noble Lord tell us what proportion of fatstock is now sold on a grade and deadweight basis, as opposed to being sold
982
on the hoof, and whether there yet an increasing trend in this direction in the light of all the propaganda and education to try to encourage it?
With regard to the second Order on enforcement, I, of course, welcome any arrangement which can be made to increase the safeguards against fraud in this respect. The ingenuity of the market is infinite, as I well know, and includes such things as removing the ears from one animal and sewing them on another. Anything which can be done to stop up these channels will be to the good. I have pleasure in supporting the two Orders.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for the welcome he has given to the first Order. I am not sure that I can give him all the information for which he asks, but I promise that I will see he has it within a very short time. I have some information regarding the weight of fatstock through auctions, which was one of the questions asked by the noble Lord. The weight through auctions in 1966–67 was as follows: for cattle, 14·8 million cwt. or 65 per cent. of the weight of all certifications; for sheep, 300 million lb., or 64 per cent.; for pigs approximately 11½ million score deadweight or approximately 13·8 per cent. Obviously, I am not giving figures for:1967–68 because they have been greatly affected by foot-and-mouth disease.
I have some of the other information for which the noble Lord asked. The Commission will be reimbursed by the Exchequer for services carried cut on behalf of Ministers. These are natters for negotiation with the Commission on which nothing more can be said. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I have been able to tell him and that the House will agree to the Orders.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether those figures include Scotland?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I cannot say offhand, but I will let the noble Lord know. I suspect that they do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FATSTOCK (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1968
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1968, be approved.
Moved, That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1968, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
2.59 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulations with respect to the welfare of livestock]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK,THE EARL OF SELKIRK, moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() The regulations mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall contain provisions adequate to ensure that, as from a date laid down in the regulations, every animal shall have sufficient freedom of movement to be able, without difficulty, to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill provision is made for dealing with animal welfare. During the Committee stage discussions I sought to ascertain from the Government what were their intentions regarding the use of the powers for which they were asking under these two clauses. I am sure we are all satisfied that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, goes as far as he is permitted by his brief and it may be that he goes a little further, but I am bound to say that his reply on that occasion was very disappointing. He was unable to give any undertaking about the use of the powers. That gives me the impression that the very interesting Report we have had by Professor Brambell on the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock is going to be pushed under the carpet.
I am fortified in that view by a letter which was written to Mr. Lever, a Member of Parliament, by a former Minister
984
(I do not, of course, know the views of the present Minister), who said:
"The Brambell Committee made it clear that the welfare standards they were recommending were based on their judgments of where the animals' interests lay, though often these judgments could not be backed by scientific findings."
The Brambell Committee recommended further research. It is a widely held opinion that, of all the sciences, biology may well show the greatest advances over the next ten years, but are we to wait before taking action for many years until additional scientific investigations take place?
What I suggest in this Amendment is taken from Chapter 4, paragraph 37, of the Brambell Committee's Report as meeting the position of intensive agriculture. In the opinion of the Committee, this is the minimum requirement which is necessary. What was this Committee to which I am referring? It was a Committee appointed by Mr. Christopher Soames, which was, I think, the first to make a systematic examination of intensive agricultural methods in this country or, for all I know, in any other country. By any standards it was a strong Committee. I do not propose to summarise the arguments set out in Chapter 4, which make extremely interesting reading, or the remarks of Professor Thorpe in Appendix III, but I think it worth looking for a moment at the membership of this well-balanced Committee.
It was chaired by a distinguished zoologist from Wales. It had a former deputy director of the Veterinary Field Service in Scotland, who may therefore be presumed to be fairly familiar with the position in Scotland; a professor of animal husbandry from Bristol; a former Secretary of the Royal Agricultural Society of England; an Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture—and he at least could not have written the briefs of the noble Lord when he came to speak to us on the last occasion—a regional director of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and a professor of animal behaviour from Cambridge, a man of great distinction. This was a strong and well-balanced Committee of men of ability who have studied this subject and of practical men who have worked in the field of agriculture. So far as I know, there were no professional humanitarians on the Committee.
The Committee's examination was extensive. They heard oral evidence from 23 bodies and individuals, most of whom gave written testimony as well. They took written evidence from some 50 different bodies, and carried out visits to 65 farms in this country and abroad. I think that it was in every way a thorough investigation and that the findings of the Committee are probably based on wider information than is available to most of us in this whole field. We should have to wait a long time before we get another examination of such a character, and we are not likely for a considerable time to have a Bill which can deal with the subject.
On the one side, that is the opinion of an expert Committee; on the other side, what is the opinion of the public? I do not suppose that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are deeply impressed with the doctrine of vox populi, vox Dei—at least, not at the present time. They probably think that the Almighty can express His views through different channels. None the less, it is interesting to be reminded that 87 per cent. of the people who were asked thought that these words which I am moving should be incorporated in the Bill. On either side, we have expert opinion and public opinion, with the Government standing in the middle preventing a reform—or, may I say, development—which I should have thought was both sensible and publicity wanted. I can only say, using the classic phrase, that the Government is a brewer's dray standing in the way of reform.
I think that the reason is that the Government are afraid of offending the opinion of the farmers. I wonder whether they are right in this. Many farmers are concerned at the public anxiety on this whole subject. I should like to read a letter that I have received from Mr. John Charrington, agricultural correspondent of the Financial Times, who speaks with some authority on this matter. He wrote:
"I must say that most intensive farmers of my experience are to some extent worried by the public criticism of their industry and would, I think, welcome legislation that imposed a common code of conduct on them. I cannot see that they could object to reasonable inspection, which of course is the key to all enforcement."
986
That is what we want here, my Lords: a common code based on a comprehensible principle.
I should like to make one other point, a wider point. This I take from a letter that I received from Professor Tinbergen, who signed the letter in The Times dealing with this particular subject who strongly recommended that these words should be incorporated in the Bill. He wrote:
"Personally, my own concern is more with the effects on human beings. Keeping animals in a way which rightly or wrongly strikes most of us as intolerably cramped may breed a kind of callousness to our fellow human beings."
I think that there is quite a burden of consideration in this view.
For all these reasons, I suggest that this House should make its position clear and that the kernel of the Brambell Report recommendation should be incorporated in the Bill in a flexible way, as it is in this Amendment, and so lay down a comprehensible and correct guiding principle. For these reasons, I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we debated this question just before the last Recess, when I spoke rather strongly. Since then I have had time to consider what I said and to wonder whether I had been entirely reasonable. I come to this debate feeling more strongly than I did a few weeks ago about the principle embodied in this Amendment. May I explain what we are asking for? We are asking that every animal should have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its legs. As I said in the last debate, if a prisoner was confined to his cell, there would be an outcry. He would at least be able to get up, sit down and stretch himself, but we would say that he should also have adequate exercise. This Amendment does not ask for even adequate exercise for these poor animals. It merely asks that, while they are being fattened up and presumably waiting for death, they should be humanely treated. In my opinion this

987
cannot be regarded as an unreasonable request. Surely the very minimum we could ask for an animal—if indeed we believe that animals should be humanely treated—is that it should be able to get up, stretch its legs and scratch itself.
I would ask your Lordships to consider the background. I realise that these animals are being kept in order that the farmers should make a profit. We have to face up to whether we accept that profit should be put before all human considerations. Perhaps I am feeling a little warm about this to-day, having put a Question which I think also involved a clash between profit-making and humanitarian considerations. But if this minimum Amendment is not accepted, then we are inviting farmers and other people all over the country to cramp animals together, to allow them to live in such conditions that when the end comes we shall be only too happy.
This question, I suppose, is one that can arise only in the twentieth century. If this matter had been debated in the nineteenth century, when the approach to animals was a little different, no doubt it would have been laughed out of court. There is no doubt that this is a sign of our civilisation; it is a sign that we are involved when we say that, even in respect of the most humble of our animals, when it is within the power of a human being—who can be cruel unless he is controlled—we must use our power to protect that animal.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to give strong support to this Amendment, and especially to draw attention to what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said when he spoke about the expert composition of the Brambell Committee. I suggest that the Government cannot lightly disregard the findings of such a Committee. If we call ourselves a civilised community, as I think we do, then I cannot in all conscience see how we can confine animals in this way. There might even be (Heaven forbid that it should happen) more excuse for confining human beings in such a way, because human beings have a mind, they can read books and write. An animal has not a mind, and the whole life of an animal is in its instincts to move, to
988
eat and to enjoy freedom. It is true that in the rush hour we confine human beings to the most intolerable crushing together. But that is completely voluntary. I would repeat that, in a civilised society, to confine animals so that they cannot stretch their legs and never see daylight: birds so that they cannot preen themselves and stretch their wings, is intolerably cruel, and is going against every natural instinct that they have.
I agree that there are commercial considerations involved here, but in the end they must give way to humane considerations. We cannot completely override humanity in regard to the treatment of animals. If the Amendment were accepted by the Government, surely they could pass legislation to protect farmers in this country from livestock being imported into this country from abroad that has been produced under restricted conditions. I should not think that this was impossible. Having said that, I would repeat that I strongly support this Amendment.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, from the things that have been said in this debate, it would appear that every fanner in this country is huddling his animals and poultry in horrible conditions and trying to kill them off quickly. I think we should have a greater sense of proportion about all this. So far as the experts on the Committee are concerned, to whom the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred, there are other practical experts, the farmers—and many noble Lords in this House are farmers—who have experience of this sort of thing. There are procedures for inspection of these farms by Ministry inspectors. It is not true that there is widespread cruelty to these animals, because there are these inspections. There are always black sheep in every industry, and we can only hope that the inspectors of the Ministry will be able to discover these. But I should like your Lordships to remember that there are many noble Lords who are expert in the rearing of cattle, beef, dairy herds, poultry, pigs and sheep, who all know one thing; that is, that you will not get production from these animals and poultry unless they are healthy and happy.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we rejected a similar Amendment to this on

989
the Committee stage because we felt that what noble Lords who moved the Amendment wanted was already implicit in the Bill. I hope the noble Baroness will not feel that I am arguing for commercial farmers to be able to be cruel to animals in order to make profit, because I am not. Nor do I entirely accept the proposition put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, that all farmers necessarily consider the welfare of their beasts only because that is the only way to get profit. We know that this is not so,
I support entirely the sentiments put forward, and I support also the Brambell Committee and their Report. I do not feel, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, that there is any danger that the Committee's Report is being swept under the table if we reject this Amendment. This is not true. One only has to read the provisions of Clause 1 to see that the whole thing is implicit in the Bill, and that what the Committee recommended will be carried out. If the noble Earl wanted to move an Amendment, the only one I can think of is that the word "must" should be substituted for "may". Apart from that, I do not think there is anything we can do by specifying one small point out of the Brambell Report and putting it into the Bill. Surely this is a way of weakening the other propositions contained in the Report. I hope, for these reasons, that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment; and in saying that, I hope you will not think that 1 am arguing the case for cruelty to animals, because I am not.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I should like to say that I support the specific wording of this Amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for bringing it forward. But there is one phrase in the Amendment which I suggest is not a wise phrase, because it would affect most of the dairy and fatstock industry in this country. I refer to the phrase "to turn round". Half the livestock of this country are tied humanely by the head. They are able to get up, scratch themselves and move about, but they cannot turn round. They may do so when the farmer lets them out in the afternoon, but when they are tied humanely by the head they cannot turn round. If you are going to be accurate in a Bill or an Act, the
990
words "to turn round" should be cut out of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am merely going to make the same point I support the Amendment in principle, but I cannot wholly support it, because of the danger that has just been pointed out. I should like to enlarge upon this argument slightly, because I have had experience of it. I thought that the traditional methods of tying a beast up during the winter, not by the head but by the neck—and I am now talking of beef farming, not dairy farming—were such that the animal could groom itself and get up and stretch backwards and forwards but could not turn round. I once had the experience of lengthening the neck yoke on a sliding bar where the shackle slides up and down because I thought the animal was too short tied. The result was that the animal put its foot over the chain, got it twisted round its leg, and I very nearly had to slaughter it. Can your Lordships imagine what would happen if this provision became law? It is common practice for two animals to be kept in a stall. They would twist their chains and strangle themselves. It is one thing to put a paragraph in a Report, but to copy it without alteration into an Act of Parliament is very dangerous indeed. Therefore, while I accept the principle behind the Amendment, I cannot support the detail.
3.21 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend in this Amendment I have comparatively little to add to his comprehensive speech, but I should like to reply to some of the points that have been made and to say why we drafted and put down this Amendment. In the discussion on the Committee stage on March 19 I made my views clear and there was general sympathy for the Amendment moved at that time by my noble friend Laid Selkirk, although he moved his Amendment to the next clause of the Bill. Paragraph 37 of the Brambell Report is one of a group of three paragraphs setting out the principles to which the Brambell Committee attached the greatest importance and to which they referred subsequently in the course of their Report when considering the case of particular animals. The only essential words of

991
the requirement as set out in paragraph 37 that are not repeated in our Amendment have been mentioned by some noble Lords; in paragraph 37 this requirement has the qualification that this should be secured "at least".
May I give an example of the use made by the Brambell Committee themselves of their reliance on the principle of this paragraph, paragraph 37, subsequently in the course of their Report? On pages 40 and 41 of the Brambell Report they are considering the case of rearing calves in the "white" veal industry. If noble Lords will refer to paragraphs 148, 149 and 150 they will see that the Brambell Committee seek to apply to the case of those animals the very carefully considered principles they have set down in the paragraph from which we quote in our Amendment. May I read paragraph 149, and part of paragraph 150? Paragraph 149 runs as follows:
"Provided it is not too small, the individual pen or crate allows some freedom of movement and is tolerable. Unless under specific veterinary advice for individual sick animals, we consider that calves should have sufficient room to be able at all ages to turn around, to groom themselves and to move without discomfort. The size of pen in common use at present for 'white' veal production is, we believe, too small to meet these requirements adequately, especially as the calf approaches slaughter size".
Then, proceeding to paragraph 150:
"We have considered carefully the representations that have been made to us in favour of the small pen and we are unable to accept that those advantages which cannot be secured in other ways are sufficient to justify so close a measure of restraint".
I give that as an example of the use made by the Brambell Committee themselves of this fundamental paragraph.
As everybody in this House is painfully aware, I know very little about agriculture. In the course of more than thirty years in Parliament I have never previously put my name to an Amendment to an Agriculture Bill. If I venture to do so now it is because I share with my noble friend Lord Selkirk profound admiration for those who wrote the Brambell Report. They are, after all, experts on agriculture and animal welfare and behaviour. They are not sentimentalists or cranks.
But the confidence I have in the Brambell Committee and their recommenda-
992
tion was very much strengthened by a letter from my friend Julian Huxley and others that was published in The Times on February 21 of this year. I think noble Lords will agree that Julian Huxley is a zoologist of world-wide reputation. Another of the signatories is Dr. Tinbergen, F.R.S., now Professor in Animal Behaviour at Oxford University, another great authority. So important do I consider this letter, and so much influenced was I personally by it, that if the House will allow me I should like to read it to them. It would at any rate, I think, be helpful if this letter were in Hansard. The letter runs as follows:
"Sir,—We welcome the principle in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which aims to safeguard farm animals from needless pain and suffering.
"The trend towards confining whole herds and flocks of animals permanently in buildings in conditions of close restriction and towards regarding them more and more as mere units in a process for converting feeding stuffs into flesh must create a sense of detachment in those who deal with them. It is not difficult to see how in conditions of economic pressure, or lack of sensitivity or of observation, suffering among the animals can become extreme. We are concerned that regulations for their welfare should match in efficiency human factory legislation.
"We note that the new definition of suffering will cover 'unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress' and that Codes of Practice are being drawn up to guide stockmen. But we feel that there is one very real omission in the Bill, and that is any form of guiding principle by which suffering can be assessed and on which the codes should be based.
"The Brambell Committee declared unanimously: 'An animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able, without difficulty, to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down, and stretch its limbs.'
"A recent Gallup Poll survey showed an overwhelming majority of public opinion behind this, eighty-seven per cent. of the people interviewed thought that a basic rule of the Codes of Practice should be that farm animals should be able to turn round in their pens, ninety-one per cent. felt that all birds should have sufficient room to stretch their wings.
"We urge that this basic rule be written into the Act".
The Amendment which we are now debating is an attempt to do just that which Julian Huxley and his fellow signatories to that letter sought to have done.
May I now deal with two possible criticisms? On the last occasion, at the Committee stage, it was suggested that

993
the regulations for which we ask may not be immediately practicable. Our Amendment accepts that view, to this extent: that we do not propose that these requirements should come immediately into operation. We leave the date for the operation indeterminate. The date would be laid down in the regulations themselves. Nor do we suggest that these precise words should go in; only that their object should be secured. The words of our Amendment are before the House.
The second possible criticism is that our Amendment to put this requirement into the Statute is not being put in at the best place in the Bill. That is open to debate. On the last occasion my noble friend sought to amend the next clause. I thought that the balance of argument developed in our previous discussion was that it should appear in Clause 2 where it is now proposed that it shall appear. But when the Minister replies he may point out that, while our Amendment looks, on the face of it, to be mandatory, it is put into a clause which is in essence permissive. He may point out that Ministers are not compelled by the Bill to make regulations at all. That is true. It is equally true that this Amendment, if it is carried—as I hope it will be—will not compel them to make such regulations. But those regulations I think ought to be made, and the result of accepting this Amendment would be that, if they are made, they will at least have to satisfy the requirement that the Amendment lays down. I am convinced that that is worth while.
We drafted the Amendment and commend it in no spirit whatever of hostility to farmers—and here perhaps I might deal with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer. I should like to make it absolutely clear for myself what the Brambell Committee made clear for themselves in paragraphs 229 and 230 of their Report. They did not suggest at all that farmers were lacking in these feelings, and I should like to assure the noble Baroness that I have the highest respect and admiration for the farming community, and there is no aspersion against them in our Amendment. May I read paragraph 229?
"There are two further general points which we wish to make. First, it will be seen that we have found it necessary to make recom-
994
mendations which would have the effect of laying down certain basic standards for animal welfare. We would most emphatically wish to state, however, that in our opinion the great majority of farmers are concerned to ensure the welfare and health of their stock, and our Report should not be read as being in any way a condemnation of the attitude of farmers in general. We feel it necessary to stress this conviction to avoid misunderstanding."
Then in paragraph 230 the Committee say:
"Secondly, we recognise that the effect of some of our recommendations may be to increase costs in certain sectors of the industry, at least in the initial stages. We believe that public concern about animal welfare on farms is such that this will be understood and consumers will be prepared to meet any marginal extra costs."
They then go on to say that it is essential that this policy, which they recommend, should not be defeated by imports of meat produced under less tolerable conditions.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley: that the substance of the Amendment which we are now discussing is contained in, and covered by, the Bill itself?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, one has only to read the Bill to see that it is not. What is covered in the Bill is power to include all these things, both in the code and in the regulations, but there is nothing whatever to ensure that it will in fact be included. And I take the same view as my noble friend Lord Selkirk, that we do not have the opportunity to legislate on this subject very frequently, and it is important that from the first this legislation should have this guiding line, as Julian Huxley and his fellow signatories to that letter propose. It is worth while to secure this Amendment. I honestly believe that it is in the interests of the farmers themselves that these principles, which command so much public support, should be written into the Bill.
I am not a vegetarian; I eat meat with pleasure. But having read of some of the conditions that operate in the white veal industry, having read the arguments put forward in this Report by those who gave evidence in favour of some existing practices, if my only alternative to being a vegetarian were to eat white veal produced under these conditions, I should unhesitatingly be a vegetarian. We never buy white veal, simply on account of the

995
possibility that it might have been so produced.
Before farmers decide to oppose this type of Amendment, I wonder whether they have really considered what will be the effect on public opinion, if there are no restrictions of this kind. The last thing that I should do would be to intrude what I consider to be moral principles in deciding a question of this kind in this House—
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting one moment, he has not yet dealt with what I regard as the crucial words in this debate—the words "turn round". They mean, so far as I can see, that no animal can be tethered by the head, which is the most humane way. If the noble Lord will give me a satisfactory answer to that question I will vote for the Amendment; otherwise I cannot do so.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I was going to mention it, but it is perfectly true that I have not yet done so because, as the House well knows, I am not an experienced agriculturist. If this Amendment is substantially right there are further opportunities of modifying it, should the Government be so advised. I accepted that the distinguished writers, both of the letter and of the Brambell Report, could be relied on in this matter, and I think what they had principally in mind was that animals should not be kept continuously and for ever under these conditions. There may be cases where tethering may be right; but that animals, throughout the whole of their existence, should never have the opportunity of turning round seems to me, at least, to be fundamentally wrong.
I was coming to what to me is the moral principle involved. I do not believe that we are entitled to treat living creatures as mere things. I do not believe that it is right that an animal should be denied every element of a natural existence for our imagined convenience. I do not believe that practices that disregard the conditions laid down by the Brambell Committee are either necessary, or that they can be justified, merely on economic grounds. I must confess that some of the arguments sometimes put forward for such practices remind me of the arguments which were
996
once put forward to justify employing small children in coal mines.
It may be that these words are not perfect. I do not think there is much wrong with them. But they are the considered words, strongly supported, of a very strong Committee. Some of the leading authorities in the world on this matter have written a joint letter to The Times urging that the words should be put in the measure before us. I believe that they are right, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I do not suppose there is anybody in the House who has a word to say in favour of this white veal business, but the whole point here surely is, would the noble Lord except from this Amendment dairy cows which have every opportunity of lying down but which certainly have not the opportunity of turning round when they are kept like that? Nobody has ever suggested that there was anything in the faintest degree inhumane in the way these dairy cows are kept.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am immensely impressed with the point which has been put to me now by three noble Lords. They are all far more experienced in this matter than I am. But I do not really regard that as an argument against our Amendment at this stage. If there is something technically wrong, if there are some classes not wholly provided for or if, in some ways, this wording is too stringent, I am certain the House would accept at the next stage some Amendment to what I and my noble friend are seeking to put into the Bill. What I cannot accept from any of the noble Lords who have intervened is that this is a ground for putting no guiding principle into the Bill whatsoever. My noble friend Lord Swinton never makes an intervention for which I do not feel the greatest respect. If the Government say, "We accept in general this Amendment but we think it will need modification at the next stage", I have no doubt that my noble friend and I would accept such modification. But what we press for is an acceptance of the principle that this guiding paragraph of the Brambell Report shall be incorporated in the legislation.
3.44 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, this has been again a very interesting debate on matters on which I think noble Lords on all sides feel very deeply. I should like, if I may, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on putting the case so eloquently, a case which is felt very widely throughout the country and which was very substantially supported by my noble friend Lord Conesford in his maiden speech in the world of agriculture. Of course, we all sympathise with this proposal in principle, but it would not be right for my noble friend Lord Conesford to say that there is nothing in the Bill as a guide principle. There is Clause 1 specifically setting out that
"Any person who causes unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any livestock …"
et cetera. There is the general principle.
I think this debate has shown as well as any debate could the great practical difficulties of putting specific regulations into the Bill. My noble friend Lord Stonehaven I thought particularly graphically explained what happens if you tie up a cow or any cattle with a loose chain so that it can turn round. I think my noble friend Lord Conesford realises that if this Amendment were inserted and a regulation were made like that exactly as it stands, pretty well every dairy shed in the country would be made illegal. That is the specific difficulty which arises through putting regulations of that kind into a Bill. I think the structure of the Bill has really been rather well thought out, in making in Clause 3 provision for establishing codes of practice which will specifically deal with practical points of management of all livestock and provide for essential consultation with farmers in the farming world.
I was only too happy to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, say more eloquently than I could that farmers are very much in favour of the welfare of their animals as well as the profit, and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, agreed. You must consult with the people doing the work to get the right balance between the humanitarian and the practical. That is what the Bill does. Codes of practice are laid down in Clause 3, after consultation. Under Clause 2 regulations are made based on the codes of
998
practice, and the codes of practice provide the evidence for the enforcement of the regulations.
I think we have achieved the right balance between the ideal and the humanitarian which we all want to see and the practical necessities of the farming world. I should think it very likely —I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, says—that special codes of practice may be necessary for dealing with the calf fattening trade. It is known that the conditions to which noble Lords referred do exist, rather more, I believe, in Continental countries than in this country. I would, in conclusion, say this to noble Lords. I think that our awareness, and indeed the awareness of the Government, that 87 per cent. of public opinion expects something to happen which will secure humane management of our livestock will be sufficient to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture acts in this matter, makes codes of practice and in due course makes regulations as well; and that is really the better way to proceed to get the result everybody wants.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I am going to speak very briefly because your Lordships have already been wearied enough. It is not just a matter of changing from tying up to letting loose; it is a matter of complete reorganisation of farm buildings, something that cannot be undertaken at the present time of high interest rates and the difficulties of building in general. It entails complete modification not only of the farm buildings but also the drainage system from the farm. We are having difficulties enough at present in dealing with the pollution of rivers. We are willing to do it; we are doing it as far as possible, but up to the present we have not found any authority which can tell us how to overcome the problems there are in preventing effluent from reaching the streams. If we are to have this imposed on us in addition, it will mean t very great root-and-branch change in the whole of dairy farming in this country.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. If this Amendment were to go through it would give great hardship to the female of two

999
species, the sow and the cow. The pregnant cow or the pregnant sow yarded is far more likely to be bullied by the bully cow or the bully sow. If any of your Lordships see a modern byre, a modern cow shed, where the cow is tied up and the milking line goes round the shed, you will find that on the average the cows give a higher yield of milk than they do when they are yarded, coming into the milking parlour and being knocked on the way, because, as always in every society, human or animal, there is always liable to be a bully.
That is becoming particularly obvious in the handling of the sow. It is quite clear that a sow is kept under much happier conditions if she is kept in a sow stall rather than in a yard. Sows in a yard can be under great discomfort, and usually are, because there can be a great deal of knocking around by other sows. It has become abundantly clear from research work which has been done in the Lewitt Institute that the individual feeding of the sow is of the greatest importance because of the diet of the pregnant sow. Unless something of this sort is done the probability of abortion by allowing the sow to become overfat is increased. Therefore, if this Amendment is allowed to go through it will be to the great detriment of the female of the species.
3.51 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I spoke before on this matter, and I should like to say that I think there is a certain amount of "red herring" going on about dairy cows. I do not see that the Bill really touches them at all. The dairy cow is tethered in its stall, either by yoke or by chain. It can always lick itself. As a dairy cow it must be groomed at least once or twice a day, according to law. It gets frequent exercise by going out to the fields, and is often taken to the milking bay and milked, and there is further exercise when it goes back to the stall. The same applies to a sow. There is a pen for sows to farrow in. The pen is often supplied with hot pipes. Sows can move about in the pens. When they have the young piglets in the farrowing pen measures are taken to prevent their being laid upon. This is humane.
The main point concerns the "factory" hen. I feel that commercialism has
1000
gone too far. These hens cannot turn round; they never leave the pens. They get no exercise; they cannot stand up. A hen likes to stand up and stretch, like I do. I think it is inhumane, and if commercialism is allowed to go as far as this to restrict the normal, hereditary instincts that all creatures have, it is going too far. I am glad that I have no commercial qualities myself. I am glad that I do not lay golden eggs, otherwise I should be put in a pen.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that there is a deep feeling in all parts of the House in regard to this subject of animal welfare; but I do not believe that it behoves any one of us to claim that he feels more deeply than others. I am bound to say that I thought the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, introduced his Amendment in some rather uncalled for, emotive language; and he was supported by my noble friend Lady Summerskill with some equally emotive language. She seemed to think that it was a matter for stricture because some of these animals were produced for profit. We should go quite hungry if we were to restrict the production of animals that are produced for profit.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think my noble friend must be corrected. I said that we must not forget our humanitarian instincts and put profit before them. I think that reflects the feeling of people to-day.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend can read what she said. She was giving support for this Amendment on the basis that we were dealing with animals that were being produced for profit. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, that in certain cases some of these animals are being produced in conditions in which commercialism has gone too far. I accept that. But the question is, how can we put into an Act of Parliament language that helps in the one place where it ought to help, but restricts in another sphere where no restriction is called for.
The noble Earl said that we were "sweeping under the carpet" these recommendations of the Brambell Committee. That is completely untrue. What

1001
does he mean by "sweeping under the carpet" when the Government takes the trouble to produce a Bill? It is a strange way of sweeping something under the carpet to publish a Bill of this kind, the first part of which says that if any person causes unnecessary pain or distress to any live stock he shall be guilty of an offence. The words I have read out are more useful for obtaining the objective which the noble Lady is after than are the words in the Amendment.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, says, that if these words are put into the clause they will have the effect of weakening rather than strengthening it. This is a permissive clause. To me, it seems strange that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—though he may be an amateur in agriculture, he is certainly not in the use of words and legal definitions—should seek to write into a permissive clause mandatory action. If the action which he calls for in this Amendment was contrary to the intentions of the Government, then it would be simple not to produce any regulations at all. If we did not want to do what he is asking us to do it would be perfectly within the terms of the Bill as now framed just to refrain from publishing any regulations at all. So I honestly do not believe that what is sought in this Amendment would be achieved if the words were included in the Bill.
Moreover, the words are in fact less applicable, or, I would go so far as to say to the noble Earl, less sensible than those in his previous Amendment. If these words were incorporated in the Bill it would mean that every time the Minister wanted to issue any regulation about drainage or water supply, or the importation of feedingstuffs, for example, he would be compelled to tag on to that regulation these words about enabling animals to get up, groom themselves and lie down again. That clearly would be absurd, and I do not believe that that is what the noble Earl or his supporters would wish to have done.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for a moment? He quotes the first paragraph of the Bill, which is naturally quite plain in meaning. But who is to decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary pain? It is presumably the Minister. The rest
1002
of the Bill merely allows the Minister to make what regulations he likes.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, probably the noble Lord will allow me to proceed, but the short answer to him is that the institution or individual who will determine whether an offence is committed is the court of law, or the judge before whom a farmer or producer may be brought, if he were thought to be causing unnecessary pain. But I was going on to say something about the Brambell Committee. The noble Earl quite rightly said that the Brambell Committee was composed of authoritative persons. I absolutely agree with that. But far from pushing all this under the carpet, as he tried to make out, subsequent to the publication of the Brambell Committee's Report the Minister has appointed, as the noble Earl well knows, the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. This is charged with the task of drafting the type of code of practice and the type of regulations which the noble Earl, the noble Lord and the noble Lady want. This body, the Welfare Advisory Committee, is as authoritative as the Brambell Committee. It includes veterinary surgeons, animal welfare representatives, farmers and scientists, who have to get down to the difficult job of producing a farm of words which would do what the noble Lord, Lord Strange, wants to do but would not have the effect of unduly restricting the dairy cows. Surely it would be better to allow them to complete their deliberations and to produce a code of practice and the regulations. I said on Committee stage—and I repeat—that I find it inconceivable that this code of practice would not deal with the accommodation for the animals with whose welfare it is dealing there would be specific reference to accommodation within the spirit of the Brambell Committee. We want to achieve what the Brambell Committee said should be achieved, but I am suggesting that the actual form of words for this should not be written into the Bill.
I was asked by the noble Earl about the time scale for results from the deliberations of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. I think he implied that there would not be any action consequent on the Report of the Committee. He is quite Wrong. First of all we have

1003
this Bill, and while the Bill is going through the House the Advisory Committee will be considering the necessary codes of practice and the regulations. I understand that there are now in course of preparation codes for pigs, cattle, domestic fowls and turkeys. These codes will be circulated to interested parties during the next two months, and the Parliamentary timetable envisages that the regulations will be going through the two Houses by the end of this year or the beginning of next. I feel that this is going as far as one could reasonably go. I accept the need for action, but I am sure that we should proceed on the lines I have outlined. Since the words of the Amendment would have a somewhat distorted effect on any subsequent regulations, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, that nothing I said was meant to be critical of farmers. I think I should make it clear that probably 90 per cent. of the farmers of the country will be unaffected by these particular provisions. I have received letters from successful farmers who are fully in agreement with this Amendment. The sort of dairy conditions which were envisaged by my noble friend Lord Bannerman are not intensive farming at all, since the cattle constantly go out. This does not arise in relation to this Amendment in the proper sense of the word. Serving on the Committee was a member of the Veterinary Field Services in Scotland, who presumably knew something about these matters.
Nobody has made any criticism of the Amendment, except for the words "turn round". Nobody has criticised the remaining words:
"sufficient freedom of movement to be able, without difficulty, to … groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs".
LORD BESWICK.My Lords, the noble Earl said that nobody has criticised the Amendment. I pointed out that if the proposed words were included, it would have the absurd effect that they would have to be tacked on to any regulation.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister seriously suggesting that, if the regulations to meet what is required
1004
in this Amendment have once been made, they would have to be repeated in every later regulation? That would be contrary to all common sense. But if that were the legal effect of what we are proposing, it would be the simplest thing to put that right at the next stage. It is not a serious objection to what we are suggesting.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I understand that the Minister is under no obligation to make any regulation at all. In those circumstances what the noble Lord has said is irrelevant. The point is that although there have been a large number of Bills in this House going back one hundred years or more on the subject of cruelty, nothing specific is laid down to deal with these matters. It is a matter of handing over entirely to the Ministry of Agriculture inspectors. Parliament is handing over its powers and saying, "Do what you like." I consider that we should be more specific and say that we want a general code indicating to farmers the standard to which we want them to work.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Earl, for he is distorting what I said. I have not said that we should leave it to the Ministry inspectors. What I am saying is that we should await the detailed recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which is now occupied in drawing up precisely the type of code which the noble Earl wishes to see.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord already has the Brambell Report, which has been published and whose recommendations are extensive. What assurance have we that he will fulfil any of the recommendations on this matter?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have specifically said—and I gave this undertaking—that the regulations will be designed to incorporate the spirit of the recommendations of the Brambell Committee. I cannot go any further than that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: How does the noble Lord know that? He has already said that he cannot undertake to do anything of this kind. I should like to see something specific included in the Bill. It would be a pity to hand over this matter to the Ministry inspector unless we have a specific recommendation as to

1005
what will be required. I must make clear that I undertake at the next stage to take out the words "turn round"; the remaining words would be left in. I am sorry if I did not make this clear to my noble friend Lord Bannerman.
Clause 11 [Provisions supplementary to section 9 in Scotland]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES) moved, in subsection (1)(c), after "(iii)' to insert: "or the matter mentioned in paragraph (c)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 10, 11, 14 and 15. The substantive Amendment among those is No. 10 which
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Moyne, L.

Audley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Polwarth, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hankey, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Somers, L.

Derby, Bp.

Huntingdon, E.

Strange, L.

Falkland, V.

Lothian, M.

Summerskill, Bs.

Feversham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Moyle, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dudley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amulree, V.

Dundee, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Oakshott, L.

Arwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Ogmore, L.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Perth, E.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Phillips, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fleck, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Foley, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]

Rhodes, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blackford, L.

Granville-West, L.

Rowallan, L.

Boothby, L.

Gridley, L.

Rowley, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

Segal, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hives, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckton, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Ironside, L.

Soper, L.

Burton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sorensen, I.

Byers, L.

Kennet, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Carnock, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Strang, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lambert, V.

Swinton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Latham, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindgren, L.

Tayside. L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Craigavon, V.

McLeavy, L.

Williamson, L.

Crathorne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Winterbottom, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Milverton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Derwent, L.

Mitchison, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

inserts additional wording into the Bill. The other Amendments are paving or consequential.
During the Committee stage I said that the Government sympathised with the principle behind an Amendment which was put down by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and which would have had the effect of allowing a landlord to seek the consent of the Land Court to the dispossession of a successor who already had another agricultural holding capable of providing employment for two men. I explained then, however, that the noble Earl's Amendment was open to a number of objections as it stood. But on his

1007
withdrawing the Amendment I undertook to produce an alternative form of words which I felt would meet the noble Earl's purpose, and which would be quite acceptable to the Government. Amendment No. 10 fulfils that undertaking, and I hope that this group of Amendments will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, after ("(iii)") insert ("or the matter mentioned in paragraph (c)").—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have already discussed this point fully in Committee, and I have nothing more to say, except to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the trouble he has taken in redrafting the Amendment in a way which is more satisfactory, and also for accepting my Amendment in principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("section 18(2) (a)") and insert ("paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of section 18(2)").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
Power to make amendments in respect of rating at present being applied to agricultural buildings.
".—(1) In compiling any valuation list for the year 1968–69 and for ensuing years, any buildings which are occupied together with agricultural land, whether or not such agricultural land is adjacent or contiguous to the buildings, and which are used for the purpose of the breeding, rearing or fattening of livestock, shall be deemed to be agricultural buildings in terms of section 26(4) of the General Rate Act 1967.
(2) In the application of this section to Scotland it shall be deemed to include references to any valuation roll and to agricultural lands and heritages, and shall be read as applying to the provisions of section 7(2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956.
(3) 'Agricultural land' in this section shall have the meaning given to it in section 26(3) of the General Rate Act 1967; and 'agricultural lands and heritages' shall have the meaning given to it in section 7(2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as I have told the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, this question of rating is not one of which I have any recent, direct experience of my own, but it is a question which at the moment is causing a great deal of concern in many parts of Scotland, and in the last week or two I have found that the concern is a great deal more widespread than I had at first thought. This Amendment is identical to an Amendment which was moved in Committee in another place. It was withdrawn then because the Minister said that the Government were considering the matter. He excused himself from dealing with it in this Bill because, he said, it would not be appropriate to do so in an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. But I think there is a certain amount of feeling in Scotland that if it is appropriate to deal in this Bill with the whole question of succession to farm tenancies it cannot be too much out of place to deal with the question of rating. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to meet us on this Amendment.
I should have thought there was no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament in passing the 1956 Act that all agricultural buildings should be derated, irrespective of whether or not they were contiguous to the land which the occupier was farming. I shall be glad to hear from the noble Lord if he thinks that the Act of 1956 is defective in its wording, whether it needs to be changed; and, if so, whether the Government would consider making the necessary amending alterations at an early date, if they do not feel able to do anything under this Bill. If they do feel able to clarify the position under this Bill, I should have thought it might not be too difficult to do so, with general agreement, on Third Reading. I hope that if the noble Lord does not think that my own Amendment in its present form is correct he will perhaps consider doing that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that there is a good deal of feeling about the uncertainty concerning rating legislation, especially as it is applied to buildings used for intensive husbandry. But the difficulty (and I think the noble Earl

1009
appreciates it) is that there is no general agreement as to how we should remove those uncertainties. One very radical solution which is favoured by some people is to withdraw agricultural rating exemption altogether. There would then be no problem whatsoever. An equally thorough-going solution would be to give total and unquestioning exemption to every building that could be described in any sense as an agricultural building. As I understand it, the noble Earl is not disposed to accept either of these two radical solutions. But his Amendment would not obviate all difficulty by any means. It would still leave anomalies.
For example, there is the case—I gather it has achieved some fame—of the cotton mill converted to the rearing of chickens. This could be said to be not contiguous to any farming land and therefore, one would have thought, would have been liable to rating. I do not quite know what the noble Earl means about being together with agricultural land lying at possibly some distance away from the buildings in question. There are therefore difficulties, even if one accepts the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl.
But, however sympathetic one may be to the desire to introduce improvements into the rating law, it would be quite inappropriate, I suggest, to do it in a Bill such as this. This is an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which really is not the right place to introduce what would, after all, be very substantial changes in taxation law. Proposals to change the law on the rating of agricultural buildings may of course have implications on other, nonagricultural aspects of the rating law, and these must be considered, as well as the effects which various possible solutions might have on different sections of the agricultural industry itself. The only assurance I can give the noble Earl is that the Government are aware of the difficulties to which he has drawn attention, and that we shall do our best to find a reasonable solution. This is as far as I can go. There are discussions going on at the present time. I cannot say when any decision may be reached, but I hope that, on the assurance that we recognise there are difficulties which ought to be obviated, the noble Earl
1010
will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, might I help the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in reaching a definition as to what would be agricultural land in the case of these more intensive livestock units? If you were to take as the definition the fact that a substantial part of the feed or a substantial part of the bedding was used for the animals in these houses, or that the dung produced was returned to the land, it would, I think, provide a fairly precise definition which could be easily applied. I throw out that suggestion. I am glad to hear the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to the point made by my noble friend Lord Dundee.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I just add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Dundee? What is bothering noble Lords on this side, and I am sure on the other side, too, is the trend here: that by a series of individual rating decisions a progressive process of re-rating agricultural buildings is taking place quite sporadically and fortuitously, some areas being affected worse than others and some areas not being bothered at all. It naturally causes great anxiety to those individuals whose buildings are re-rated, and it causes anxiety to us here, my Lords, beef use at this time, when intensive livestock-keeping is the trend (indeed, we were discussing it just now in another context, and it is certainly the most economic way of managing all forms of livestock) it poses this question: are the Government content to watch this progressive re-rating taking place and to allow it eventually to happen completely?
There is on the Statute Book this general intention of Parliament that agricultural buildings that are used in connection with the farming of the land should be de-rated. I should have thought that that principle should be upheld; I should have thought that there would be on both sides of the House general support for it. But evidently at this moment in time a fresh definition is most urgently needed. I should like to add my word of support to press the noble Lord to ask his right honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture, and, indeed, his other Ministerial colleagues, to regard this as a

1011
matter of urgency, for it is causing increasing anxiety throughout the farming world.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I shall not pursue the technicalities of this question with the noble Lord because I do not think your Lordships would wish me to do so. I have no doubt that there may be difficulties of definition; but I should not have thought it all that difficult to get a definition—some improvement perhaps on the wording of the 1956 Act—which would make sure that what I think were the intentions of Parliament would be carried out. It is evidently not possible for the Government to do that on this Bill. I should have liked the noble Lord to say a little more about the nature of the inquiries that are being held into this subject and about which body was carrying them out. In view of the assurance he has given, which I am sure is sincere, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Provisions supplementary to s. 12 in Scotland]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. These are purely drafting Amendments which are made necessary because the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 has been enacted since the present Bill was introduced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, leave out from ("section") to second ("the") and insert ("7 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Termination in case of near relatives of deceased tenant
18.—
(2) Notwithstanding section 26(1) of the principal Scottish Act (which provides for the Scottish Land Court consenting to the operation of a notice to quit in certain circumstances), where the said section 6(3) would apart from the provisions of this section apply to the notice, the Scottish Land Court shall consent under the said section 25(1) to the operation of a notice to quit given to such a near relative as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection—
(a) if they are satisfied that the near relative has neither sufficient training in agriculture nor sufficient experience in the farming of land to enable him to farm the holding to which the notice relates with reasonable efficiency, and if it is stated in the notice that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid, or
(7) In the case of any lease of an agricultural holding entered into after the passing of this Act where a landlord and a tenant have agreed that the lease shall be terminable after such term of years as may be specified therein this section shall not apply to any notice to quit given at the termination thereof and accordingly at the termination thereof the landlord shall have power to serve an incontestable notice to quit.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "has" to insert "(i)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your consent I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together since they are dependent upon each other. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I have had correspondence on these Amendments, but I suspect that he has been advised to resist them. The arguments so far produced for resisting them have left me quite unconvinced. I feel that too much of a political atmosphere has entered into this whole clause and, as a result, Amendments to it are now suspect and have not been looked at with the merit they deserve. I am unable to see that these particular Amendments are in any way political; they are purely for the good of agriculture in Scotland. There has been mention of social justice. There is no social injustice in these particular Amendments. However, your Lordships are renowned for taking an impartial view and for doing that which is right, and I am therefore hopeful that you will accept these Amendments.
We discussed these Amendments on Committee when the noble Lord speaking for the Government undertook to look afresh at the position; and I am sure that he did so because he had some doubts himself. Under the 1949 Act the landlord may lodge objections to the succession of an heir on the ground that it is in the interests of efficient farming; and the Land Court may sustain the objections. It is common knowledge, however, that the Land Court is inclined to favour the tenant in preference to the landlord, and thus the financial aspect has to be desperate—indeed, as

1013
my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said on Committee, the tenant has to be almost bankrupt—before the Court will decide against him. Since 1949, the position has been radically altered by the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964. Many of us were opposed to that Act applying to agriculture, but our good counsels were ignored. Thus it is scarcely right for Government spokesmen to refer to case law based upon the situation which has since materially deteriorated. The fact remains, however, that the Land Court have made case law on this subject; so my Amendments do not greatly alter the practical situation. But they do make the position statutory and binding on the Land Court.
I do not imagine that many of your Lordships have had practical experience in attempting to operate the law to remove a prospective agricultural heir from succession in Scotland. I have had this unforunate experience and it is neither pleasant nor easy. I do not believe there are any ill feelings over the action which I had to take; but if this Bill had been in operation I should probably have failed to remove this tenant. I should have been saddled with an unsatisfactory tenant. Perhaps of greater consequence, a progressive young man would have been deprived of the tenancy of this farm.
If this Amendment is accepted, your Lordships will see that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has an Amendment down (No. 8) which would, in fact, slightly alter the wording. So far as I can see there is no objection to this alteration in the wording and I hope that this may perhaps be altered at the next stage. I therefore earnestly request your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, after ("has") insert ("(i)").—(Lord Burton.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Burton. This Amendment is of some importance because I think it essential that tenants, when they succeed to a lease, should not be suffering from insufficient financial resources. This does not mean that they have to show that they are capable of paying with ready cash all the debts due on the estate of the person from whom they are inheriting and still have a
1014
reasonable amount of working capital. I am told that the legal definition of "financial resources" includes what you are able to borrow. Therefore any sums which they would be likely to be able to borrow would be perfectly adequate, so far as this Amendment is concerned, to enable the Land Court to decide in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. The Land Court would have to decide in favour of the landlord and against the incoming tenant only where it was quite obvious that he was going to have insufficient financial resources of any sort, including what he might be able to borrow.
There is a very important reason why this Amendment should be accepted. It is in connection with intestacy. We all hope that people will make wills; we all know that it causes a great deal of trouble when they die intestate. But unfortunately it does happen and it leads to complications. If someone died intestate and had, say, three sons, the residue of his estate would be split between the three sons equally. The executor would allocate the lease of the farm to one of these three and the value of the lease would be assessed against that son's share of the estate. The son would then have to stock the farm; and this, too, would be assessed against his share of the estate. Unless his father (or the one who died, whomsoever he may be) had left a lot of ready cash which did not go in death duties, or unless he, himself, was comparatively wealthy he would be bound to be in a very "dicey" financial situation, because he would have to make good to his two brothers that part of the estate which he had had extra, due to his need to stock up the farm with the machinery, livestock and dead stock which must go with it to make it a viable unit.
Of course, in some cases his brothers may agree that they should not inherit their share of the estate, or that it should be regarded as a loan from them to the brother inheriting the farm. This would be quite all right so far as this Amendment is concerned, because then the tenant would have sufficient financial resources and would be in no fear that the Land Court would find against him, even if the landlord tried to bring a case on these grounds. But suppose the brothers did not agree that they should forgo their share of the estate and let it stay with the brother who was to take

1015
over the farm. In such a case the brother taking over the farm would be most unlikely to have sufficient financial resources to be able to farm it efficiently and in a proper manner.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that this would be a very unreasonable thing for the brothers to do, but it could quite easily happen if they wanted to set up in different businesses and needed capital. I do not think that it would be at all unreasonable on their part if they insisted on having their share of their father's estate. I can visualise that happening, not frequently, but perhaps once or twice a year. I think it is a point which needs to be covered, and I gather that there is little hope of amending the 1964 Succession Act so that its provisions would not apply to rural or agricultural holdings. Many of us wanted that in the first place, as my noble friend Lord Burton has already said, but we were overruled and told that it would be impracticable to have different laws for the rural and the urban areas.
The second reason which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will give for opposing this Amendment is that it is unnecessary and that the point is already covered by Sections 20 and 21 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. My Lords, the Land Court has shown remarkable reluctance to find in favour of a landlord on the ground of the tenant's insufficient financial resources unless the tenant is nearly bankrupt, and known to be so—that is the point. Only if the tenant has left a trail of bills round the district and is well known to have done so is the Land Court likely to find in favour of the landlord.
The other snag of the 1949 Act is that it is necessary to serve notice on the tenant within a month of the death of his father, if it is his father who has died. This seems rather callous and a procedure which one would not necessarily wish to follow. I should have thought, therefore, that there could be little harm in accepting the Amendment, and it may be that a great deal of good would be done. It would add to the efficiency of farming in Scotland. Only in a few cases would a deserving son be turned out under this provision; in fact, I should think that it could hardly ever
1016
happen. Obviously, if the son is deserving and likely to make a good tenant, a landlord will be only too keen to keep him, even though the landlord may be slightly worried about the son's immediate financial situation. I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, should be unable to accept the Amendment, and I see every reason why it would make an improvement if he did accept it.
4.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, when predicting what I might say in reply to this Amendment, were not demonstrating that they were possessed of clairvoyant powers. They were merely indicating the text of the correspondence which we have been having over the last fortnight and which I can assure them has been read by me. During the Committee stage we had considerable discussions on this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has indicated, I said, although not for the reasons he attributed to me, that I would look into the information available. It was not, as the noble Lord implied, because I had any doubts in the matter, but because I thought I could find backing from what had taken place for the information which had been given to me on this matter, and which I passed on to your Lordships.
I am surprised at the weight which is being placed by both noble Lords on their remarks that a tenant must be almost bankrupt before the Land Court will act against him. The first thing I would say is that both noble Lords must have remarkably good memories, because in 1956 the law was changed so that an owner could dispossess a tenant without giving any reason at all. Therefore, there has been no need since 1956 to use the powers of the 1949 Act. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been little or no use made of the powers to seek the Land Court to dispossess a tenant on financial grounds when all the landowner had to do was to give notice to quit. Any recollection or reference which either the noble Lords or I can make must refer to something prior to 1956—
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, just to clear my own mind, the noble Lord said 1956—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is 1958. I am sorry.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The other point is that surely, regarding existing tenants who have sought to renew their leases, or to continue the lease from year to year, the Land Court has shown a marked reluctance to enable landlords to get possession of farms even though the tenant has been well known to be almost insolvent. I do not say known to be a long way behind with his rent, because we all know that if he is over 18 months behind he can be dispossessed anyway. But if a tenant is getting well behind with his rent, and even if it is known in the district that he has a great many unpaid bills, the Land Court can still show reluctance to enable the landlord to regain possession of the farm. I agree that this applies to existing tenants because, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, since 1958 one has been able to get out tenants of succession without giving any reason.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must apologise for saying 1956 instead of 1958. I looked into the position before 1958. Up to 1948 this was a matter for the sheriff, and as only a very small proportion of sheriff court cases are reported it is extremely difficult to find out what happened in the sheriff courts. But from 1948 the jurisdiction was with the Land Court. The law on the interpretation of the phrase, "reasonable ground of objection" is summed up in a recent legal textbook in the Scottish Universities Law Institute series—Paton and Cameron on the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Scotland (1967), where on page 356 these words appear:
"Probably any objection must be personal to the legatee, e.g., lack of sufficient capital or skill or being of a disreputable character."
There have over the years been a number of cases in which lack of capital has been considered as a ground of objection. I would remind your Lordships that these grounds will become once again much more important than they have been since 1958.
Perhaps I may quote cases. In Sloss v. Agnew (this is one of the sheriff court cases which we discovered, and it dates from as far back as 1923) the absence of capital was one of the grounds on
1018
which the sheriff found that there was "a reasonable and valid objection" to the bequest of the tenancy. In 1952, in the Scottish Land Court Reports for that year, we find the case of Howie v. Lowe. In a legal debate the Court observed that objections based on financial stability and available resources were relevant in considering "any reasonable objection" to a legatee. Then in 1953, in Chalmers Property Investment Company v. Bowman an objection to an heir-at-law on the ground of absence of acequate financial resources was upheld by the Land Court, and the tenancy was terminated. On the other hand, in Reid v. Duffus Estates Limited (reported in 1955) the landlord objected to a legatee on the ground, inter alia, of lack of financial resources; but the objection was repelled on proof that overdraft facilities of £7,000 were being made available from the bank on the strength of the good order of the farm and a guarantee of person substance.
If the Amendment were accepted, this sort of judgment would be made exceedingly difficult. Lack of financial resources would be a specific reason for dispossession under Clause 18, and the Land Court would have to consider this in isolation. In a marginal case a young man, who might be short of stock or implements or capital, nevertheless could be eminently capable of getting round his immediate difficulties. But what banker is going to provide overdraft facilities to somebody who might be dispossessed under this Amendment? It is not because we think that there are no cases where an heir-at-law could be dispossessed properly on the ground of lack of financial resources that we are opposing the Amendment, but because it would be so restrictive that it would make it exceedingly difficult for a man of ability—perhaps in the case about which the noble Duke has spoken, of the man who through intestacy becomes tenant without inheriting all the resources available to his father—to be able through loan facilities to possess himself of the necessary finance.
In the Bill as it stands, we give reasonable protection to a landowner to dispossess a tenant who would not halve the financial resources and is unlikely to be able to lay his hands properly on them.

1019
The Government have no more desire than noble Lords opposite to see farms in the hands of people who cannot run them properly, and it is not part of our case to see that these people continue in occupancy of farms. Our case is that under the law as it stands there will be ample opportunity to dispossess the man who ought to be dispossessed without risking the dispossession of the man who ought to be given his chance. While I do not believe that I have persuaded the noble Duke and the noble Lord that they are completely wrong in their contention, I hope that I have persuaded them that their case will not be completely lost if they choose to rely on the law as it is.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has produced wonderful oratory, which I feel I cannot possibly match. But what we are asking is that Case Law should be made statutory law. This seems fairly simple. The noble Lord has told us that a man should not go into a farm with a financial burden. Why then, I wonder, is he resisting this Amendment?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the Reid case, where the heir-at-law did not have financial resources in the sense of this Amendment, but was able to satisfy the Land Court that he could lay his hands on finance through a bank overdraft, would not get through this Amendment.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said that the tenant went in with a £7,000 financial burden round his neck. If we take into consideration the current bank rate, which was not the same in 1955, there would be a very severe financial burden round this tenant's neck. Furthermore, the position has been seriously altered by the Succession (Scotland) Act and in many cases properties are going to be broken up between the various members of the family, the widow and other members getting their share, and I foresee a great deal of difficulty arising. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I would speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together. These are drafting Amendments, the purpose of which is to bring the clause into line with the
1020
equivalent wording in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 27, leave out from ("if") to ("that") and insert ("the notice contains a statement").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, leave out ("has specified") and insert ("specifies").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 already on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 3, at end insert—
("or
(c) if they are satisfied that the near relative is the occupier (either as owner or tenant) of agricultural land other than the holding to which the notice relates, or, where the holding forms only part of an agricultural unit, other than that unit, being agricultural land, which—

(i) has been occupied by him since a date prior to the death of the deceased tenant from whom he has acquired right to the lease of the said holding, and

(ii) is an agricultural unit which in the opinion of the Court is capable of providing full-time employment for an individual occupying it and for at least one other man,

and if the notice contains a statement that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid and specifies the land.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("subsection (2) (b)(i) of this section") and insert ("paragraphs (b)(i) and (c)(ii) of the last foregoing subsection").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I wonder whether it is in order to ask if it would be possible for Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 to be taken together. I know that that would have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan and Lord Hughes, and of my noble friend Lord Dundee. These two

1021
Amendments hang together, and I think it would help many of us if they were discussed together.
5 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, my Amendment is to leave out subsection (7), because in my opinion there would be a great area of mutual trust between landlord and tenant brought into jeopardy or betrayal by this subsection. As I read it, all tacit relocation of farms and tenancies—and these are fairly well spread throughout Scotland— would be in jeopardy when the tenant and the landlord have not bothered to renew the lease, perhaps because of mutual trust, and have gone on from year to year. It would be most inequitable to exclude such tenancies from the benefits of security to be conferred by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 33, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Bannerman of Kildonan.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (7), and insert:
("(7) In the case of any lease of an agricultural holding entered into after the passing of this Act where a landlord and a tenant have agreed that the lease shall be terminable on the death of the tenant this section shall not apply to any notice to quit given after the date of death of the tenant and accordingly after the said date the landlord shall have power to serve an incontestable notice to quit.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think your Lordships appear to agree that we should discuss Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together, which is obviously convenient. I have always taken the view that the only important effect of Part III of this Bill will be to create an extreme scarcity of farms to let in Scotland. Your Lordships may well say: "Surely the simple and sensible remedy would be to move to leave out Part III of the Bill". But I wanted to try to see whether I could manage to reconcile the Government's desire to give legal protection under Part III to the heirs of a tenant farmer with my desire not to discourage the future reletting of the vacant farms. The Amendment which was carried in Committee was carefully drafted so that it did not withdraw protection from any existing tenant. It would not, I think, affect any present case in which the farmer is continuing on tacit relocation;
1022
it would apply only to new leases entered into ab initio since the passing of this Act.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, those who are on tacit relocation have no lease. If you give them a new lease, does that mean that at the end of that lease you can terminate the tenancy and allow no successor to continue?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, I think not: because if they are on tacit relocation, under the present law they have security for life anyhow, and do not require a new lease. When this Amendment was carried in Committee, I said that I would substitute an alternative Amendment, which is now on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 13, because I thought that this alternative Amendment, which again protects all existing tenants, as Part III wishes to do, and only puts future leases on a par with the present position in England, might be more likely to be favourably considered by the Government, although I understand now that the chances of this are not dazzlingly bright.
I had two reasons for pressing my Amendment to a Division in Committee. The first was that it really seemed to me that the Government did not appear to understand what they were doing in Part III of the Bill. Indeed, I do not think I can remember in all my 40 years' experience in both Houses of Parliament any piece of legislation which seemed to be so little understood by its authors. Two or three months ago I had to lead a deputation on this subject to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it was quite plain that he did not appreciate the probable consequences of Part III of the Bill on the future reletting of vacant farms in Scotland. Of course, Part III was not discussed on Second Reading in another place, because it was not then in the Bill. The whole of Part III was introduced as an Amendment in Committee upstairs. It was only carried there by one vote, and again, with great respect to the other place, it did not seem to me that the Government spokesman had properly comprehended the subject.
The point which I submit we ought to try to grasp is this: that the effect of Part III of the Bill in giving protection to the heirs of tenants will be extremely

1023
small in comparison with its effect on the future reletting of vacant farms. Suppose that a landowner has a farm which is occupied by a tenant, who has a son, and he is told that in future under this Bill the tenant, his son and his descendants for all time will be given a statutory right to succeed to the tenancy. The owner will probably say: "When this farmer dies, I will in any case confirm his son in the tenancy, and I have little doubt that my son in due course will confirm his grandson in the tenancy. Therefore, this Bill will make no practical difference to the future tenancy of this farm". But suppose the owner has another farm, whose tenant dies without having any heir, or suppose that the farmer buys a farm of his own in some other part of the country and moves out, that farm will then become vacant; it will not have a tenant, and will not be occupied. The owner must then decide whether he is going to relet this vacant farm or not.
When the owner is told by his legal adviser: "You will not be allowed to relet this vacant farm except on the condition that the new tenant's son, grandson and descendants for all time to come will have a statutory right to succeed to the tenancy", then the owner will probably say: "I do not think I will relet this vacant farm. I will either sell the farm with vacant possession, in which case I shall at least receive its true econmic value, which might otherwise be denied me and my heirs for ever; or I will take the farm over and farm it myself; or I will make some new arrangement, possibly some kind of partnership, which will be altogether outside the scope of this legislation." Whichever of these courses the owner decides to adopt, the vacant farm will not be relet.
The number of vacant farms or the average number re-let every year in Scotland is not known. It seems that no one has ever taken the trouble to count them and there are no official statistics. But on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, gave an estimate in which he said that to the best of his knowledge the average number would probably be somewhere between 35 and 60 farms which had fallen vacant and which were being re-let. The noble Lord added, I think very rightly, that of these 35 or
1024
more vacant farms very few, or perhaps none, had become vacant because the son or heir or tenant had been given an incontestable notice to quit. They had nearly all become vacant in the natural course of events.
It is these farms, these, let us say, 35, 40 or more farms which become naturally vacant year by year, which, as a result of this Bill, in my view will cease—or most of them will cease—to be offered to be re-let. They will not all cease to be offered. Some, I have no doubt, will still be re-let, and I should think that possibly a vacant farm might have a better chance of being re-let if it happened to belong to a very large landowner with an enormous number of farms, like the old woman who lived in the shoe and had so many children she did not know what to do. But I should expect that certainly a good deal more than half of this usual number of farms which has been re-let lately in Scotland, vacant farms, would cease to be offered to be re-let. That is in accordance with past experience. When the war-time emergency regulation, giving protection to all tenant farmers in England and Scotland, was made statutory in England by the 1947 Act and in Scotland by the 1948 Act, it was not generally realised at first that, owing to the difference between England and Scotland in the laws about succession, intestacy and so on, these Acts had the effect in England of giving the tenant security only for his life, while in Scotland they had under Scots Law the result of giving security to the tenant and to his descendants for an indefinite period. I did not happen to be in Parliament at that time, but I have been told the Scottish Law Officers did not notice this. However, when it came to be generally realised, there was a very heavy decline in the number of vacant farms which were offered to be re-let; and one of the reasons which prompted the Secretary of State, Mr. James Stuart, as he was then, now Lord Stuart of Findhorn, in 1957 to decide that something must be done about it in the next Session was that so few farms were being re-let. And this was done. The law was changed, as your Lordships know, in Scotland and in England in 1958, and when that was done everybody thought that an unintentional mistake had been permanently corrected.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out in Committee that the Conservative

1025
Party came into office in 1951, and he rightly said that they took seven years before they altered this, and he seemed to think that seven years was rather a long time. I think it is rather a short time. It is hardly more than one-third of the 19 years which used to be the customary period of a contractual lease in some parts of Scotland, and it is just exactly half the 14 years which used to be the contractual period in other parts of Scotland. But surely the important point is that the Scottish Ministers of that time were impelled to make a change in the law in 1958 because of the falling in the number of farms which were being re-let; and although, as I have mentioned, there are no official statistics on the subject, everybody who lives in the countryside may have observed that since 1958 the number of farms being re-let has increased. It has increased slowly, but it is more now than it was in the middle 1950s.
Now, after another ten years, the law is being reversed, and this time, as I shall try to show in a minute or two, I think the reversal will be permanent. I think we were right in asking—I think we should ask—the Government to take a long look at the future pattern of farm tenure in Scotland which will, maybe slowly but surely, result from Part III of the Bill. First, we shall have the hereditary tenant farmers whose numbers will decline slowly but continuously, because there will always be some who die without any heirs at all. There will always be some others who will move of their own accord to some other place, like Mr. Quintin Hogg or Sir Alec Douglas-Home; and in some cases there may be an heir to a farm tenancy who, like Mr. Wedgwood Benn, will refuse to succeed, and the Government will not allow my suggestion of easing the situation with a few "Life Peers", as it were. Their numbers will decline, but they will never become totally extinct. There will always be, I hope, some farming families who will have heirs and who will stay in the same place with the heirs who want to succeed. There are families in Scotland now who have tenanted the same farm for two centuries, and I hope there will be many more families who will last as long as that in the future. And so a graph showing the future decline of the tenant farmer population
1026
in Scotland would not be a straight line; it would be a downward curve, gradually flattening out as it gets nearer the bottom but never quite touching the bottom.
Next, there are the owner-occupiers whose numbers will increase rather more rapidly than they have been increasing lately because rather more farms will be offered for sale with vacant possession. Next, there are the multiple farmers who will also tend to increase because more farms will be taken over and farmed by owners. It is the fourth category—the men who are not heirs to a farm tenancy, who would like to start farming by making a bid for a vacant farm which has come on the market to be re-let—which will be, not entirely, but very largely eliminated as a result of Part III.
I am not suggesting that this would be a major agricultural disaster. The hereditary tenant farmers whose numbers will decline are as a rule very good farmers. The owner-occupiers also as a rule are very good farmers, and on many grounds it is desirable that their numbers should increase. As for the multiple farmers, they may sometimes achieve a higher level of productivity than single ones, and they may sometimes have better facilities for new experiments and trying out new methods. And I may be wrong in thinking, as I do, that it is also a good thing that we should have a small but appreciable number of new men coming into the farming industry wishing to make a bid for a vacant farm which is being offered to re-let. It is arguable that we could get on without them, and it may be that the Government think we could get on better without them. But it really is a mistake to beat the Scottish Nationalist drum on this question, which I have noticed a few people are sometimes anxious to do; for what are these men doing who cannot get a farm to rent because they are too scarce in Scotland? They are emigrating, some to England, where farms to let are less scarce than in Scotland because of the difference in the law; some are emigrating elsewhere, and although their numbers are not enormous, in terms of skill and ability they represent a loss to Scotland. They are part of that general problem of skill emigration which has given such a headache for so long to so many Scottish Ministers. And, make no mistake about it, that problem of skill emigration will, without any doubt, be aggravated by Part III of this Bill.

1027
My other reason for wishing to press this question with some urgency on the attention of the Government in the Committee stage was this. If we think it is detrimental that we should have very few new farmers coming into the industry—some noble Lords may not think so, and they may be right—then it follows that the detriment will be irreparable as soon as Part III of this Bill reaches the Statute Book. It would not repair the damage if some future Parliament were to repeal Part III of this Bill unless it were done with universal consent, because the lifetime of a Parliament is so much shorter than the duration of a farm tenancy. If a future Parliament were to repeal Part III, let us say in 1978, ten years after it was enacted, without universal consent, everybody would think it quite probable that it would be put back again in 1988, so there would still be no vacant farms offered for reletting. If anything can be done, these things must be done by general consent, which must at least include the agreement and consent of the two main Parties, otherwise there will be no confidence in the continuity of future policy and therefore our object—if you think it worth achieving in any case—will not be achieved.
I submit to your Lordships that if the Government do not feel able to modify Part III of the Bill in the sense in which I have been trying to persuade them to do, then we must accept the future pattern which will slowly but inevitably result within the next generation, and it will not all be adverse. The increase in the number of owner-occupiers will be a good thing which may partially balance the decline in the number of tenant farmers, but the thing which I regret about it is that there will be such a great scarcity of new farms to let, with the consequence of increased emigration.
I have done my best to find some Amendment which would be able to meet what the Government want, as well as saving this situation with regard to the letting of new farms, but unless the Government are able either to accept it or to propose some alternative of their own I think it would do more harm than good if I were to persist with this Amendment in an atmosphere of controversy and disagreement. I think that would defeat our own object and make matters worse. I have done all I can to warn the Govern-
1028
ment about the consequences of their policy. The Government have had more than a month since the Committee stage in which to reflect on this matter, and if they do not feel able to modify the terms of Part III in the sense in which I hoped they would, then I would invite your Lordships to allow my Amendment to be deleted.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, there are just two points which I should like to be told about. The first is that when one is sitting on tacit relocation one has a lease. Tacit relocation really means that you sit under your existing lease, the terms of which you cannot alter and you must fulfil, and you are allowed to sit there on a year-to-year basis. If either the tenant or the landlord demands a new lease, I believe that lease must be supplied. Therefore, that means that if anybody is under tacit relocation, or if any lease goes on long enough to come under tacit relocation, then a new lease under this term could be demanded.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, according to this subsection, if a new lease were entered into it would be after the passing of this Act, which would allow the landlord to have final power to serve an incontestable notice to quit. That is what is said here.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, that is the point I was making. The noble Lord said it in a louder voice than I did, but it is the same point. The only other thing I wish to mention about this provision is that the wording is rather strange. I have never heard of a lease being granted until somebody dies; it is always for a period of years. It may mean that under normal leases one has security of tenure, but I am not quite sure whether that is what it says.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has gone into almost everything that he said on the previous Amendment on Committee stage. With that I do not quarrel at all, because I have no doubt about the sincerity of the motives which the noble Earl has in seeking to amend Part III. However, I cannot accept as correct some of the arguments which he has put forward, and I wish briefly to deal with them. In the

1029
first place, he has accused the Government of not understanding what they are doing in this matter. Towards the end of his remarks he referred to the fact that it is now a month since the Committee stage, and he said the Government have had a further month in which to reflect on it, but I have already pointed out that as far as I am concerned I have been living with this problem since 1964, when it was first brought to the Government. It is not a case of just considering what has been said in your Lordships' House over recent weeks but considering all that has been said on the subject during recent years. I do not criticise the previous Government for having waited nine years to amend the 1948 Act. In fact, what I said was that the previous Government and the present Government were on a par in not rushing in to amend the legislation. We have not waited quite so long, but we certainly have waited more than three years before acting on something.
Also, the noble Earl was not correct when he said that in 1958 everybody agreed that the situation had to be altered, if by that he implied that there was general agreement that it should be altered in the way it was done. There was a considerable measure of agreement that the 1948 Act had swung too far in favour of the tenants.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, is it not the 1949 Act?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, it is the 1949 Act. There was a considerable measure of agreement that it had swung too far in favour of the tenant, but the amendments which we made in 1958 met with very strong opposition from farming circles in Scotland and those circles were still pressing in 1964 for an amendment of the 1958 legislation. Here we are amending the 1958 legislation in 1968. I cannot accept the argument of diminution of tenancies which the noble Earl put forward. He tried to paint a picture of what the future was going to be. He said that over a period of years the number of what he called the hereditary tenants would disappear.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Would decline—never disappear.
LORD HUGHES: The curve would flatten out at a fairly low level, and if his Amendment were brought in there
1030
would be a maintenance probably of the number of farms to let. Some of these would be remaining with heirs of existing tenants, and some would be going to new tenants. If an owner wishes to sell the land, the noble Earl's Amendment is not in fact going to increase the number of tenancies: the land will still be sold. But the Government's position on this is not going necessarily to increase the number of farms sold. Unless it is otherwise in the owner's interest to sell, a farm will not be sold. There is no simple position which applies all along the line, whether the land is sold or not sold.
After all, a great deal depends on the total resources of the landowner. It may well be that in many cases there are circumstances where re-letting will be very much more advantageous than selling, and losing in relation to that particular asset the benefit of the 45 per cent. reduction in estate duty which is applicable to land. There has to be a very considerable increase in the asset value on sale, as compared to the asset value of continued tenancy, in some cases, to make it worth while to sell. So we simplify the position if we say on tie Government's side that they would all be lettings and on the other side that there is going to be a minimum of lettings. The figure obviously lies somewhere in between.
If I were to follow the noble Earl to a certain extent on the theme of not understanding, I think I could more properly lay that charge at his own door. After all, the Amendment to take out subsection (7), which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, and myself (and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is also seeking to take it out, but he seeks to replace it by other wording) was one which commanded remarkably little support from Scottish noble Lords on the opposite Benches during the Committee stage, because they appreciated, as the noble Earl apparently did not, the adverse effect that letting a farm for a fixed number of years could have. With no security of tenure beyond that period, they foresaw the possibility that during the last years of a fixed lease the tenant might do little or nothing to maintain the agricultural value of the land.
The noble Earl's Amendment has, from my point of view, other major

1031
defects. If the Amendment is accepted, the tenant knows that he has security, and his family have security, only during his lifetime. He farms in the knowledge that if a tractor overturns on him in a field, and he is killed, there is no guarantee of any security for his family. He knows that if he goes to market in his car, and is killed in a motoring accident, not necessarily from any fault of his own, his family have no security. It is not the sort of thing that we are seeking to do. We have had security of tenure in Scotland, of one sort or another, for practically a quarter of a century.
In a way the noble Earl's new subsection would bring insecurity in in the worst possible circumstances. Apart altogether from the accident, there is the man who has coronary thrombosis, the man struck down by an illness, which may not kill him and which may make it possible for the family to carry on farming; but all the time they have the knowledge that when that illness brings his life to an end the tenancy is brought to an end as well. The noble Earl is not a hard man. I know that he is not thinking that that is the sort of case in which the tenant would be dispossessed, but it is in such circumstances as these that the lease could automatically come to an end. If the law had remained as it was in 1949, and the Government in 1958 had sought to amend the law, not on the basis that they did but on the basis they are now suggesting, there would have been an even greater clamour from the Farmers' Union to have such a provision taken out of the law.
We in the Government are at one with noble Lords opposite in seeking to combine the best aspects of security of tenure with the best aspects of farming. We think this is as good a way as any to continue tenant farming in Scotland as part—not the whole but part—of our structure of agriculture. We think it is as likely as any alternative, or more likely, to keep farmers in Scotland; and for these reasons I was very glad to hear the noble Earl's final remarks: that if he failed to persuade the Government to amend Part III on this subject of tenure along the lines he indicated he would not press his Amendment.
1032
Only time will tell which of us is most right and which of us is most wrong. I am quite certain that time will show that not all the arguments being advanced from the Government side in support of this proposal will have been proved to be 100 per cent. justified, but I am also quite certain that not all the fears expressed on the Benches opposite against the proposals will prove to have been justified either. It is on that note, and in this very sincere belief, in all the consideration which the Secretary of State, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary responsible for this, and I myself, have given to this over the last three years, that I ask your Lordships not to accept Amendment No. 13 but that your Lordships should agree to Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Transitional provisions for provisions of Part III]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are consequential on Amendments already agreed by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 25, at end insert—
("(c) the matter mentioned in section 18(2)(c) of this Act;").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 45, at end insert—
("or
(c) the matter mentioned in paragraph (c),").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:
Landlord's power in certain cases to require tenant to purchase holding
". In any case in which, in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, a landlord is precluded from giving an incontestable notice to quit to a tenant who has acquired right to the lease of an agricultural holding, the landlord may give notice to the tenant requiring him to purchase the holding and in any such case the tenant shall purchase the holding at such price as may be agreed between the parties or, in the case of dispute, as may be fixed by the Scottish Land

1033
Court who shall fix the said price on the basis of what price the holding would realise if offered for sale in the open market with vacant possession.".
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in exactly the same terms as that which we discussed at some length on the Committee stage of the Bill, and which I agreed to withdraw when the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that he would undertake to consult his right honourable friend as to whether there are any circumstances in which a purchase might be considered as alternative to continuation of tenancy to a near relative. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been kind enough to send me some letters on this subject, which show that he has indeed done as he promised and consulted his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he and his right honourable friend do not seem to have been able to arrive at any form of words or to bring forward any ideas which might improve the particular aspect of the Bill that I am trying to achieve by tabling this Amendment; namely, that a landlord is suffering a severe disadvantage, once this Bill becomes law, from the fact that when he comes to sell a tenanted farm it is bound to sell for considerably less than its value would be if the landlord had vacant possession.
The noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, pointed this out on Second Reading, in a way on which I certainly could not improve and which, for many years yet, even if I improved as a speaker, I should not be able to equal. But this raises real problems. I am sure that this situation is going to make people less keen on letting farms. This is but one reason (there are many others, which we have already discussed) why landlords having vacant possession will be less keen on letting farms to tenants. It is also going to give the sitting tenant an immediate capital profit. He will be able to buy the farm at a price considerably below its open market value and, if he cares to go, he will be able to make a fairly large profit. No one knows quite how much it will be, because at the moment this Bill is not law; so we have no experience of the amount by which the price of the tenanted farm is likely to depreciate. But undoubtedly it will have quite a severe
1034
effect. I must admit that I argued this Amendment at some length on Committee, and I really have nothing further to add to what I said then. With those few words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. We must realise that this is really confiscatory legislation. The noble Lord opposite laughs; but that is the truth. By giving tenants possession in perpetuity you are, in fact, taking away half the value of the landlord's land, with no compensation at all and with great unfairness and injustice, as my noble friend behind me has said. It will also make it even harder for young men to come into farming. If a farm does fall vacant, a landlord, if he has any commercial sense at all, will never relet it under this Bill, because if he does so he has only half the value of his land. The only objection I can see to this Amendment is that perhaps the tenant might not have, or might not be able to raise, all the capital to purchase the farm. But I cannot see why the Government cannot enter into a scheme to help the tenant to purchase his farm. They could perhaps do it through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation on extremely easy terms.
When this question was broached on the Committee stage I quoted the case of the Irish Land Act. I agree that it is a bad comparison, but broadly speaking, the same principle applies. I am sure that the Government do not want to pass really unfair legislation. This legislation is unfair. Take death duties. If a landlord has a farm which falls vacant he knows that if he lets that farm his heir cannot at his death sell the farm; and if he does sell the farm with a sitting tenant he will get only half the value for the purpose of relief from estate duty. This is really grossly unfair. I hope that the Government can accept this Amendment, because if this Bill goes on the Statute Book as it stands it will be a real blot against the Government. The Government cannot argue that this is not unfair, confiscatory legislation.

1035
With those words, I strongly support the Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I should not have intervened here had I not noticed that my noble friend Lord Bannerman of Kildonan has gone back to Scotland. I have the feeling that the noble Lord opposite is not going to accept this Amendment because he feels that the open market price will be too high a price to pay. My noble friend Lord Bannerman suggested in terms that the open market price was the right price in regard to this matter, but as he is not here to tell us, I cannot say whether or not he meant that. I would suggest that the noble Duke might agree that there should be some sort of arbitration in regard to what the figure should be—perhaps something slightly less than the open market price.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may say that the difficulty about the tenant's being compelled to buy his farm is that he will not be able to raise the money. In fact, it is much easier for a tenant to raise the money on this basis to buy the farm than it is to raise money to farm the farm, because if you are buying something at less than vacant possession price you will be able to borrow from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation as much as you are paying, because you are sitting at a profit if you wish to cash in on it. Would the noble Duke be prepared, in the event of his Amendment not being acceptable to the Government, to think up another one in which he would want less than the open market price to be paid?
5.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for that suggestion. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, has chosen this point to disappear. Perhaps he will regret what he said on the previous occasion. On the other hand, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, I am pretty certain that once he has said a thing he does not have any occasion to regret it. But the point which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has put forward was in fact stated by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, when he was speaking about supporting this Amendment on the previous stage. When he realised
1036
that what he was being asked to support was a take-over, the tenant being required to purchase as if the price had been fixed with vacant possession, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, hastily withdrew, and he said that he would be prepared to support it only in different circumstances. I do not want to quote exactly what he said, but it was my impression that it should be sold as a tenanted farm. However, I am not quite certain of that, so that all I will say is that he was prepared to support it in other circumstances than with vacant possession.
As the noble Duke has said, it is perfectly true that on the last stage I said that if he withdrew his Amendment and put it down again at this stage I would consider the matter and would in the interval consult my right honourable friend. This was because I thought that points had been made which must be considered. We are trying to hold the balance between the two sides. It is not right to lean too far in the one direction, any more than it is right to lean too far in the other direction. Therefore, there was a case to be looked at.
The Amendment is not explicit on the point that if a successor who was asked to purchase a farm would not, or could not, do so the landlord would be entitled to give him an incontestable notice to quit. I am sure that it was the noble Duke's intention that if the heir does not, or will not, purchase in those circumstances he should be given an incontestable notice to quit, but the Amendment does not make this explicit. It is at least possible that one would find oneself in the position that, if such a request was given and was ignored, nothing would happen other than that the tenant would carry on. I go further than that because that is not what the noble Duke intends. In those circumstances he wants a notice to quit to be given. We can set aside those cases where a successor may be perfectly willing to purchase. In such a case there is, of course, nothing to prevent him coming to an agreement on this. Therefore, we have to assume that the case with which we are dealing is one where the successor does not wish to purchase the holding before the provision proposed by the noble Duke would have any effect.

1037
If the landlord is given a right to insist on compulsory sale at the vacant possession value, then it seems likely that the power might be exercised in at least as many, if not in more, cases than the old power to dispossess under Section 6(3) of the 1958 Act. The tenant might have just sufficient capital to run and manage the farm but not enough to purchase as well. This is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, made a contribution. He said that in those circumstances the tenant would be acquiring the farm at a good deal less than its open market value and he would have no difficulty in raising money. I pointed out that the tenant was being asked to acquire it at full market value, and the noble Lord admitted that in the circumstances the successor might not be able to raise the money. He therefore withdrew his support for the proposal as it then stood.
We must face up to the fact that the net effect of the clause would be to take away a successor's security, just as completely as did the existing law which the Government are seeking to amend. A tenant and his successor would not know whether, on the tenant's death, the successor was likely to be faced with a request to purchase the holding or get out. Whether, or in what proportion of cases, it might be reasonable for him to raise the money does not matter all that much. We are dealing in this clause generally with a small number of cases where hardship may arise. Acceptance of the Amendment seems to the Government to be likely to create as great hardship as that which we have been trying to remove.
In our consideration we have not ignored all the points made by noble Lords during our last consideration, when it was argued that a landlord should have a right to get the market value for his farm. But I hope that in considering this matter noble Lords will bear in mind all the provisions which we have made in the clause for the landlord repossessing his farm. The Amendment to Section 6(3) applies only where there is a near relative to succeed—and one who wants the farm. I do not think that the hardship to the landlord is likely to be as great as the noble Duke has argued. Therefore, I hope that the noble Duke will see that there are grave objec-
1038
tions to his Amendment and will not press it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if it is possible, will the noble Lord consider the suggestion that the Government should make money readily available to tenants to purchase their farms on easy terms?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I thought that it was the view of the noble Viscount, in an argument which I heard him make not so long ago, that the Government were already making too much money available to too many people.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, based his objections to the Amendment on two grounds. One was that the tenant might not be able to raise the money; and the other was that it would introduce an element of uncertainty, an uncertainty which in Part III of the Bill they sought to take away from tenants who succeeded to agricultural leases. The noble Lord's first point holds no water at all I am convinced that it is far easier to raise money to purchase land, even at an open market valuation by the Land Court, which would probably tend to favour the tenant by putting it on the low side rather than on the high side, particularly at a time when the price of agricultural land is continually rising. I am sure that the Land Court would not entirely have allowed for the rate of inflation in the price of land over the last five or ten years. Therefore, the tenant would easily be able to borrow the money on a mortgage with the land which he purchased with it as security. I am sure that if he ever wanted to sell, he could do so at a profit and easily pay off the mortgage. Therefore, I do not think the money argument holds any water at all.
The noble Lord said that it would introduce some element of uncertainty, and might lead to as many cases of tenants being required to purchase holdings as under the 1958 Act, with the tenant being given incontestable notice to quit. I do not believe this to be the case, since very few landlords want to break up their estates, particularly if the farm concerned happens to be in the middle of an estate. It is highly unlikely that any landlord

1039
would want to take advantage of the subsection since it would split up his estate and would take away some of the advantages of owning an estate—for instance, the shooting rights. This would not, I feel, be used very frequently, but it would enable a landlord on occasions to be able to realise capital which he might need urgently; it would also enable him to know that when he re-let a farm at some time in the future he would be able to get almost its true market value.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, kept on talking about social justice. It seems to me that this proposed subsection would be a small piece of social justice which the Government ought to be able to include in the Bill. Part III of the Bill gives the tenant certain advantages which up to now he had no reason to expect when he entered into his lease—unless, of course, he entered into the lease between 1949 and 1958. Therefore, in the interests of social justice the landlord should have some hope at some moment of time of being able to realise the true value of the farm if he wishes to do so.
The noble Lord also said that they had restricted it to the near relative. This just increases the gamble. All it means is that if your tenant has a near relative who is interested in farming, you have
no hope of getting the farm back; if he has not a near relative, or has relatives who are not interested in farming, you probably have every chance. This seems to me to make a gamble of the whole thing. Under the 1949 Act it was not a gamble; one knew that, from the landlord's point of view, it was a dead loss. So I suppose that this is an improvement in that respect. But it still does not seem to me to be an improvement which ranks as a shining example of social justice. I do not feel that I can withdraw this Amendment. I feel very strongly that to accept it would be a move in the right direction, and that it would make this Part of this Bill a little more fair than it is at the moment.
In reply to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about open market value, I agree that possibly a little below the market value would be the answer, but as I am sure he will appreciate, that is extremely difficult to define. But if he could bring forward any suggestions at the next stage of the Bill, I should be only too delighted to consider them.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Airedale, L.

Denham, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Albemarle, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Dundee, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mills, V.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Burton, L.

Hacking, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Carrington, L.

Hives, L.

Swansea, L.

Colyton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Thurlow, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

McLeavy, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Bowles, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brockway, L.

Granville-West, L.

Moyle, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Heycock, L.

Peddie, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Kennet, L.

Popplewell, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Latham, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Fiske, L.

Lindgren, L.

Rowley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Silkin, L.

Tayside, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Sorensen, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Shackleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "and maintain in the prescribed form" and to insert:
"in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period or such longer period as the Minister may allow in any particular case,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 together. The three Amendments make provision for additional matters which the Minister may need to prescribe in regulations for the register and map of drainage hereditaments, which each drainage board will be required to prepare and maintain for public inspection. The register will show the valuation of hereditaments for drainage rating purposes, and in conjunction with the map will provide the only means by which drainage ratepayers can ascertain whether they are fairly assessed in comparison with their neighbours. The first of the proposed Amendments will enable the Minister to prescribe a period within which the preparation of the register and map must be completed. Obviously, any delay in making these documents available for inspection could work to the disadvantage of the ratepayers who may wish to exercise their rights. There needs to be flexibility in applying time limits for the preparation of these documents, and the proposed Amendment will make this possible.
The other Amendments will make it possible for the Minister to prescribe certain matters which could be of equal importance in ensuring that the purpose of the register and map will be fully achieved. For instance, he will be able to prescribe the way in which any necessary alterations should be made and the place where the register and map should be kept for inspection by the public. The three Amendments together will make it easier for the ratepayers to make certain that they are being assessed correctly, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will approve them. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("and maintain in the prescribed form") and insert ("in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period or such longer period as the Minister may allow in any particular case,").—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for putting down these three Amendments and for telling us their purpose? They meet some points which were raised by the Association of River Authorities and the Association of Drainage Authorities, and the representations have been adequately met. I imagine that regulations will be made in this field, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to confirm that when those regulations are made in this highly technical field there will be the usual consultations with the A.R.A. and the A.D.A.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page, 31, line 11, at end insert—
("() to maintain the register and map prepared by them in pursuance of paragraph (a) above and to alter the register or map in such circumstances and in such manner and within such periods as may be prescribed;").—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 14, leave out ("by") and insert ("at prescribed places by members of").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 40 [Grants for break crops]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved to leave out Clause 40. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put this Amendment down for one simple reason, and that is because I believe the inclusion of this clause in the Bill is wrong. Here we have the Government writing into the Bill permission to pay a grant on the growing of field

1043
beans. I am one of those who feel that the Government—and, indeed, all Governments—interfere far too much in our daily lives, and I believe also that they interfere far too much in the running of agriculture. I look forward to the day when they interfere a little less and when agriculture can move away from the system of direct Government financial support to a position where, whilst protected, it can stand more on its own feet in the open market.
But what is the purpose of a £5-an-acre grant on field beans? Oddly enough, it is not to encourage people to grow beans because they are wanted: it is to discourage people from growing cereal crops continuously. It says so in subsection (5)—that that is the sole purpose of the grant. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said on Second Reading, if continued cereal growing is bad husbandry—and I am not saying that it is—and such bad husbandry that the Government are worried by it, it seems odd to pay farmers a grant for having practised bad husbandry and for now receiving the benefits of their malpractice. I am not one of those who consider that any form of Government support to agriculture is of itself to be commended and welcomed. If this grant has the effect desired, it is going to result in more beans being grown, more beans will come on to the market and the price of beans will drop—and it will probably drop by more than £5 an acre. Therefore, the result will be that the farmer will be no better off, but the Government will be considerably worse off.
Then, my Lords, if continuous cereal growing is really such a hazard to agriculture as to make the Minister and his advisers consider that break crops must be encouraged by financial reward, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, why it is that the grant is restricted to field beans. Why not include rape, or peas? What is so desirable and unique about beans? It may be, of course, the excellent condition that they leave for the following crop, which everyone knows is indeed substantial. But if that is so, and if beans are so beneficial, why restrict the grant to field beans? Why not include dwarf beans, broad beans and runner beans, all grown on a commercial scale? The answer, of course,
1044
is that these crops, like peas, which is another very useful leguminous break crop, are almost always grown on contract, and I suspect that the Government consider that the decision whether or not to grow these crops should fall or stand on the value of the contract. If that is so, I think that the Government are quite right in so thinking. But here they are giving a direct incentive to farmers to grow a crop which is not particularly in demand and which is not in such demand that the price on the open market encourages it to be grown for its own merits.
But, my Lords, it does not stop there. You do not just plant a field of beans and collect £5 an acre. Forms have to be filled in, and these have then to be shunted to and fro within the Ministry. Records have to be kept, fields have to be inspected and the heavy hand of the Civil Service once more descends upon the field of beans. I make no apology for stressing this, for I believe it to be a vital point. I believe there is now a ratio of something like one civil servant to every 13 farmers; and this I believe to be appallingly high. They are all employed in telling farmers what to do and what not to do; in finding out what they have done and what they have not done; and in showering the poor individuals with forms and asking fatuous questions—
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, is the noble Earl suggesting that the Agricultural Advisory Service, for example, be abolished?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I cannot think how the noble Lord could have read that into what I have said. I said nothing about the Advisory Service, which I think is excellent. I said that I think that the forms are now too numerous and the questions are far too fatuous. I will give an example to the noble Lord. When I filled in the forms for a subsidy a short while ago I was asked by an officer who came to see me whether I would kindly alter the form because the address was wrong. I looked at the form and pointed out that the address was that of my farm. The officer replied that it was not the address of my house. I said that that made little difference because letters addressed to my farm reached me at the house. The officer replied that the farm was not my registered address. So I deleted a line

1045
and added a word and returned the form to the officer, who thanked me. I said to the officer that surely this was something he could have done in the office. He said, "We are not allowed to change a form. As a matter of fact, I have been out to see you three times. And my divisional office is 12 miles away".
I do not blame the officer concerned at all; I blame the system. And this is not an isolated case. On another occasion I had a long letter from the Ministry complaining that the acreage of barley that I had claimed as being harvested did not agree with the acreage that I had claimed as having been sown. When one fills up these forms it is necessary to enter the acreage of each field to three places of decimals. One adds these up and totals them at the bottom. My mistake was that in each case I had tried to be accurate. In fact, I made the great mistake of not realising that the two forms should bear the same total acreage, whether that figure were right or wrong. In this particular case the difference was of the disconcerting size of 1·232 acres. One is asked what has happened to that acreage.
I give those examples simply because I believe the system that we are adopting at this moment is such as to encourage a proliferation of forms and a proliferation of questions which I believe, in the long run, is not in the interests of agriculture. I want to see a simpler system, a less fastidious system, possibly a slightly less accurate system; but a cheaper, a more sensible, a simpler and less wasteful system. Our aim, I believe, should be to see our system of agricultural support more simplified; but here we have the Government deliberately making it more complicated. Here we have the Government deliberately encouraging a proliferation of forms, a proliferation of grants. They are encouraging a crop to be grown for which there is no particular demand and they are doing it for a thoroughly negative reason—not because the crop is wanted but because another crop is not wanted. I know that the noble Lord, Lork Beswick, wishes to do his best for agriculture. I am sure that he will have listened to my arguments and that on consideration he will think they are worth while. I look forward to hearing him say that he will accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 40.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I make one suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? Instead of specifying beans as a break crop the provision might be extended to grass; because grass does not fluctuate in the amount or stock you carry on it or the amount of hay you make with it. It is, in my opinion, just as good as beans for putting back fertility in the land.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his submission that this clause should be omitted, because what it proposes is really silly; it brings the policy of agricultural support and production grants into ridicule. Although at the moment it refers to beans, I think the provisions of the Bill are not limited to beans. There is power in the final subsection to include other crops in future which, in the opinion of the Minister, are justified in being treated in this way. But I think I can see how it arose. There are certain conventions in this world of agricultural support. There is often some difficulty in exactly balancing the estimated value of the guarantees as against the statutory obligation to maintain them at a certain level from year to year, subject only to reductions of a small percentage which are laid down. If it happens that there are small differences to make up, one can see the National Agricultural Advisory Service—with respect to the noble Lord opposite—jumping in and saying, "Ah, Minister, is this not an opportunity to do something for the maintenance of fertility?"—and something like this provision gets rushed in at the end.
As I mentioned on the Second Reading, however, it really seems not only illogical but wrong that the farmers should be subsidised for growing a crop which, in fact, is supposed to repair a certain damage which they have done. That will be so in many cases. Furthermore, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows, over the years it has been considered, and has never been contested, that the greater benefit from the agricultural support system has gone to the farmers in the arable counties who have been in a position to grow cash crops as against those whose farming is based on animal husbandry. If it were the other way

1047
round, if an attempt were being made to right that balance, I could understand the Ministry saying that the arguments in favour of it were not as strong as some but none the less it was an attempt to keep a fair balance as between the farmers of the West of England and those of the East. But this is exactly the opposite. The arable counties are to get another advantage. This is an argument that my noble friend Lord Ferrers did not use; but he comes from East Anglia, and that would explain it. He will agree, however, I am sure, that, by and large, over the years the greater benefit has accrued to the arable farmers. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see that in its form this clause is ridiculous and that he will agree to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, bearing in mind that beans will not grow in Scotland, or hardly at all, is this not clearly a case of racial discrimination?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hesitated before I got to my feet. I was looking for a little support. I am sorry it is not forthcoming. The provision in this clause has been asked for by other noble Lords opposite. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on the Committee stage not only warmly welcomed it but asked about the possibility of extending it. It is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to say that this is ridiculous when his noble friend supported it. He really should be more careful in his choice of words.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not withdraw a single word of what I said.
LORD BESWICK: I see the point put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who obviously has a very healthy objection to filling in forms. I share this objection; and on that account alone I should be prepared to accept his Amendment, but I am afraid that other considerations are involved. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the necessity for a break crop arises from bad husbandry. That is not the case. What has happened, as the noble Lord himself will realise, is that with the policy of the Government to encourage import-saving crops there has been an extension of cereal growing. This extension has meant that in some
1048
cases the necessity for a break crop arises, whereas before it did not arise. I think everyone agrees that the protein content of the bean makes it an absolutely admirable break crop. There are two advantages. First, the land is improved; secondly, the field bean so grown again is very useful as an import saver added to the animal feedingstuffs compound. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that no one wanted this crop and that there would be difficulty in disposing of it. That is quite wrong.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I did not say that.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry. I misunderstood. The fact is that in the first place there was a little prejudice against this crop for use in animal feedingstuffs. That prejudice has now gone. I understand that the compounders welcome this additional source of protein for animal feeding. The figures of the increase are very considerable: from 90,000 acres in 1966 to 140,000 acres in 1967. The provision here is that the grant shall be for a three-year period, after which we shall have a look at it and then, if necessary, action can be taken.
The suggestion was made that there was an element of "racial discrimination" here. I think that what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, had in mind was the possibility of growing sugar beet or some other break crop. On Report stage I gave an undertaking that the possibility of extending this provision would be considered. Having, I hope, satisfied the noble Lords on that point, and having indicated, what I hope will be accepted, that field beans are required; and having given the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the opportunity of making a real attack upon form-filling and thus having got himself into a better frame of mind, I hope that he will now be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sits down, may I ask him a question, for my own enlightenment? The object of growing a bean crop is to obtain a greater yield of protein per acre. May I ask whether there would be a greater yield from a bean crop than from a grass crop, in the form of either hay or silage?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord off the cuff. I know that he would wish for an accurate and scientific answer, which I will get for him. What can be said with certainty is that the productivity of a given area of land over a period of time, say ten years, planted with cereals and with a break crop, would be greater as a result of this than it would otherwise have been.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, does not mean that grass is not a good break crop?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not venturing to enter into that aspect. All I am saying is that at the end of a decade I should expect that the output from a given area of land would be higher as a result of this piece of husbandry.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord sure that is true?—because I do not think the result of tests bears this out.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his reply. I had a sneaking suspicion that he was not going to accept this Amendment, and for one half-second I thought my ears were deceiving me when he said that he agreed with it. But of course the noble Lord was kind enough to say only that he was agreeing with one part. I hope that he will not think that I put down this Amendment merely as a vehicle by which to rid myself of upsets over form-filling. That was not the object of the exercise. I think that this is a bad and an unnecessary grant, and I should prefer to see it not used.
I beg the noble Lord to do one thing; that is, in future, when problems of agriculture are discussed, to do all that he can to find ways of simplifying the machinery, which at present is getting hopelessly complicated. This clause only makes the problem more complicated. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that he shares with me a dislike of form-tilling. So does everyone; but nobody does anything about it. It is up to the Government to try to do something to make things easier, as opposed to doing something, as is done by this clause, that merely makes the system under which we operate even more complicated and I
1050
think, in the long run, less satisfactory. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his few words of kindness. I must say that I was not in the least impressed by the arguments which he put forward, but I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Grants towards cost of water supply to agricultural buildings]:
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was hoping that this Amendment would have the particular support of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. The intention is to remove words which are superfluous and might cause some confusion. I think that the wording will be improved by this Amendment, and I hope that the House will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("situated on or").—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment age to.
6.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, after Clause 41, to insert the following new clause:
Compensation in connection with compulsory acquisition etc. of agricultural holdings
".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where in pursuance of any enactment providing for the acquisition or taking of possession of land compulsorily an acquiring authority acquire the interest in an agricultural holding or any part of it of the tenant of the holding or take possession of such a holding or any part of it, the compensation payable by the authority to the tenant in connection with the acquisition or taking of possession shall be assessed without regard to the tenant's prospects, if any, of remaining in possession of the holding after the relevant date.
(2) In subsection (1) of this section 'the relevant date' means the earliest date on which, apart from the acquisition or taking of possession, the landlord could obtain possession of the holding in pursuance of such a notice to quit as is mentioned in paragraph (c) below if—

(a) the tenant exercised any tenant's option to extend or renew the tenancy in any case where, apart from this section, he would benefit from doing so; and

(b) any such provision in the contract of tenancy or lease as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 15 of this Act were treated as provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection except where the tenant would benefit from disregarding this paragraph; and

1051

(c) the landlord served a valid notice to quit on the tenant in respect of the holding on the date of service of notice to treat in respect of the acquisition or the date of the taking of possession, as the case may be, or as soon thereafter as he became entitled to serve such a notice to quit; and

(d) the provisions of section 24 of the principal Act or section 25 of the principal Scottish Act (which restrict the operation of notices to quit) did not apply to the said notice to quit;

and for the purposes of this subsection any such notice as is mentioned in section 3(1) of the principal Act (which refers to notices of intention to terminate the tenancy of an agricultural holding granted for a term of two years or upwards) shall be deemed to be a notice to quit.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to such an acquisition or taking of possession as is there mentioned—

(a) in the case of such an acquisition, unless the date on which notice to treat in respect of the interest to be acquired is served or treated as served on the tenant by the acquiring authority is after the date of the passing of this Act;

(b) where in the case of such a taking of possession prior notice of the taking of possession is by virtue of any enactment required to be served on the tenant by the acquiring authority, unless the date on which the notice is so served is after the date of the passing of this Act.

(4) Section 17 of this Act shall have effect as if any reference to Part II of this Act, other than the reference in subsection (4), included a reference to the foregoing provisions of this section.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prejudicing the provisions of any other enactment under which, apart from this section, compensation in respect of any such compulsory acquisition or taking of possession as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section falls to be assessed without regard to the prospects there mentioned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I fear that this clause is somewhat more lengthy than the one that we have just accepted. It is a formidable looking clause, but is not quite so bad as it looks. The object of Part II of this Bill is to alleviate the hardship that tenant farmers suffer when they are dispossessed of their land for development. The Government accepted that they suffered hardship on compulsory dispossession because they were compensated on the basis of the actual length of their tenancy—which in the case of an agricultural tenant was, of course, generally very short. The proposal was, with the approval of the House, that this hardship should be met by providing for an
1052
additional payment, based on four years rent of the land taken, to help the tenant in the reorganisation of his affairs. That was the intention of the Bill and it was supported by your Lordships. But as some noble Lords may be aware, a case was decided in the Lands Tribunal some months ago which, if correctly decided, upsets the basis of compensation by reference to which the additional payment was conceded to agricultural tenants. This case, Pettitt v. Ministry of Transport, said, in effect, that the compensation a tenant received was to be based not on the actual length of his tenancy but on the length of time for which he would be likely to enjoy the tenancy, taking into account all the relevant circumstances including, in the case of an agricultural tenant, the security of tenure given by the Agricultural Holdings Acts.
If this decision is correct then there is an obvious danger that the agricultural tenant will get double compensation—he will get compensation on the Pettitt basis for the prospect of his remaining in possession, and payment under this Bill for the hardship he was agreed to be suffering whilst compensation was awarded without regard to his prospects of remaining in possession.
This new clause makes it clear that compensation for agricultural tenants—which is all with which this Bill can deal—is to be assessed on the basis which we always thought it was to be assessed. It takes nothing away from the tenant's compensation which he always had and it does not in any way cut across the Government's desire to relieve hardship. It is necessary, however, to avoid double compensation.
I know that there has been some criticism about this clause being introduced at a late stage, but I hope your Lordships will realise that we waited as long as possible to see whether the impending appeal against the decision in the Pettitt case would have been heard before this Bill passed through Parliament. It now seems that the appeal will not so be heard, and it is therefore necessary to provide for the situation which we face at the present time. I ought to add that, no matter what happens to this clause, it will have no effect on the case of Mr. Pettitt. Compensation will be payable to him, if the court so decides. I hope

1053
that, with that explanation, it will be possible for your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining to us the purpose of this lengthy new clause. As I am sure the noble Lord has observed the number of pieces of green paper floating round the Chamber, he will realise that the N.F.U. have been briefing us to express their dissatisfaction with this situation. Despite the noble Lord's explanation of the late appearance of this new clause on the Order Paper, I still feel that it is a little late to put down a brand new clause at this stage of the Bill, even though his motive was the need to wait for the appeal result.
This is a complex matter, and as the noble Lord will know, if he has read the N.F.U. brief, there are cases where a tenant has paid something to his predecessor in a holding in order to get possession, and may have paid a considerable amount in order to secure the future. I do not pretend to know the merits of these cases. I recognise the point that the noble Lord has made. It may be that there should not be double compensation, but there may be special cases about which we do not know. Heaven knows we have not had time to investigate this. I think that the noble Lord should take note of the weight of the complaint. It is not really right to put down something as important as this so late.
For myself, I should have liked to see the N.F.U. representatives and ask them a good many questions about this to find out the extent of this difficult situation. Ought not the law to take account of this? What are the merits of the cases? We do not know the answers. The noble Lord has given us one aspect, which is perhaps a reasonable one. It appears that there is another one, of which we are not fully informed. I cannot say more than that I accept what the noble Lord has now told us, but I certainly wish to question the N.F.U. representatives before Third Reading and, if necessary, put down an Amendment then so that we may have a further discussion. I
1054
hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is the right way to deal with this.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the Howe, speak again, I fully understand the noble Lord. On one point he has quoted from the green paper, the case where a tenant has special entitlement in his original contract, although the noble Lord says that there may be such cases, I have made inquiries and I cannot find such a case. But if there were such cases, the fact that such an entitlement was written into the original contract would increase the market value of the tenancy, and if the market value was well above the tenant's four-year entitlement to compensation under the Bill, the difference between that four-year entitlement and the increased market value, as a result of any special clause in the contract, would accrue to the dispossessed tenant. Or, as since put to me, if the right to assign was personal, then it does not form part of an interest in land and would not have any compensatable value. If it is not personal and forms part of the tenancy agreement, its value would be reflected in the value of the interest to the extent that the market would pay for it. However, I agree that this is a lengthy Amendment. The noble Lord is going to look at it. For our part, we, too, will look at it again, and if it can be shown that an improvement is possible on Third Reading, I shall be very glad to consider an Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, after clause 41, to insert the following new clause:
Redemption of Multures
". Where any owner or occupier of land is required to pay multures to another person, he shall have the right to redeem those multures at a price to be agreed between the parties, and in default of agreement the price shall be determined by the Scottish Land Court."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must apologise for putting this down at a late stage of the Bill but I frankly admit that I appear to be in good company in doing so. I must also declare a personal and rather unique interest. The subject we are about to discuss is the payment of multures. Part of the land which I farm is under thirlage and astricted to the

1055
Mill of Monqueich, for which I have to pay an annual sum of £17 13s. 6d. as a commuted multure to the occupiers of the land on which the mill once stood. On the other hand, I am paid as commuted multures £4 15s. 9d. annually by two farmers whose land is also under thirlage and astricted to an old mill, the Mill of Mowtie, which I own and have converted into a grain drier. Of course I am giving more than I am getting. The controversy here is that those who are getting multures for nothing do not want to give them up and those who are paying multures for nothing, do. I think that is quite normal.
Originally, mills were built as a sort of machinery syndicate. The English think that they invented this, but it was invented by the Scots in 1300 and something—I cannot tell the exact date. Tenants guaranteed work for the mill if somebody would put it up and the land was thirled to the mill. I want to protest here and now, that there is no similarity whatever between feu duties—a form of ground rent which is very complicated indeed and a controversial subject—and multures. There is no likeness at all. I can think of nothing more miscellaneous than a multure, but it is definitely agricultural. One of the definitions of multure is this. Multures were payments in kind for grinding grain exigible under the obligation of thirlage. The multurer was a tacksman of the mill, who as tenant derived rights from the heritor of the mill to exact the multure due.
If it helps noble Lords to understand what I am talking about, I will read a little bit more. In interpreting astriction, thirling fire and water means only "kilning and bobbing", not "brewing and baking". This was decided in a case between the Earl of Cassilis and the heritors of Maybole in 1682. If noble Lords know what that means, it is more than I do. This is the kind of thing that we are talking about. The undertaking to pay dry multures in perpetuity may be established notwithstanding the discontinuance of a mill. That was a ruling in Porteous v. Haigh in 1901, so it is quite modern. It has been a thorn in the flesh of everybody for a long time. The Act 39, George III, had a "go" at multures, and in the Conveyancing
1056
(Scotland) Act 1924, Section 12 (I think that is the right reference) multures must be commuted to cash payments, but these payments may be apportioned over the land. If you sell part of the land, you can apportion the multure over it.
It is a little difficult to understand. Terms in this usage are astriction, bannock, mill of barony, corvees, gowpen, knaveship, lock, multures, abstracted multures, dry multures, insuken multures, outsuken multures, quern, sequels, suken, sukener. Whether the sukener is the origin of the word "sucker" I could not say. The point is that should a local authority wish to purchase land which happened to be astricted or thirled to a non-existent mill they might find themselves sukeners and obliged to pay multures, not to mention bannock, corvees, gowpen, knaveship and lock, to a neighbouring car park. I think it is high time that steps were taken to save them from this frightful fate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41, insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Stonehaven.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should hope that, for the benefit of the Official Reporter, though contrary to what I believe is supposed to be the principle of your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount was reading every word of what he said: otherwise the Record on the occasion of this Amendment is going to take some compiling. Even as regards the very word which is the subject of the Amendment, "multures", I am certain that if anybody on the Front Bench other than the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, had been moving this Amendment he would have fallen into the mistake of thinking that he was talking about something called "mooters", because that is how it is pronounced.
I am going to depart from the brief with which I am provided, and the result will probably be that I shall say something that I ought not to say. But, while departing from the official attitude, I should like to say that I have never yet heard anything in defence of multures. It seems to me that it is something appertaining to the land which the owners of particular bits of land have managed to get thirled to themselves very thoroughly over a period of years, and no tenant would ever have succeeded in hanging on

1057
to something of this kind, to which, whatever right there may have been in 1300, 1500 or even 1800 or 1901, there is, in most cases at any rate, little right to-day. As the noble Viscount has said, the mill may have ceased to exist, so no possible service can be rendered for this money; and yet it continues to be like feu duty, in one respect, and forms a burden on the land.
Having said that, the noble Viscount will think—and he will be wrong if he does so think—that I am going on to accept the Amendment. I cannot accept the Amendment, although I am with him, for the reason which my right honourable friend has stated in another place: that he wishes to have a thorough view at the system of conveyancing land in Scotland, the investigation of feu duties and so on. May I say, before coming to that, that I can offer a practical suggestion to the noble Viscount to help him in getting rid of his adverse liability on his multures, outgoing and incoming, at any rate for the present year? I suggest that he offer to repeat his speech for the B.B.C., and I am sure it will be well worth a fee which will take care of his multures for this year. I am not at all certain, however, that it would get over anywhere other than in the Scottish programme.
To come back to a serious note, many objections are being taken at the present time to feu duties as they stand, and not all those objections are as well founded as some people would have us believe. After all, it is not always quite clearly understood that the abolition of feu duties does not mean that the people get a present of the land for nothing. Everybody with knowledge of this subject realises that, just as in the case of this Amendment, what would be put in its place would be a capital payment which would wipe out the feu duties for all time, just as what is suggested in this case would wipe out the multures for all time. The extinguishing of something like a multure, which has so few friends, might well attract support at a comparatively small number of years' purchase, but there is the danger that a decision on the much greater question of feu duties would tend to be guided by anything which was decided earlier on this subject of multures. There is really not a comparison. In the one case, there is something actually being received in
1058
exchange for the feu duty: there is the virtual ownership of the land. At least in some of the cases of multures nothing else is being received in exchange, whatever may have been received in the past.
So, while I am in complete sympathy with the noble Viscount in wishing to get rid of multures, I think it would be dangerous to attempt to deal with this comparatively minor aspect of land ownership in Scotland apart from dealing with the question of feu duties. I am making it perfectly clear that I do not consider necessarily that the extinguishing payments should be the same in both kinds, but I think we should be doing a disservice if we led anybody to believe that if in due course feu duties are going to be compulsorily extinguished there is any prospect of their being extinguished at the same rate as might be proper for the extinguishing of these out-of-date payments. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will be content to have demonstrated his point and obtained from me an equal demonstration of dissatisfaction with the continuation of this out-of-date payment. I join hint in the hope that it will not be long before it is made possible to extinguish this payment as part of a general reconstruction of land payments.
6.59 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Stonehaven in his desire to have the multures made extinct. I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has used the wrong analogy in drawing an analogy between the multures and feu duties. The correct analogy, as I see it, should have been between the multures and the teines. They are far more closely allied than multures and feu duties. In so far as the teines have become redeemable, so I think it is only common sense that the multures also should be redeemable.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, I cannot agree that feu duty is a good analogy, because for a feu duty, whether you like it or not, something is done, as the noble Lord said, whereas a multure is quite different. Therefore, I think that the teines, which were extinguished, is a better analogy. But, nevertheless, as the noble Lord was kind

1059
enough to support me in principle, although not to accept the Amendment—in my wildest dreams I had never thought for a moment he would accept any Amendment I might propose—if your Lordships will allow me, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Amendments of Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964]:
7.1 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved to insert, after subsection (1):
"() Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a person who reasonably believes that the material is to be exported from Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee on Clause 42 I accepted in principle the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, subject to consideration of the wording. This Amendment, which I now move, follows the structure of Section 21(2) of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, which already exempts exports of seeds from the provisions relating to the Index of Names of Plant Varieties. The clause as it now stands does not prescribe what name should be used once reproductive material of a plant variety is exported. That would be a matter for the legislation of the importing country. The effect of the Amendment is to exempt from the scope of the clause sales or offers for sale of plant material of a protected variety which take place in this country but where the material which is the subject of the sale is to be delivered abroad. It thus relates to specific transactions. The Amendment refers to Great Britain because the 1964 Act applies to Great Britain and is extended to Northern Ireland under Section 39. The extension of Clause 42 is provided for here in subsection (3). I believe the clause satisfies Lord Cawley, who made such an interesting speech on this point at Committee stage, and I hope it will be accepted by the House as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord,
1060
Lord Beswick, for going thus far to meet the objections of the experts on this particular and highly technical matter. May I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. Unfortunately, urgent family business took me away before we reached that particular stage of the Committee, and therefore I was not able to take part in the discussions. Had I done so, I should have tried to develop some further complexities of this very intricate matter. Whether I should have improved the situation or not I would not know.
But I hear now, that although this is obviously an improvement, and I thank the noble Lord for what he has done, Mr. McCreedy, who lives in Northern Ireland, and therefore must regret that this is extended to cover Northern Ireland, and is I suppose our greatest rose breeder, contends that this is really not going to help very much. He says:
"I am afraid Lord Beswick's Amendment is not really of much use to us. I really cannot think of any Amendment which would fit the Bill. Our strongest point is the fact that the other European countries are not drafting their legislation in the same fashion".
This is important in view of the European trade. At this stage I have certainly no Amendment to suggest to the noble Lord. All I would ask is that the Ministry of Agriculture officials should watch closely the working of the Bill as now amended to see that, so far as possible, it is working in a way which will facilitate rather than inhibit the rose trade, and especially the very small handful of fundamental breeders, and that if it appears necessary to make some further small Amendment they will do so. Certainly Mr. McCreedy seems to think that, although we have improved it, we have not done all we need to do. If the noble Lord would be kind enough to bear in mind that word of caution I should be most grateful to him.
Clause 44 [Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, in relation to agricultural marketing boards]:
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "not less than twenty-eight days". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to bring the provisions of subsection (2) paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause

1061
44 more closely into line with each other. At the moment subsection (2)(a) requires that the agricultural marketing boards, in order to gain exemption from the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act for certain agreements, must inform the Minister of the terms of the agreements not less than 28 days before they enter into them. Subsection (2)(b), on the other hand, is so framed that it will be possible for the Minister to signify his approval to an agreement before the expiry of the 28-day period, should he so wish. It has been suggested to us that the retention of that period in subsection (2)(a) may to a certain extent frustrate the purposes of subsection (2)(b) and give rise to practical difficulties for the marketing boards. This Amendment therefore deletes the 28-day provision in subsection (2)(a). Of course, the Minister must have time in which to consider any agreement submitted to him, and it will be noted that subsection (2)(b) remains as before so that the Minister will have full discretion as to whether or not lie will approve any particular agreement before the 28-day period is up. I hope that noble Lords will think that this is a sensible Amendment, and I am glad to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 11, leave out ("not less than twenty-eight days.")—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"() Where by virtue of any of the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of this section Part I of the said Act of 1956 does not apply, or does not apply or is deemed not to have applied as respects any period, to an agreement made between a board and a trade association within the meaning of section 6 of that Act, being an agreement as to the terms for other agreements between the board and persons who are members of the association or are represented thereon by such members, the said Part I shall not apply or, as the case may be, shall not apply or shall be deemed not to have applied as respects that period—

(a) to any such other agreement containing only terms contemplated by the agreement made between the board and the association;

(b) to any agreement made between two or more of those persons of which the purpose is confined to promoting the agreements mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or any of them".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment takes the form of a new subsection which will complete and supplement the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 44. Under these subsections agricultural marketing boards will be able to seek exemption from the provisions of the Restrictive Trace Practices Act for certain agreements which would not otherwise be exempt by submitting these agreements to the Minister for his approval. The idea is that the boards may wish to seek exemption in particular for certain agreements which they make with trade associations, and the Minister will have power to exempt such agreements. Thereafter it can be expected that the boards will make a number of individual agreements with members of their particular trade association, each of which will incorporate the terms which have been agreed with the association and which have been exempted by the Minister. There will be many cases in which, by virtue of one provision or another of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, these individual agreements themselves will be exempt. But it is desirable to ensure that none of them will be subject to the requirements of that Act. The new subsection does this by specifically exempting agreements made consequent upon the main exempted agreement between the board and the trade association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Beswick.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 7 of Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956
". In subsection (2) of section 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, in the definition of 'agricultural buildings,' for the word `solely' there shall be substituted the word 'mainly'."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment really follows on from an Amendment of my noble friend Lord Dundee. This is a different point and it is only a small one, as can be seen. My noble friend would leave the wording in subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 as it is in the definition. One of the chief troubles that rating authorities

1063
have had is with the interpretation of the word "solely". "Solely" is a very difficult word to interpret leniently at all, and the substitution of a word that is not quite so rigid would, I dare to suggest, require something between the two extreme alternatives which were proposed by my noble friend Lord Dundee. The value of that might be that these rating problems could be settled reasonably and amicably without having to delve into and upset anything more than just one word in an existing Act. One would not have to write new clauses or anything else, as my noble friend wishes to do. If you could alter that one word I think you would get rid of 80 per cent. or a large proportion of the difficulties which now exist in the rating of agricultural buildings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 48, insert the said new clause.— (Viscount Stonehaven.)
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Stonehaven in his Amendment. This has only become necessary now that the county valuation officers have ceased to be "doves" and turned into "hawks". If the word "solely" is applied by them in its strict sense, it means that the use of the farm for the barn dance and other festivities will no longer be in order. I support my noble friend and I trust that the Government will give this Amendment favourable consideration.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I also support this Amendment. If one of your farm workers puts his car anywhere in your farm buildings you are then liable to have the whole of the building rated. Equally, if you take in one of your neighbour's combines the same thing happens. This is obviously not what the Act was intended to do, and I believe that my noble friend's Amendment would help to rectify the situation.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I sincerely hope that county assessors do not find Hansard of your Lordships' House among their favourite reading, because I am quite dismayed at the suggestions made by the noble Lords, Lord Balerno and Lord Burton, as to ways in which the assessors can rake into the net still more agricultural buildings.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, this is exactly what they have done; otherwise I should not have bothered to mention it. I have already been rated as a garage because a car was left in my steading. This is the reason why we raised the point.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, perhaps I, too, should declare an interest because I have been threatened with exactly the same thing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must admit that an aspect is being brought into this matter of which I had not heard before. All the discussion which has taken place in the past on this subject has arisen largely because of the same proposal as was discussed on a United Kingdom basis in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to Clause 4, in relation to the rating of livestock units. I should certainly like to look at this other aspect of it. This is the first I have heard of it, and the suggestion that if a farmer allows a dance to be held in the barn the assessor is then possibly going to regard it as a dance hall, and rate it accordingly, seems to be so fantastic and so far removed from any intention of the Agriculture Acts that this must obviously intensify the case for looking at it again.
Complications are already arising from the livestock part of it, which after all is the main burden of complaint. Other things may be incidental—though I can appreciate the point of view that if you add together sufficient incidentals they may become as acute a problem as the main item. However, my right honourable friend has undertaken to look into this matter. It is something which is being investigated on both sides of the Border, although I must admit that it is a more intense problem in Scotland than it has yet become in England. This is simply because our quinquennial revaluation has taken place and many of the assessors have in fact operated on the decision which the valuation appeal court took in some of these cases. Therefore, from the farmers' point of view we are, unfortunately, a little further ahead than is the case with farmers South of the Border.
We accept that this is a point which must be looked at, but one of the difficulties about altering valuation law is that

1065
it is difficult to alter it in isolation. If we were to do something of the kind it is almost certain that it would create in some other direction—whether in agriculture or in industry—anomalies as great as those we are examining. I accept that what is being done is not what was contemplated when the law was framed, because the sort of agricultural practices which are being hit at were not in existence then. We accept that it should be looked at urgently. We are undertaking consultations about varying proposals which have been put forward, varying from complete derating to 50 per cent. derating, to put it on the same basis as industry in Scotland. So it is easy to recognise the extent to which existing valuation procedure has departed from what was originally contemplated. If it were as easy to find a solution it might well be that the amendment of the law could have found a place in this Bill.
I accept that a solution is necessary and we will certainly hurry it as much as the proper consideration of the problem and the appropriate consultations will allow. I hope that, with that assurance, both of future action and of urgency in such action, the noble Viscount will not feel that 1 am letting him down too badly in asking him yet again to withdraw an Amendment which I readily admit has substance behind it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, before I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I go a little further? Naturally, I understand the complication of the rating law, but if the noble Lord is good enough to look into it I would ask him also to look into the general aspect of the matter. I am sorry to quote my own cases but I was so incensed that farm buildings, both my own and those of my tenants, were rated as garages because cars, which are necessary agricultural implements, were left in certain places that I took three cases to the local appeal court, which is our first appeal, and I won those three cases.
The assessor at once asked for a case to be stated. He withdrew two cases, because he had not a leg to stand on, and he knew it. But he did not withdraw my case—I thought it was a little spiteful. But the point I want to make is that if
1066
one is arguing about principle, as one has a right to do, if I take the stated case I have to risk the costs. It cost me £250 or thereabouts, and if I win I am going to save myself £3 a year. There is a large element of almost blackmail in that, and I wish the noble Lord would look at that aspect because it is grossly unfair.
It may be said that it does not matter about me—and probably it does not—but it is an indication of the unfair way in which the rating system in Scotland works to-day. If one wins a case in the first court (which is legally advised) then I think it is quite respectable for the assessor, if he is not content, to take the case further, but I do not see why one should have to pay the costs when it is not a flippancy but something which has been passed by one lot of lawyers. The situation to-day is unjust, and is preventing cases from being brought it forward, because people say "I cannot afford to be £250 'down the drain'." I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
7.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is really a consequential Amendment, the purpose of which is simply to exclude Northern Ireland from the operation of the new clause which we agreed on compensation payment. This is a matter wholly within the legislative power of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 4, after ("41") insert ("(Compensation in connection with compulsory acquisition etc. of agricultural holdings)")—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is a formal Amendment designed to safeguard the position of the Northern Ireland Parliament on the provisions of Clause 44. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 10, after ("in") insert ("section 44 of this Act or in").—(Lord Beswick.)
Schedule 1 [Transitional provisions relating to payments under s. 9 in England and Wales]:
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved, in paragraph 1(b), to leave out "two" [months] and insert "three". The noble Lord said: My Lords I will deal, if I may, with the seven Amendments in my name together. They are on the same theme, and as I understand they are accepted by the Government I will do no more than explain what they are. Schedule 1 refers to England, Schedule 2, to Scotland. Among the miscellaneous provisions it was the intention that when a tenant was dispossessed of his land for reasons other than agriculture he should have four years' rent as additional compensation, making six years' rent in all. The Bill in fact provides by Clauses 9 and 10—and this is an anomaly—that the landlord must pay this additional compensation in all cases unless the notice to quit contains a valid exempting statement. Owing to the complexity of the Bill, it seemed to some of us that the two months allowed for a landlord to serve this notice was too short a time. I originally suggested four months and the Government were willing to compromise upon three, with the proviso that if a landlord had this extra month to make up his mind and to go into the complexities of the law the tenant should also have an extra month to serve, if necessary, a counter notice. Amendment No. 30 increases the time from two months to three, and the rest are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 19, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, says, this is a compromise between his four and our two. He fairly stated what I think is a fair compromise, and I am happy to accept it.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 35, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 5, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions relating to payments under s. 9 in Scotland]:
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 36, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 2, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 36, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 5, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Henley.)
Schedule 4 [Supplementary provisions with respect to payments under s. 12(1) in Scotland]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the remarks which I made on Amendment No. 5 also cover Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, leave out lines 10 to 12.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 16, at end insert—
("() paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968;").—(Lord Hughes.)
In the Title:
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is an Amendment to extend the Long Title to cover the new clause on compensation to tenant farmers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 15, after ("buildings;") insert ("to make further provision with respect to the compensation of tenants of agricultural holdings whose land is acquired or taken possession of compulsorily;").—(Lord Beswick.)

PONIES BILL [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Silkin.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restriction on export of ponies.
1. The Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") shall be read and have effect as if:—
(1) after subsection (4) of section 37 thereof (which relates to restrictions on the export of horses) there were inserted the following subsection:—
"(4A) In the case of a pony the conditions to be complied with shall include conditions that in the opinion of the inspector the pony is fit for breeding or riding purposes and properly described in any certificate, licence or other document relating to the export of the pony and that the pony is of not less value than £80, or, in the case of a pony not exceeding 12 hands in height, £50, or such other value as may be prescribed by the Minister for the purpose of this paragraph."
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved, in the proposed new subsection (4A) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, after the first "is" to insert "or will be". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a very simple one. If an inspection of ponies is properly carried out in a meticulous way—I am not saying that it is at present; one of the drawbacks of the present system is that in many
1070
cases the inspection is far too cursory—an inspector might say that a yearling filly, for instance, was not fit for breeding or riding purposes, and he would be perfectly right. So this Amendment is designed to cope with that by providing a let-out, so to speak, for the inspector to say that in his opinion a young pony, for instance, would be in due time fit for breeding or riding purposes. One might say that in the case of a yearling pony, a filly or a colt, one could not tell whether that pony would be fit in two or three years' time for breeding or riding purposes, but one can say Exactly the same about the clause as it stands. I hope that your Lordships will find this Amendment acceptable. I think it will help the inspector somewhat in his duties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("is") insert ("or will be").—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD SILKIN: I first saw this Amendment late yesterday evening. Although the Committee stage of this Bill has been on the Order Paper for a number of weeks, all the Amendments on the Paper were put down only yesterday, and, as I say, I saw them in manuscript for the first time at half past six yesterday evening. I have therefore had no time to make any inquiries or have consultations with my friends on the matter; and although this Amendment, and a number of others, sound plausible, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give me an opportunity of considering them and getting in touch with him before Report stage. I promise him that I will allow a good deal of time to elapse, ample time, between now and the Report stage, and if he will do that I can assure him that his Amendments, except those I am going to accept here and now—there are several of them—will receive the fullest and most careful consideration.
LORD SWANSEA: I must admit that I owe the noble Lord an apology for not having tabled these Amendments sooner, but I can only blame the Easter holidays for that. On the understanding that he will take another look at them and give them due consideration, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved, in the proposed new subsection (4A) of the Diseases

1071
of Animals Act 1950, to leave out "£80" and insert "£100". The noble Lord said: I, too, apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having put down this Amendment only the day before yesterday. My excuse is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Swansea, that I was much occupied during the Recess period. With your Lordships' permission I should like to consider Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together because they are both on the same point.
As of course is perfectly obvious, these values were suggested for the purpose of preventing the sale of ponies for slaughter. Presumably nobody in his senses would want to pay prices such as these for ponies for that purpose, but only if they wanted to use them for breeding or riding. Since the Bill was introduced we have had the event of devaluation, and in view of that I thought it would be a good thing if the values were raised to the amounts which I have suggested in my Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("£80") and insert ("£100").—(Lord Somers.)
LORD SWANSEA: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will think hard before he agrees to accept these Amendments. A large part of the bona fide pony trade in this country depends on the medium-priced children's riding pony, the sort of pony which might come either just within or just over the limits that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has mentioned. There is a quite big trade in ponies within this price bracket, and if the limits in the Bill are raised to the level suggested by my noble friend I cannot help feeling that it would largely destroy the export market in these medium-priced ponies. I think that the prices as they stand in the Bill are sufficient to provide an economic discouragement to the slaughter trade, and I do not see any need to raise them.
LORD LEATHERLAND: As I was one of those people who supported this Bill on Second Reading, I feel inclined to ask my noble friend Lord Silkin to accept the Amendment that is now being put forward. I think when we considered the Bill on Second Reading we were of the opinion that the price limits that have been fixed would be sufficient to ensure
1072
that only animals of stud or racing or trotting capacity were exported, and that the cheaper animals were not exported for the purpose of slaughter or for some inhuman kind of use. Since then, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, we have had devaluation, and I think it is only natural when dealing with imports and exports that we should upgrade the figure, in order that there is the same relationship to the general question of price as applied when we approved the Second Reading. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I had myself intended to put down an Amendment of this kind, because I felt that since devaluation we were really dealing with the same kind of pony as we had in mind when the Bill was first introduced. It was formerly valued at not less than £80 but would be worth £100 in modern currency. Therefore, I should like to accept both this and the next Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£70").—(Lord Somers.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Rest periods for exported ponies]:
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland", and insert "or the Isle of Man.". The noble Lord said: In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I mentioned the point which I am now seeking to amend, which is simply that when a pony is exported from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland it is leaving the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Courts just as surely as it would be on being exported to the Continent. I am not saying that the conditions of treatment towards exported ponies in the Republic of Ireland are the same as on the Continent. I sincerely hope that they do not exist there. All the same, I do not see why we should treat the Republic of Ireland, that being technically a foreign country, in any way different from any country on

1073
the Continent. In that respect this would bring this clause into line with Clause 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out line 4 and insert ("or the Isle of Man".).—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD SILKIN: For the reasons I gave in reply to Amendment No. 1, I should like to have time to consider this Amendment. Prima facie I think that the noble Lord is right. I would feel disposed, if I had to give a decision now, to omit the Republic of Ireland; but there is no reason why one should act without proper consideration, and I should be obliged if the noble Lord having made his case, with which I have great sympathy, would now withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SWANSEA: My previous remarks on Amendment No. 1 can be taken to apply to this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SWANSEA LORD SWANSEA moved to add to the clause:
"() Subsections (1) and (2) above shall not apply to ponies whose place of origin is within fifty miles of the place of loading. 'Place of origin' for the purposes of this section means the place at which the ponies were offered for sale by the last owner.".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment applies to the rest periods laid down in this clause. It seems to me unnecessary that where a pony is taken from a sale or a stud within a reasonable distance of the port of loading it should then be obliged to have a rest period. It would be unnecessary from the point of view of the pony and inconvenient from the point of view of everyone else. The Amendment would also permit the use of farms or stables of a suitable nature within a reasonable radius of the point of loading, in the case of ports or airports where there are no proper lairage facilities. That applies to most of the ports in this country from which ponies are exported.
This Amendment defines the place of origin of the pony as
"the place at which the ponies were offered for sale by the last owner."
I am not a lawyer; the noble Lord opposite is. I am open to any correction that he may choose to make, but it seems to me that that expression would cover
1074
either the place at which the parties are bred, or the home of the owner, or the place where they go into the sale ring. I do not think I need say any more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Swansea.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to point out that the place of origin should mean the place where the pony was originally bred, or anywhere where it had been living for the past few months. Under this Amendment a pony could have been dragged round from sale to sale. It is not really satisfactory to say that the place of origin is the market where the pony was last sold. One cannot call that a "place of origin". Personally I could not support this Amendment. These ponies are often dragged round from market to market, and any opportunity for them to have a rest period and to be properly fed before being embarked ought not to be thrown away under this Amendment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: On this occasion I do not find myself in harmony with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. It is a fact that some farms where ponies are bred are within 50 miles or so of one of the ports from which ponies may be exported. Some professional breeders would prefer to take their ponies direct from their comfortable stables to the ship, rather than allow the ponies to spend the night in lairages that are not so comfortable and so well administered as they might be. I hope that the Committee will allow my noble friend Lord Silkin, who has had this Amendment thrown at him quite suddenly, to give some consideration to it. Although it might be objectionable to some people, it might meet with the approval of some of the pony societies which are interested in this Bill. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn to allow my noble friend Lord Silkin to give it mature consideration.
LORD BURTON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, on the first part of his Amendment. I agree that there is a difficulty about defining "place of origin". It might have been better to say that it was the last place where it would have been possible for

1075
the pony to have a rest for a satisfactory period of time. To put the pony into some strange stable at a port might mean that it would be put somewhere to which it was not accustomed, and this might be more cruel than transporting it to the port. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider further the question of the place of origin. Apart from this, I feel that the Amendment is quite satisfactory. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may be able to accept it in an amended form.
EARL FORTESCUE: I understand that some of the ports handling ponies have no lairage at all. It is important to see that ports are properly fixed up with lairage before we begin to talk about the distance from the point of origin. I agree that in many cases lairages would not be required for ponies coming from good homes in the immediate neighbourhood; but so long as proper lairage accommodation is not provided at the port the trade in ponies through those ports should be stopped.
LORD SILKIN: Every noble Lord who has spoken has spoken from knowledge and experience. There is a general measure of agreement that some kind of rest period is necessary in some cases, though not in all. The Bill as it stands would require a rest period for every pony shipped abroad. I think that it will need amendment. On the other hand, I find some difficulty in accepting the Amendment in its present form. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it on the same understanding as was reached on the previous Amendment.
LORD SWANSEA: I should like to thank noble Lords on both sides of the Committee for their opinions on this Amendment. My definition of "place of origin" was simply a layman's "cock-shy" at a definition. I am not in the least surprised that it has been "shot down". I will have another go at defining it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Further restrictions on export of certain ponies]:
LORD SWANSEA: Amendment No. 6 seeks simply to bring Clause 3 into line
1076
with Clause 2 in the method of shipping ponies. Instead of just a reference to shipping from a port, it includes a reference to shipping by air. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("in any vessel from any port") and insert ("by sea or by air from any place").—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD SILKIN: I am glad that it will not be necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, to go home empty-handed. I am glad to accept this Amendment, and the next one.
LORD SWANSEA: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("port") and insert ("place").—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD SWANSEA: Amendment No. 8 relates to pony mares which could be said to be too old for breeding or riding. There would be no real point in exporting such a pony. I am open to argument about the actual age. I have suggested a figure of twelve years old as a sighting shot, so to speak, but I am willing to listen to any argument for any other age. I feel that there is a case for prohibiting the export of aged pony mares which would inevitably have only one fate in store for them on reaching the other side. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, at end insert ("or which in the opinion of the inspector is more than twelve years old").—(Lord Swansea.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this excellent Amendment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: There may be something in this Amendment, but it has been sprung rather suddenly on my noble friend Lord Silkin. He should be given an opportunity to consider it and to give it some mature consideration before saying a definite "Yes" or "No" to the Amendment in its present form. If the noble Lord could withdraw it and give my noble friend an opportunity to look at it, with all its implications, that might be the best way out of the problem.
EARL FORTESCUE: It is extremely dangerous to try to fix an age limit, since some ponies are quite useless by the time they are eight years old. It depends on their constitution and the amount of work which they have had to do. I am certain that there are records of ponies having lived to the age of 30. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to try to draw the line. The best horse I ever had, and the only horse on which I ever jumped a railway gate, was 19 years old at the time.
LORD SILKIN: The purpose of exporting ponies is, one hopes, for riding, breeding or exhibition. It may be that a horse over 12 years old would not be suitable for breeding; I do not know and I should like further advice. I should have thought that it might be suitable for riding for a number of years, at any rate in regard to special types of horses. The difficulty that has been expressed to me is: how is the veterinary surgeon going to assess the age of a pony as being more or less than 12 years? I should like further advice on that point, so I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to give me time to get that advice.
LORD SOMERS: I wonder whether I may enlighten the noble Lord as to an assessment of age. It is quite simple to do this by its teeth.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No, you cannot do that over the age of seven years. It is impossible.
LORD SWANSEA: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his remarks. In relation to his last remark about assessing the age, may I say that if a pony is accompanied by an export certificate as defined in this Bill, such an export certificate should give the age of the pony. In the case of the Welsh Pony and Cob Society, registration certificates and, I think, export certificates give the date of birth of the pony. In any case, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in that he would like more time to study this Amendment; and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.51 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: This question of the age at which foals can be exported is a very difficult one and, quite rightly, people have differing views about it. In
1078
the debate on the Second Reading I said I thought that it would be safe to allow foals at foot to be exported at the age of four months and that weaned foals could be exported at the age of six months. I have thought about this a good deal since then and I have consulted with other people, and this Amendment would have the effect of prohibiting altogether the export of weaned foals in the year of their birth. So the only foals which could be exported—and I am now dealing with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 —would be those of four months and over at foot; in other words, travelling with their dams. I am aware that there are many different opinions on this subject, and I do not intend to press this Amendment. If the noble Lord opposite would like more time to consider it and to consult over it, I am quite wilting to fall in with his wishes.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after ("foal") insert ("in the year of its birth except a foal travelling with its dam and").—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD BURTON: I should like t o support my noble friend on this Amendment. I think I am right in saying that a year of a horse's life is equivalent to seven years of a human life. Consequently, if the pony is only a year old it is like a child of only seven years. I know that my wife objects to any of our sons going off to school even at the age of eight, so that to send them off at only three or four years old would be very severe. A yearling is at quite a reasonable age for it to be allowed to go.
LORD LEATHERLAND: This is an Amendment which might need careful consideration. There have been many recorded cases of foals, sometimes travelling with their dams and sometimes travelling in isolation, who have been very cruelly treated both on the ships crossing the Channel and in the motor lorries after they have landed at Zeebrugge or some other port on the Continent. It would be unfair to ask my noble friend Lord Silkin to accept or reject this Amendment on the spur of the moment, especially as so little notice has been given. So I hope he will be given an opportunity of considering it in a more mature manner, and of coming to a decision at the next stage of the Bill.
EARL FORTESCUE: A large number of thoughts have been left with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and no doubt when this Bill comes up again we shall get his mature reflections and fresh proposals. But I ask that we also have a lot of fresh facts. I expect we have all had from the various societies a mass of literature full of adjectives but with practically no facts. The sort of thing I should like to know is the cost of transport by air or sea, the price given by the foreigner, and the price of the meat sold—I know it is higher on the Continent than it is here—because I am not convinced that a thoroughly bad, small pony can pay for the shipment. I should not have thought that the amount of meat to be got off him at the other end would anything like justify the cost of shipment, let alone give the sort of prices which my noble friend Lord Somers mentioned just now. If we could have more facts and figures, rather than the spate of epithets which we have had from the various societies, it would help a lot.
LORD SILKIN: Everybody seems to be agreed that this is an Amendment which needs further consideration. I. in my ignorance, should like to know the meaning of the term "in the year of its birth". I do not know whether it is a term of art understood in the profession, or what it is. I have been told that a pony born on December 31 becomes one year old on January 1. I do not know whether or not that is correct. One has to be a little careful in the use of phrases like "in the year of its birth", so I should be grateful for more time to consider this.
LORD SWANSEA: Perhaps I can enlighten the noble Lord on his last point. It is true that in the thoroughbred world, where foals are liable to be born at any time of the year and the mares are generally kept in, a foal born on December 31 can become a yearling the next day. But in the case of the native pony breeds, which nearly all live out of doors all the year round, most of the foals are born in the spring—say, from March to May—a great many are born during June, and some are born during July and August. So the phrase "in the year of its birth" in this Amendment refers, of course, to the calendar year. This Bill applies only to ponies; it does not apply to thoroughbreds of any other
1080
breeds. So under the living conditions applicable to ponies, especially our native breeds, I think this is a fair enough definition. In any case, I know that the noble Lord opposite would like an opportunity to consider this point further, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SWANSEA: This Amendment takes care of a point which was mentioned by a number of speakers on Second Reading. I gather that there was an error in the drafting of Clause 3(1)(c), and that it was never the intention that the secretary of a breed society or anyone appointed by him should have to certify that a pony was "fit and suitable for export". The intention is, and always has been, I gather, that the secretary should simply have to certify that the pony is pure-bred and registered in the books of his society. That is the effect of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("fit and suitable for export") and insert ("registered with that society").—(Lord Swansea.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: I hope that my noble friend will find it possible to accept this Amendment. As the text of the Bill now stands, it is rather difficult to expect the secretary of any of these pony societies to go round and inspect every pony before he gives his certificate. I should have thought that the registration of the pony in the stud book of that particular society would have been conclusive evidence of the fact that this was a pony of the kind to which we want of refer. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: I am very happy to accept this Amendment and to finish the Committee proceedings on a harmonious note.
LORD SWANSEA: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for more than one reason.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House, with Amendments.

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
8.3 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Legitimation (Scotland) Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 60 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–17.]
Leave out Clause 2.
Clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ("under this Act").
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("a child who is") and insert ("any child").
Page 3, line 12, leave out from second ("issue") to end of line 14 and insert ("being legitimated persons, of any child of that marriage (including such issue of any child legitimated by that marriage)").
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("(8) Subsection (1) above shall apply only in relation to the legitimation of a person by or under this Act.")
Clause 4, page 3, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) that person would, if he had not died, have been legitimated on any date before or after such commencement or (by virtue of section 5 below) at such commencement").
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("rendered legitimate") and insert ("legitimated").
Page 4, line 7, leave out from beginning of line to ("the") in line 10 and insert—
("(a) the data which would have been the date of the legitimation of the illegitimate person, if that date occurs after the commencement of this Act;
(b) in any other case,").
Clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out ("rendered legitimate") and insert ("legitimated").
After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
Provisions relating to recognition of foreign legitimation
(".—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

(a) references to the legitimation of a person shall (subject to paragraph (b) below) be construed as including references to the recognition under the law of Scotland,
1082
whether before or after the commencement of this Act, of a person as being legitimate under the law of a country or territory outside Scotland by the subsequent marriage of his parents;

(b) references to the legitimation of a person under this Act shall be construed as including references to the recognition after the commencement of this Act, of a person as being legitimated as aforesaid;

(c) subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below, references to the date of the legitimation of a person shall, in relation to a person recognised as being legitimated as aforesaid, be construed as references to the date which his legitimation was or recognised as having effect from;

and "legitimated" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Where after the commencement of this Act any person is legitimated under the law of a country or territory outside Scotland, the fact that the father of that person was at any time previous to his marriage to the mother of that person domiciled in a county or territory in which legitimation by subsequent marriage was not permitted by law shall not prevent the recognition of that person as being legitimated.
(3) A person legitimated after the commencement of this Act under the lass of a country or territory outside Scotland shall not be recognised as being legitimated with effect from a date earlier than that on which his legitimation occurs.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person legitimated under the law of a country or territory outside Scotland shall be deemed to he so legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents in any case where, under the law of the country or territory in question, the marriage of his parents was a condition necessary to his legitimation.")
Clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
("(2) The legitimation of any person—

(a) by virtue of section 5 of this Act, or

(b) under this Act, if he would not have been legitimated had this Act not been passed,").

Clause 7, page 5, line 19, leave out ("Save as provided in") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of").
Clause 7, page 5, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("such") in line 26 and insert ("under a deed which came into operation before the commencement of this Act shall, in so far as").
Clause 8, page 5, line 38, leave out ("(a)").
Clause 8, page 5, line 40, after ("whether") insert ("by or").
Clause 8, page 5, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 6 and insert—
(" 'legitimated' shall be construed accordingly.")

1083
In the Title, line 3, after ("parents") insert ("to make provision in relation to the recognition under the law of Scotland of legitimation effected under foreign law and to the effects of such recognition;").
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, nine of the Amendments which the Commons have made arise from a recent Judicial decision of your Lordships' House. The other eight Amendments are of a purely drafting nature. With permission, I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 17 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hughes.)

SAINT JAMES AND SAINT PAUL PLUMSTEAD BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MILL LANE KIRK ELLA BURIAL GROUND BILL
Reported, without amendment.
DURBAN NAVIGATION COLLIERIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL HOLY TRINITY WEST HAMPSTEAD BILL SAINT SAVIOUR PADDINGTON BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  USE OF FOOTPATHS BY CYCLISTS
  USE OF FOOTPATHS BY CYCLISTS