Sitting of 21 February 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Transport Bill
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of many hundreds of transport workers in North Staffordshire:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of the transport workers in North Staffordshire showeth that the Transport Bill will impose an additional tax burden on the road haulage and passenger transport industry, will reduce productivity, implement restrictive practices and increase costs.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this Transport Bill shall not be passed by your honourable House and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

AIRCRAFT ENGINE CONTRACTS
Return ordered,
of a Report of a Committee of Inquiry into certain contracts with Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROADS

    Repair Work and Road Building
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Transport what action she is taking to reduce the time now spent on road repair work and road building in order to reduce inconvenience to the public generally.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The time allowed for the construction of road works takes account of all factors, including general inconvenience. Reducing the completion time often means additional cost, but, subject to that, we aim to complete all road works as quickly as possible.
    Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if British Railways took so long to repair their track and rebuild their bridges as many road engineers, there would be a revolution? Does he not think it time that his Department looked at the length of time taken on road works leading out of London, for example, and the discomfort caused to pedestrians and road users and the burden on the economy caused by the length of time taken?
    Mr. Carmichael: I recognise that the construction of road works is a burden on the economy, but it is a temporary burden. The object of new roads is that great savings to the economy ultimately ensue. Every effort is made, but there are great difficulties, particularly in urban areas, and inconvenience for a short time is unavoidable.

    Cambridge (By-pass Roads)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in planning the northern and western bypasses for Cambridge.
    Mr. Carmichael: Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council, as our agent authority, has made preliminary investigations into possible routes for these new roads. They are being considered for inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool.
    Mr. Lane: In connection with the northern bypass, would the hon. Gentleman please keep in mind the growth of industrial traffic between the Midlands and the East Coast ports and the need for urgent improvement of better east-west communications not only for Cambridge but for other parts of East Anglia?
    Mr. Carmichael: The northern bypass investigations are going on to determine where the line may be acceptable. This has not been completely pursued in detail, but investigations are going on at the present time.
    Sir H. Harrison: Could I, as a Member for East Suffolk, stress to the Minister as my hon. Friend has done again the importance of this road to the export trade from the Midlands through to the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe?
    Mr. Carmichael: We are aware of this, and this is part of the reason why it is being considered as a candidate for the preparation pool.

    A21 Road, Bromley Common (Footbridge)
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Transport what consultations have taken place between her Department and the local authorities concerned regarding the construction of a pedestrian footbridge over the A21 in the vicinity of Turpington Lane, Bromley Common.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): None, Sir.
    Mr. Hunt: Will the hon. Gentleman please have consultations with the G.L.C. on this matter? Does he realise that those who live in the vicinity of this very busy route now regard the provision of a footbridge as the only way of stopping further fatal accidents there, and that it would be appreciated if he would use his persuasive powers with the G.L.C. to ensure a speedy and favourable decision on the matter?
    Mr. Swingier: The hon. Member will recognise that investigations on this are for the Bromley Council and then for the G.L.C., and they are, I understand, in consultation now about the wider scheme to alter the layout at this junction, taking into account the needs of pedestrians. I can assure the hon. Member that as soon as these proposals are submitted to us, they will be dealt with immediately.

    Road Programme
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport whether she will now specify the alterations to the road programme necessitated by the reductions in public expenditure in 1968–69 and 1969–70.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport how the cuts in expenditure
    404
    on the road programme have affected road communications to the ports.
    Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 17th January. As that reply indicated the review of starting dates will be aimed at minimising delays to the more important road schemes, which include those affecting communications to the ports.—[Vol. 756, c. 558.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison:Can the hon. Gentleman say what now are the prospects for the M11? Is there likely to be any change?
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said, we will so operate the savings that there will be no effect on the major motorway programme and, as far as possible, none on the major trunk route programme. Certainly there will be no effect on an important road scheme for access to the docks.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister of State aware that certain work appears to have stopped on the road to Harwich, which is to be a very important container port? Will he look into it and tell us why?
    Mr. Swingler: I am not in possession of the details, but, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have them, I will look into the matter. We have to go through statutory processes, which sometimes cause delay to schemes. If there is any unavoidable delay, I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. Ogden: In view of the importance of exports, will my hon. Friend look again at the proposals for the Liverpool-M6 to see whether it is possible to bring that project forward?
    Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend will know that we are in consultation with local authorities about important factors concerning access to ports and docks in that part of the country and related to schemes of major construction further ahead. We will do our best to improve matters in that area.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that a recent reply to a Written Question shows that the 81 schemes deferred in 1965 for six months in fact

    405
    were deferred on average for more than 12 months? Will this happen again?
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. We have debated this matter several times since that occurred. There were many factors affecting the so-called slippage of that period, and, since then, my right hon. Friend has taken action to establish the road construction units in order to overcome these difficulties. Now that we are developing the road construction units, certainly we will not allow that slippage to occur.
    Mr. Astor: Has the omission of the M4 in the programme for motorway development announced recently been due to reductions in public expenditure or to some other cause?
    Mr. Swingler: It is not due to reductions in expenditure, but to the statutory processes. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there are certain difficulties due to the possibility of public inquiries, which are unavoidable under the present law. We are endeavouring to get forward with the M4 as rapidly as possible.

    A19 Road, Shipton (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Transport whether she consulted the Shipton Parish Council before she authorised the increase of the speed limit to 40 miles per hour through the village of Shipton on the trunk road A19; and whether in the interests of road safety she will now reinstate the speed limit at 30 miles per hour.
    Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. It is not customary to consult all local authorities in such cases. The county council was consulted and the proposal was advertised locally on 6th and 7th July last year. No objections were received. The former 30 m.p.h. limit was not a realistic or effective restriction and we would not be justified in reinstating it.
    Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the weekly newspaper selected is one which is not normally read in the village and that this stretch of road contains two very dangerous bends, three road junctions, ten farm entrances, two petrol filling stations, one engineering works, one public house and one school?
    Mr. Carmichael: Every effort was made to advertise in the proper local
    406
    papers. In this case, the proposal was advertised locally in the Yorkshire Gazette and Herald, which circulates in the area. The police and the county council, the agent authority in the area, both fully agreed with the proposal that the speed limit should be raised to 40 m.p.h.

    A63 Road (Elloughton Bypass)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the progress of the Elloughton bypass on the A63.
    Mr. Carmichael: An Order establishing the line of the bypass was made in August last year, and a Side Roads Order was published in October. Objections have been received to the latter and are at present under consideration.
    Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be a public inquiry? Can he give the House any idea of when the work is likely to start, and also an estimate of its date of completion?
    Mr. Carmichael: The question of a public inquiry will depend on whether the objections can be mitigated without the necessity for it. It is hoped that the work will be completed by about the summer of 1971.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one example of the dozen, or perhaps two dozen, bottlenecks and the snags on this awful stretch of road between Hull and the A1? Can he say when he will improve this? In particular, can he tell us something about the beginning of the work on the Thorne bypass?
    Mr. Carmichael: I would like notice of the particular case mentioned by my hon. Friend. Work on the connection between the Al and Humberside is going ahead as quickly as possible, but my hon. Friend must realise that a fair amount of time is required between the original decision to build a road, and its being completed. The statutory processes alone take about two and a half years.

    A45 Road (Accidents)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Transport how many fatal and serious accidents have occurred on the

    407
    A45 between Thurlaston roundabout and the Birmingham boundary since the introduction of a 60 miles per hour speed limit; and how many occurred during the same period last year.
    Mr. Carmichael: There have been no fatal and 17 serious accidents between 18th October, 1967, and 31st January, 1968, on the part of the road subject to the limit. There were seven fatal and 19 serious accidents in the same period a year ago.
    Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to impose a 60 m.p.h. speed limit on this lethal stretch of road, the first in Britain, has been fully justified despite the lunatic rantings of the motoring organisations?
    Mr. Carmichael: It is too early to say. The limit has not been in force for long enough, and, particularly in view of the other measures which have been in operation during the period, it is rather premature to make a decision. The limit will be reviewed when it has been in force for about a year.

    Traffic Signs
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Transport what is the total number of traffic signs now in use.
    Mr. Carmichael: The regulations prescribe six basic types of sign, including road markings. Within these types there are 270 different signs, but many are simple variants, for instance of direction signs.
    Mr. Price: Would my hon. Friend agree that before any new signs are introduced we should have time to get accustomed to those that we have now?
    Mr. Carmichael: The evidence is that poeple are becoming much more accustomed to them. The basic understanding should be that circular signs mean instruction, triangular signs mean a warning, and rectangular signs mean information. The signs were designed after consultation, following the Warboys Committee's Report, to bring them into line with the signs used in the rest of Europe.

  RAILWAYS

    Coaches (Safety)
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Minister of Transport what research is being carried out by her research organisations in the design of safer railway coaches.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Research in this field is the responsibility of British Rail. Their current research covers strengths of coach structures and materials, improved braking systems, improved riding at high speeds, and possible fire hazards.
    Mrs. Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that the safety of railway coaches appears to compare unfavourably with the safety of the best modern road vehicles? Does he not think that the design of railway coaches should be reconsidered so that there can be a reduction in the size of their scantlings and that far more materials are produced to reduce the energy and impact?
    Mr. Morris: There is a programme for the replacement of railway stock under way, but British Rail has a first-class research organisation at Derby. I am not aware that there is any foundation for my hon. Friend's criticisms.

    Carriage of Parcels
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Transport if she will give a general direction to British Railways that they should undertake a review of their procedures for the carriage of parcels, with a view to speeding up the service.
    Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. The Railways Board is fully alive to the need to do everything possible to improve its parcels and sundries services and to coordinate them with those of B.R.S. (Parcels) Ltd.
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman's answer of "No" will be widely regarded with dismay because the gross inefficiency of this section of British Rail's services frequently hampers the fulfilment of orders within a given period, which is gravely hampering all industries, particularly those concerned with exports.
    Mr. Morris: I hope that I can count on the support of the hon. Lady when the Transport Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. British Railways are aware of the difficulties of the present situation and have set up their Freight Sundries Division. There is a joint parcels organisation set up with the T.H.C., and the National Freight Corporation will set up a properly integrated service for this type of freight.
    Mr. Brooks: Could my hon." Friend indicate how far the Transport Bill will rationalise the procedure for the carrying of parcels where there are two overlapping public bodies?
    Mr. Morris: I do not want to go into details on this, but the National Freight Corporation will provide for an integrated sundries service. Passenger parcels will remain with the British Railways Board.

    Southern Region
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Transport when she expects to receive recommendations from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee following its consideration of complaints from Southern Region commuters on the continuing delays and disorganisation within the Region.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Transport what recommendations have been made to her by the London Area Committee as a result of the complaints they have received from passengers on the Southern Region of British Railways about the unpunctuality of trains since July, 1967.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Transport whether she will refer to the appropriate transport users committee the failure of the Southern Region of British Railways to provide a punctual, regular and reliable service to the public.
    The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I understand that the London Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee has put recommendations to the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which will consider them early next month. It will be for the Central Committee to decide whether to make recommendations to me.
    Mr. Hunt: In the meantime, is the right hon. Lady aware that, in spite of some marginal improvement, punctual trains on the Southern Region are still the exception rather than the rule? Does she agree with the Central Consultative Committee that the only long-term solution of this problem is to increase track capacity, and, if so, will she undertake now to give favourable consideration to the estimates for this work which will be submitted to her later this year?
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware that the Central Committee, having looked at the position, has said that the Southern Region was right to reorganise the timetables, and improvements have taken place, of which I gave particulars in a recent Press statement. Southern Region is continuing to make what adjustments it can to increase punctuality. With regard to the wider issue, this is, I understand, one of the points which is being considered by the London Area Transport Users' Committee, and I am awaiting the Central Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Fisher: Can the right hon. Lady comment on the point made in the Central Committee's annual report that there really is very little margin and that the unpunctuality, and the inconvenience to our constituents, are likely to continue unless and until the Government approve a fairly major engineering and expansion programme on the Southern Region?
    Mrs. Castle: Of course, I shall be glad to study with care any suggestions for improvements and expansion of capacity, but, as the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Central Committee's report, I should remind him that it said that, generally speaking, the Committee felt that the management of Southern Region had been right in dealing with the problem as they had, even recognising the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. The Committee also paid tribute to the great care Southern Region has taken to listen to complaints and to meet hon. Members, and I think we should pay tribute to Mr. McKenna for that.
    Mr. Murray: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, in view of the fact that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has recognised that, that it is right that every effort should be made

    411
    to encourage Southern Region to improve services rather than condemn the reorganisation?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, I do, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because the Central Committee did say that the handling of the complaints and the difficulties which were encountered following the changes has been commendable. I think we should recognise that a rather bold innovation was made here. It has had teething troubles. I hope we are getting through them. But Southern Region was right to take the initiative.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a study of the increased extent to which private road transport is being used by commuters as a result of the train service provided by the Southern Region of British Railways since July, 1967.
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Transport what was the percentage by which the number of persons commuting by car into central London increased in the six months following the introduction of the new Southern Region timetable in July, 1967.
    Mrs. Castle: No special study would be justified. Figures are not yet available of changes in car commuting since July, but rail commuting to Southern Region terminals in central London rose slightly between November, 1966, and November, 1967.
    Mr. Fisher: While I acknowledge that the terrible unpunctuality of Southern Region trains has improved a little lately, would the right hon. Lady acknowledge that my constituents have had much to complain about in the last six months and that the service is still irregular and trains frightfully overcrowded, with the result that some people I know are travelling by road?
    Mrs. Castle: Not only would I ackknowledge what the hon. Gentleman's constituents have been through, but I think that the Southern Region of British Rail would be the first to acknowledge it frankly. That is why they are making desperate efforts to improve the services. It is, of course, a matter for them, for management. The purpose of the new timetables was to give the hon. Gentle-
    412
    man's commuter constituents more space and that we shall still try to do.
    Mr. Moyle: While we are all pleased with the improvement in punctuality on Southern Region, would my right hon. Friend realise that car commuting into central London will still grow if the region's policy of withdrawing train services from the inner London suburbs to make room for longer-range commuter traffic continues? Would she look sympathetically at any proposal for increasing the fundamental strength of the system?
    Mrs. Castle: I have said earlier that such proposals may be coming to me and I will certainly consider them sympathetically within the limits of the total investment available.

    Automatically-Controlled Trains
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Transport what study she has made of the evidence supplied to her by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire on the contribution to safety on the railways made by using computers for starting, stopping, accelerating and decelerating trains; and if she will initiate experiments with computer-driven trains, possibly on the London Underground.
    Mr. John Morris: An initiative by my right hon. Friend is not necessary. London Transport have been operating automatically-controlled trains between Hainault and Woodford for four years and the Victoria line will be fully automatic. British Rail are experimenting with systems suitable to their more complex needs.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement this week of extensions in British developments in this field will be very welcome, but will he, in considering extending and expanding this type of automatic service as quickly as possible, also consider that forms of control as used in Hamburg may be more economical to operate?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the London Transport Board is ahead of the world in this field. The Victoria Line will be the first fully automatic passenger service in the world. The technology of London Transport is more advanced

    413
    than that of the Hamburg system. Indeed, it had reached a parallel stage of research and development five years ago.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need, in the case of further developments of this kind, to consult the trade unions, so that they will be adequately informed in advance?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that this is a very important point which the two Boards will bear in mind.

    Railway Services (Maintenance)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport what financial ceiling she places on maintaining open socially useful railway lines.
    Mr. John Morris: We are not yet in a position to confirm or vary the estimate of £55 million per annum initially which is quoted in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Transport Bill.
    As the Joint Steering Group made clear in its Report, it will not be possible to make an accurate estimate of the total amount involved until a considerable number of services have been looked at in great detail.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does that mean—I am not quite sure from the hon. Gentleman's reply—that £55 million is the ceiling and, no matter how socially useful the line is, if the £55 million has been used up the line cannot be reprieved? Will the hon. Gentleman clear that up?
    Mr. Morris: No. This is an estimate. We cannot at this stage make a more realistic estimate, but Parliament will be invited to approve an estimate for 1969–70.
    Mr. Manuel: Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) if he still supports the full rigour and impact of the Beeching Report? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive support that she has throughout the country for the keeping open of socially necessary lines?
    Mr. Morris: It is not for me to answer for the hon. Member for Hillhead. We never know where he stands; whether he wants to butcher the railway lines of Scotland or not. What is important is
    414
    that in the present Transport Bill my right hon. Friend has set out means of paying for socially necessary railway lines.

    Route Mileage
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport whether her decision that the minimum track mileage of British Railways will be 11,000 miles is affected by the recent Government economy measures.
    John Morris: These measures do not affect the route mileage of the British Railways Network for Development published in March, 1967.
    Mr. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects this figure of 11,000 route miles to be reviewed?
    Mr. Morris: This is the figure which we have established as necessary, having regard to the social needs of the country.

    Electrification
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport when the major electrification scheme on British Railways, which was postponed as a result of the post-devaluation cuts, will now be carried out.
    Mr. John Morris: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) on 20th December last.—[Vol. 756, c. 408.]
    Mr. Taylor: Would it not help the railways more to allow them to go ahead with this important scheme, rather than with the expensive nonsense of the Transport Bill?
    Mr. Morris: We have made clear to the Railways Board where it stands with regard to this scheme, and I think that in the interests of the nation as a whole, and British Railways in particular, it will welcome the Transport Bill.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the electrification of this line will do a tremendous amount to carry forward to success the Government's regional policies?
    Mr. Morris: Yes, obviously this scheme is very important, and, in due time, if the Board makes a fair proposal,

    415
    we shall have to examine it against all the other considerations in the development of this part of the world.

    Freightliner Traffic
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport how many containers were carried by British Railways freightliners on the most recent week for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in the same week of the previous year.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Transport to what extent freightliner traffic is increasing.
    Mr. John Morris: For the weeks ended 11th February, 1968 and 12th February, 1967 the figures were 4,431 and 1,313, respectively. The rate of carryings has, therefore, more than trebeled over the past year.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction—[Interruption.]—I hope, to everybody in the House? Is he aware that anyone interested in British Railways is interested in the success of the freightliner services and that there should be no quarrel between the two sides on this?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that it is of great encouragement to my right hon. Friend to see the success of the freightliner system, despite the attacks and denigration of hon. Members opposite, and it must encourage railwaymen generally to see the fulfilment of my right hon. Friend's assurances that they would all benefit from the system.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the success of the freightliner trains with British Railways, why does the Minister not keep them there instead of giving them to the National Freight Corporation?
    Mr. Morris: We are anxious to encourage the maximum development of this important system and think that the best way is by the joint arrangement of a share owned by British Railways and a share by the N.F.C.

    Whitland-Tenby-Pembroke Line
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Minister of Transport what recommendations she has received from the Transport
    416
    Users' Consultative Committee in regard to the Whitland-Tenby-Pembroke line; and what action she proposes to take.
    Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend has received a comprehensive report from the Transport Users Consultative Committee. She is now studying this and will also be consulting the Secretary of State for Wales and other colleagues concerned before taking a decision.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this line is vitally economically necessary to a substantial part of South-West Wales and that its closure would further depress an area which suffers more than most—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Evans: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the closure of this line would further depress an area which suffers more than most from depopulation, from unemployment, and from under-development, evils which the Welsh people associate now with the Socialist Government?
    Mr. Morris: I am personally aware of the importance of this line. This is why it is important to study its future very carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, if it is decided to keep the line open, the Transport Bill provides the means for paying for these lines.

  TRANSPORT

    Snow
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware of the dislocation on roads caused by the snowfall between 8th to 13th January, 1968; and in view of the possibility of a further snowfall this winter, what consultations are being held to remedy this.
    Mr. Carmichael: Heavy snow inevitably causes some dislocation; the most that can be done is to clear the roads as soon as practicable. Highway authorities are generally fully alive to their responsibilities; they were reminded in a circular issued on 5th January of the importance

    417
    of keeping their snow clearing organisation at maximum efficiency and no consultations are at present considered necessary.
    Mr. Costain: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that early salting could help to solve the problem? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination between the weather forecasting authorities and the county councils? Would he look into the matter to see whether the situation can be improved?
    Mr. Carmichael: A circular urged local authorities to do salting as soon as weather forecasts came through. If the salt is put down before the snow falls, the snow can be cleared much more quickly. We are always looking at the question of the meteorological authorities giving as much advance warning as possible. This is being kept up to date.

    Motor Insurers Bureau (Unidentified Drivers)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the outcome of her discussions with the Motor Insurers Bureau regarding compensation for victims of hi t-and-run road accidents.
    Mr. John Morris: We have now substantially agreed with the Bureau a procedure which will allow for appeals on their decisions in cases involving unidentified drivers. Under this procedure the Bureau will examine such cases as at present but if the victim of an accident is dissatisfied with their decision he will have a right of appeal to an arbitrator from a panel of Queens' counsel. The Bureau will normally pay the arbitrator's fees and will be bound by his decision. We are grateful to the Bureau for their help in developing this procedure which is now being embodied in a formal agreement which we hope to make available to the House, and bring into effect, very shortly.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that his announcement today will be greatly welcomed by all those who have had the misfortune to have to deal with these kinds of claim in the past? Can he say when this procedure will be announced and put into effect? It will be of great interest also
    418
    to know what the procedure is for appeals.
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind remarks. There are some small points still to be settled. We have reached substantial agreement, and we hope to bring the agreement be-for the House very shortly.
    Mr. Weitzman: Having raised this matter on a number of occasions with the Tory Government when they were in power, and having received no satisfaction whatever, may I express my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend for the statement which he has made, and ask whether he is satisfied that the arrangements made will deal with the particularly hard cases which arise?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that the House will also want to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend, who has pressed this consistently over a very long period of time, and from time to time has been asking me to report progress to him. We are also grateful to the Motor Insurers' Bureau. I think the arrangements it has set out and which will be set out in some detail will meet the very real needs of the situation.

    Driving Licences (Application Forms)
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Transport whether she will take steps to implement the recommendations made to her by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention in relation to application forms for driving licences.
    Mr. Carmichael: We hope to take advantage of the establishment of a central system of vehicle registration and licensing to revise the application form for a driving licence. The recommendations made by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention will be taken into account during this revision.
    Mr. Archer: When this is done, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is asking a lot of any driver to decide for himself when he ought not to be driving, and will he institute periodic health checks of licence holders?
    Mr. Carmichael: This is an interesting suggestion, and it is one which has been raised before. But, obviously, before it could be adopted and before such a

    419
    departure could be made, a great deal of medical and other advice would need to be taken.

    Tyres
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Transport whether she has considered the information acquired by the Royal Automobile Club in its seven-point Tyre Safety Week, details of which have been sent to her; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. This underlines the need for full observance of the new tyre Regulations which will be effective from 1st April. With help from RoSPA and the tyre industry I am arranging further publicity to emphasise their importance for safety.
    Mr. Archer: While recognising that the question has been out-distanced by events, is my right hon. Friend aware that these Regulations will be warmly welcomed as a contribution to road safety? Can she tell us in a little more detail what steps she is taking to publicise them?
    Mrs. Castle: I agree that this is a very important element in road safety. The Lancashire police have indicated that 30 per cent. of accidents on the M6 in 1967 were due to tyre failure. Therefore, I have thought it right to devote some of the extra funds that we are making available for publicity on road safety matters to a campaign which will start in the Press next month and be followed by television advertising starting in mid-March.

    Waterways
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Transport what negotiations are in progress between her Department, the British Waterways Board and local authorities on the future development of the waterways system.
    Mr. John Morris: The part that individual local authorities can play must necessarily be related to particular waterways within the Board's system. It is for the Board, as a matter of management, to reach agreement directly with interested local authorities on objectives in their areas. The Board is engaged in numerous discussions of this nature at the present time.
    Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure the House that adequate consultation is taking place between local authorities, regional sports councils and the Waterways Board so as to make full use of the tremendous amenities that the Minister has now placed at our disposal?
    Mr. Morris: From the information in my possession, there is a very long list of local authorities which are at present negotiating or discussing various matters concerning their own areas with the British Waterways Board. This should be encouraged, and I am satisfied with the present situation.
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Transport what proposals she has under consideration for the development of container traffic on the waterways.
    Mr. John Morris: The development of container traffic on the nationalised inland waterways is essentially for the Waterways Board to consider, as a matter of commercial judgment, together with the carriers and the customers. I know that the Board is very much alive to the possibilities of container traffic and are actively studying ways in which it can participate further in this modern carrying technique.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous importance of the Humber as a carrying area for the Trent, the Calder, South Yorkshire and so on, and can he give any sort of indication of discussions taking place with the Yorkshire-Humberside area for the development of waterways container traffic?
    Mr. Morris: I understand from the Board that a firm of consultants is studying new craft design to meet the requirements of the main river navigations in the region and, in particular, is investigating the possibility of sea-going container carrying craft which would also be capable of navigating the large waterways in the North-East.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the Waterways Board intends to buy such containers, will the Minister urge on it the importance of buying British containers rather than foreign ones, such as those bought by other Boards?
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question has profound implications for the Thames lighterage industry, and would he consider consulting it?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that this would be drawn to the attention of the British Waterways Board.

    White Paper on Public Transport Authorities
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of. Transport what consultations she had with local authorities between the publication of the White Paper on Public Transport Authorities and the printing of the Transport Bill.
    Mrs. Castle: We had very full consultations with local authorities before the White Paper was published.
    Mr. Webster: Is the Minister aware that there was an interval of three days between publication of the White Paper and the appearance of the Bill, and the letters emanating from her office had led local authorities concerned to understand that there was to be adequate consultation between the publication of the White Paper and the appearance of the Bill? As a result, have they not been seriously misled?
    Mrs. Castle: No. I cannot accept that, because we promised full consultation with the local authorities, and it is obviously very important that those should have taken place. It was because those consultations were going on right through November and because we wished to incorporate their results in the White Paper that publication of the White Paper came so near to the appearance of the Bill.
    Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Merseyside Steering Committee met to discuss the setting up of a passenger transport authority for the region, the votes on that occasion were almost equal, but that 15 members of a Conservative-controlled council abstained? Is that not an indication that even Conservative-controlled councils in the region are secretly in favour of the proposals?
    Mrs. Castle: I think that my hon. Friend's facts are broadly correct,
    422
    although I could not testify to every detail. It is true that many Conservative councils view with great enthusiasm the prospect of a big extension in the rôle of local government in this sphere of activity and that, as soon as the party political battle dust has settled, they will join with enthusism in making a success of the P.T.As., just as the G.L.C. will in London.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Returning to the main question, is the Minister aware that a letter went from her Ministry to a local authority stating categorically that there would be time for consultations between the publication of the White Paper and the Bill and that this commitment was not kept?
    Mrs. Castle: Consultations with the local authorities are still going on. They have gone on since Second Reading. A new round of consultations is about to start. It was important to pay attention to local authority views and get them reflected in the White Paper. It is obvious to anyone who compares the proposals in the White Paper with those in my original memorandum, on which I first went out for consultation, that we have listened to the local authorities and have embodied their views in the White Paper and the Bill.
    Mr. Webster: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    National Freight Corporation (Manpower)
    Mr. Websterasked the Minister of Transport what is the manpower requirement of the National Freight Corporation; and how many will be transferred from British Railways and how many recruited from other sources.
    Mrs. Castle: The manpower of the National Freight Corporation on vesting day, on the best estimate that can be made this far in advance, will be about 66,500, of which about 27,500 will be transferred from British Railways, and the other 39,000 from the Transport Holding Company.
    Mr. Webster: What is the Minister doing to make sure, through inter-trade

    423
    union discussion, that there is no dislocation of the National Freight Corporation as a result of dissension between the unions?
    Mrs. Castle: I have had many discussions with the trade unions on the principles behind my policy. Detailed discussions on the guarantees to their staff and the implications for their staff are commencing.
    Mr. Buchanan: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the pension rights and service rights of the transferred staff, together with the travelling facilities enjoyed by the employees of British Railways, will be maintained?
    Mrs. Castle: Certainly. We have no intention that the staff shall suffer. But the details of how fast and how far we can move towards common conditions of service, which is an issue involved in this question that my hon. Friend has raised, must be for consultation with the unions.

    Channel Tunnel Project
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the need for public economy, she will now cancel the Channel Tunnel project.
    Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does not the Minister realise that this whole concept is out of date? Would it not be much more effective, from the point of view of exports and efficiency, to concentrate on aircraft and hovercraft? When will the Government stop wasting public money and time on these futile projects?
    Mr. Morris: Traffic with the Continent, on the best estimates, is expected to grow considerably over the next 30 years—this is generally accepted—and the increased capacity to cater for it must be provided somehow. Economic studies which have taken place show that the tunnel is economically preferable to the alternatives.
    Mr. Deedes: If the hon. Gentleman is not going to cancel the project, can he give definite news fairly quickly to those who tremble on the brink of it?
    Mr. Morris: The final financial proposals have recently been received from the three banking consortia. They are
    424
    now being studied by my right hon. Friend and her counterpart in France. Obviously the decision must be made jointly with her French colleagues, and they must also agree on timing.
    Mr. Thin: Can we be told about the progress which has been made in the formulation of financial proposals for the construction of the tunnel?
    Mr. Morris: As I have just told the House, the financial proposals have been received and they are now being studied. My right hon. Friend hopes that a group to form the construction company will be selected in the near future.
    Mr. Lubbock: Without agreeing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), may I ask whether it would be advisable to wait until at least the end of this year when we shall have more experience of a much bigger hovercraft, the S.R.N.4, on cross-Channel routes?
    Mr. Morris: The House will be aware that the hovercraft is an important experiment; but, after all, it is an experiment at this stage. There are substantial indications that there will be a considerable growth of traffic in the years ahead. and this must be catered for on a substantial scale.

    Heavy Lorries (Tax)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport on what scientific calculations she bases her proposed wear and tear tax.
    Mrs. Castle: Upon the results of research undertaken by my Department and published in the Report on Road Track Costs on 15th February.
    Mr. Galbraith: Surely the right hon. Lady cannot be serious in suggesting that this road track cost goes anywhere near justifying her wear and tear tax. Is it not more than ever clear, after reading this, that the tax is an arbitrary Government decision taken to help the railways and that it has no scientific or economic justification behind it?
    Mrs. Castle: No. I cannot accept that for a moment. I am not surprised at the attitude of the Opposition in view of the way their recent scientifically

    425
    assessed document, giving estimates of the costs of my policy, has been shot down in flames.
    The track costs report shows that the ratio between revenues and costs is lower for heavy lorries than for most other vehicles, and that is the basis on which we justify the tax. It has nothing to do with the transfer of traffic from road to rail.
    Mr. Mapp: Does not the study show that highway costings, excluding environmental costings, are six times greater for the heavy motor vehicle compared with the private car? In view of those now established facts, why is it that the right hon. Lady is recovering only four-sevenths of the additional costs?
    Mrs. Castle: Because we have tempered the winds of economic reality to the shorn lamb of the British road haulage industry.
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of her proposal to impose a tax on heavy vehicles, she will take steps to reduce taxation on vehicles which cause minimal wear and tear on the roads.
    Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. All vehicles cause wear and tear to the roads, and the new charge is intended to offset some of the additional costs imposed by heavy goods vehicles.
    Mr. Campbell: Since the Ministry's Report on track costs confirms that, by any calculation, road vehicles, including heavy lorries as a group, pay much more in taxation than their track costs, why will the Minister not now make corresponding adjustments instead of making road transport as a whole more costly?
    Mr. Morris: Against a background of a continuing and expanding programme of heavy expenditure on road construction and improvement, no reduction in taxation of other vehicles could be justified. The hon. Member will be aware that there is less imposition as regards licensing on smaller vehicles and that this will be very much welcomed by small vehicle owners.
    Mr. Ogden: Since my hon. Friend has accepted the principle of wear and tear, would he not consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to reducing
    426
    the motor vehicle licence to a minimum fee and transfer that taxation to petrol?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to make that point to the Chancellor who has responsibility for these matters.

    Breathalysers
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the results during the first four months of the use by the police of breathalysers.
    Mrs. Castle: Deaths and serious injuries in October were 14 per cent. lower than in October, 1966. Deaths in November fell by 20 per cent. and serious injuries by 15 per cent.
    The full analysis of the December figures is not yet complete, but we know already that deaths fell by 33 per cent. and serious injuries by 22 per cent.
    While it would be wrong to attribute all these reductions to one single cause, I am satisfied that the new law on drinking and driving is the principal reason for these striking improvements.
    Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say whether those very satisfactory figures have been achieved largely by fewer drivers on the roads in the evenings after closing time or whether they show that drivers are drinking less?
    Mrs. Castle: No. When we published the October and November figures we gave our traffic estimates. Traffic increased by 4 per cent. in October and by 2 per cent. in November. In December there was a slight fall of 1 per cent. in traffic. We recognise the point about night traffic, because it is at night that the reductions have been most dramatic. In November we carried out a special analysis on night traffic. We estimate that over the month as a whole car traffic between 10 p.m. and midnight averaged 1 per cent. higher and between midnight and 4 a.m. it was 1 per cent. lower than in November, 1966. The corresponding reductions in casualties for these hours were 49 per cent. and 39 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the lives which could be saved in a full year if this improvement were to continue?
    Mrs. Castle: When the law was first introduced, I estimated that it might save 200 lives a year. If the November figures are maintained, the saving will be 1,600 lives a year.

    Road Transport (Quantity Licences)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Transport what will be the effect of her proposals for the reform of the carriers' licensing system on those parts of the country where British Railways do not provide a freightliner service.
    Mr. John Morris: Quality licensing will have the same effect everywhere—to improve and maintain lorry safety standards, whilst freeing operators from outdated and unnecessary quantity restrictions. The new quantity licences will be issued virtually automatically where there is no rail service which can compete with road in overall terms of speed, reliability and cost. Everyone can thus expect a more efficient, flexible and economic service from road transport in future.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will be very helpful and will destroy much of the propaganda of the other side of the House about carrier licensing? Is he further aware that it will reassure those who have been frightened because they were getting propaganda instead of facts?
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is vitally important to give the country facts and not fiction about the present Transport Bill.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore give one fact and agree that even in those areas where no railways are operating, it will still be possible for someone not to obtain a quantity licence due to an objection from the National Freight Authority?
    Mr. Morris: No.

    Coloured Bus Drivers
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport what representations she has received regarding the employment of coloured bus drivers; and what reply she has sent.
    Mr. Swingler: In the past 12 months we have received one representation relating to the company sector, which was referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour; and one relating to London Transport, who have assured us that they do not practise discrimination on grounds of colour.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today it was announced that there are more men unemployed in Birmingham than at any time for 20 years?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Pity the hon. Gentleman is not one of them."]—It is because I am employed here that I annoy hon. Members opposite so much with the facts which I produce. Would the hon. Gentleman do his best to encourage our own men to take on this important work?
    Mr. Swingler: Citizens of this country are, of course, being encouraged, where necessary, to take jobs in the bus industry and perform an important public service, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in deploring racial discrimination in any industry or service.
    Mr. John Fraser: Would my hon. Friend recognise that bus drivers of different colours make a better contribution to public transport than buses of different colours?

  PORTS

    Nationalisation
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a further statement on the nationalisation of the ports.
    Mr. Swingler: There is no further statement to make yet.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that taking over one undertaking alone would cost more than £100 million? How can he justify this on national grounds alone at the present time? Is he aware that we are beginning to think that the Minister is not considering the national interest, but is playing party politics?
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir, I am not aware of any of those things, but, as I have said before, I am aware that, in spite of widespread opposition to the public owner-

    429
    ship of the ports, most of the authorities of all kinds whom we have consulted wish to see the establishment of a national authority for the planning of the ports. We are not able to make a statement yet, because we are still consulting those authorities about the shape of the scheme.
    Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend say how soon we can expect this statement to be made? Many people in the ports, and hon. Members on this side of the House, are looking forward eagerly to the publication of the date of the nationalisation of the ports. Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision taken by the House last week was particularly welcomed in the Humber area?
    Mr. Swingler: I am aware that many people wish to see the shape of the scheme as soon as possible, because they strongly support it. A statement will be made within the next two or three months. I am not able to say exactly when, but we do not want to prolong the uncertainty, and we will specify the nature of the proposals as soon as possible.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman now confirm that the major user organisations, the Confederation of British Industry, and the Chamber of Shipping, have both categorically told the Government that they are strongly opposed to the nationalisation of the ports?
    Mr. Swingler: The organisations named by the hon. Gentleman have made plain to us, and in public, that they are opposed in principle to public ownership anywhere. What I have said previously is that, in spite of that, those organisations and others agree with us that a central planning authority for the ports is urgently necessary, and therefore that changes are necessary in the structure of the industry. They agree with that, and we are proceeding on the basis of those views to make a scheme which is as widely acceptable as possible.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear to my hon. Friend that all the workers' organisations representing the workers in the ports are fully behind public ownership? Is it not also clear to my hon. Friend that for a long time we have had backward ports, which need modernising, and that this car only be done under public ownership?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. The trade unions have expressed to us the view that they are fully in favour of proceeding with public ownership.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: When can the Port of Bristol, which is municipally owned, expect to receive the Government's blessing for its much needed improvement schemes?
    Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend recently told the planning council that its schemes and proposals are still under consideration, and indeed under discussion with the Port of Bristol Authority. She will make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my hon Friend agree to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the Thames lighterage industry to see how this fits in with nationalisation proposals for the Port of London?
    Mr. Swingler: As my hon. Friend knows, on his initiative we recently debated this matter in the House. My right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the possibility of an inquiry.

    Container Berths and Cargo Handling Techniques
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Minister of Transport what information she possesses about the improvement of productivity and the expansion of trade in those ports where container berths and other modern techniques of handling cargoes have been, or are being, introduced.
    Mr. Swingler: The actual increases vary considerably depending on the type and characteristics of the berth. Examples of specific developments of which we are aware show that productivity rates of the order of 10 times those found in conventional berths are being achieved. New or modernised facilities have also attracted substantial increases in trade.
    Mr. Lewis: Would my hon. Friend assure us that this expansion will continue?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes, it certainly will, since we are now investing more in the ports than ever before.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 8TH MARCH
  The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

  Mr. W. E. Garrett.

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Mr. Laurence Pavitt.

BILL PRESENTED
  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to succession to the property of deceased persons in cases of illegitimacy; to confer on illegitimate persons in Scotland the right to ligitim out of their deceased parents' estates; to amend the law of Scotland with respect to the construction of certain provisions made by deed or otherwise; to extend the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964 to tenancies of crofts; to amend the law of evidence in civil proceedings in Scotland; to re-enact, with amendments, the provisions of certain enactments relating to the duration of liferents in Scotland; further to amend the law of Scotland relating to prorogation of the jurisdiction of the sheriff court; to remove a restriction on the extent of land in Scotland which a trade union may purchase or take upon lease and otherwise deal with; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. William Ross; supported by Mr. Norman Buchan, read the First time, to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish Parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; to amend the Government of Ireland Act; and for purposes connected thereto.
I do this at a time when the electorate is increasingly disenchanted with politicians as a race and when some have questioned the value of Parliamentary democracy itself. I suggest that much of this springs from a feeling that people are powerless to influence events. Indeed, power today is increasingly concentrated in Whitehall, which is in turn increasingly remote from argument and control. We need to change the power structure in Britain, and this Bill will attempt to take a first step in that direction.
The Bill has two objectives—first, to involve the maximum number of people in the country in decision-taking—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a background of conversation which makes it very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to be heard.
Mr. Thorpe: I repeat, Sir, that the Bill has two objectives. The first is to involve the maximum number of people in the country in decision-taking, which would go far to restore faith in democracy. The second is to relieve the pressure on Parliament so that we may have more full debates and control over the wider issues.
The policy of my party is long-standing and consistent and I think that the House would be disappointed if I were not in this context to quote Mr. Gladstone, who as long ago as 1879, at the opening of the Midlothian campaign, said this:
"I propose that a measure of home rule should be conferred upon different portions of the United Kingdom in order to relieve Parliament of overwhelming business … If arrangements could be made under which Ireland, Scotland, Wales and portions of England could deal with questions of local and special interest to themselves, that would be the attainment of a great national good."
If those words were true then, I suggest that they are even truer now.

433
Unfortunately, for half a century those efforts were frustrated by the entrenched reactionaries, particularly in another place, who bitterly opposed Irish home rule. In retrospect, we know how ill-advised they were, for the Irish people, denied home rule, resorted to open-rebellion. rejected home rule, and ended with partition and republican status for Eire.
Numerous attempts have been made by Liberal colleagues over the years—most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who two years ago introduced a Measure to provide home rule for Scotland, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who introduced a similar measure designed to do the same for Wales, and by my noble Friend Lord Ogmore in another place a few weeks ago.
In proposing Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, I would ask the Government: why, like their Conservative predecessors, are they afraid to give elected representatives of the Scottish and Welsh nations control over their own home affairs? Do they think that they are incapable? Do they think that they will run amok if they are given this power? Is a nominated Council for Wales, a formula usually reserved for backward colonies, appropriate to the Principality? I would ask, too: since the process of administrative devolution has at least produced what is virtually a Scottish Civil Service, is it not logical to provide a Scottish Parliament to control it?
Time and again in our constitutional history we have belatedly conceded in bitterness what could and should have been granted in logic. The demand for Parliaments in Scotland and Wales is cleat, logical and unassailable.
Turning to Northern Ireland, I accept that the only existing precedent is not entirely a happy one, but this is not a criticism of devolution as such, but of the tensions that remain in Northern Ireland. But just as we must aspire to maintain the same living standards throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, so, in practice, there must be the same guarantees of human rights, wherever the citizen may live. When one considers the rejection of a Parliamentary Commissioner in Ulster, the exist-
434
ence of the Special Powers Act, and plural voting in local government elections in Ireland, it is clear that this cannot be said of Northern Ireland today. My Bill would seek to effect the necessary Amendments.
If the House concedes that there is a strong case for Parliaments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, it is logical to ask: what provision should be made in England? It is true that much of England—I am thinking of regions such as the North-East and, indeed, my own area, the South-West—feel as remote from London as do Scotland and Wales. If Wales and Scotland are to have their own Parliaments, it follows that there will remain issues of exclusively English significance. There is clearly a need for a wide measure of devolution. The regions of England are not in the same way the homes of nations, and it is not therefore surprising that there has not yet been great pressure for an English Parliament. Certainly, to take the two Commonwealth examples of Australia and Canada, provincial Legislatures are not unknown.
My Bill suggests that a Commission should examine the purely English problem and that in the meantime English problems should be dealt with in this House by English Members sitting alone, possibly as a Committee of the whole House.
In short, I propose that a Federal Parliament would continue to deal with matters such as Foreign Affairs and Defence for the United Kingdom as a whole, and that Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would have sole control over their own domestic affairs, that the Government of Northern Ireland Act should be amended to provide adequate safeguards for religious, political and cultural minorities, and that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom would continue to sit in a Federal Parliament whose total membership could probably be halved.
I believe that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit greatly from the unity of the Kingdom. We are able to help each other and to make distinctive contributions in the political, social and cultural and economic life of the United Kingdom. No one should lightly disregard these advantages. At the same time I

435
am convinced that to promote distinctive national life, to involve people in their own future, to restore vigour to our democratic system, devolution is a matter for urgent action.
In conclusion, I ask of the House that we should not repeat the mistakes of Ireland. We should, as a mature democracy, recognise that our system of government and our Parliamentary institutions are capable of improvement. I invite the House to accept this Bill as presenting an opportunity to do the right thing at the right time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thorpe, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, and Mr. David Steel.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Bill to establish Parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; to amend the Government of Ireland Act; and for purposes connected thereto, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the welfare of livestock and to make provision for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any increase in the payments out of such moneys which is attribuatble to provisions of the said Act providing for the extension of the functions of agricultural wages committees established in pursuance of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949;

(2) any expenditure incurred by any Minister or government department (other that the Postmaster General) in making payments to assist in the reorganisation of the affairs of a tenant of an agricultural holding in cases where the Minister or department acquire the tenant's interest in, or take possession of, the holding or part of it in exercise of compulsory powers;

(3) any exenditure incurred by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in making to a river authority grants in respect of works executed by the authority in pursuance of section 35 of the Land Drainage Act 1961.—[Mr. Peart.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have had posted a list of the Amendments which I have selected for consideration today. With new Clause No. 1, we are to consider the following two Amendments: Amendment No. 42, in Clause 51, page 40, line 14, leave out ' and 45 ' and insert:
  '44, 45 and (Further functions of agricultural wages committees)'
  Amendment No. 44, Title, in line 16, after 1926 ' insert:
  ' the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 '.

New Clause No. 1.

  (FURTHER FUNCTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES)
  (1) The Minister may by regulations—

  (a) provide that the functions under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 of agricultural wages committees established in pursuance of that Act shall include such further functions as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling or requiring those committees to give effect to orders made or which may be made by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales under that Act and (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions in this paragraph) to determine whether any person is a member of any special class of workers as defined in such an order;

  (b) make provision with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the exercise of the further functions aforesaid and provide that section 15 of that Act (which relates to evidence of resolutions and orders) shall apply with such modifications as the Minister considers appropriate to decisions made in the exercise of those functions.

  (2) In this section "functions" means powers and duties.
  (3) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales there shall be substituted 7espectively a reference to the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.—[Mr. Peart.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The Clause would extend the powers and duties of agricultural wages committees. This is necessary because the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales has just reached agreement in principle on proposals for a statutory wages structure under which, in addition to a basic minimum wage as at present, higher minimum rates of pay would be prescribed for workers possessing particular skills or occupying positions of special responsibility.
  It is proposed that the qualifications required for the premium grades should be laid down in the Board's orders, together with a provision that, in certain marginal cases, a worker's entitlement to a particular grade would be decided by the agricultural wages committee for the county in which he is employed.
  This would, however, necessitate a small amendment to the Agricultural Wages Act, as at the moment committees have no power to take on additional duties of this kind. The Board accordingly asked for suitable provision to be made in the present Bill to enable me to confer upon the wages committees such additional powers and duties as may be necessary. The request, I am pleased to say, is supported by the farmers' and workers' unions.
  As regards the Clause itself, it will be seen that we propose to apply it to Scotland, which has its own Wages Board and district committees set up under the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act, 1949. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend who is to reply to deal with that. There is one other point. As the House knows, the Boards are autonomous bodies; they make their own orders fixing minimum rates of wages and so forth, and Ministers have no power to intervene in the exercise of their functions. Their position under this Clause is unchanged. The Clause enables the rather limited functions of the wages committees to be extended by the Minister but it does not in any way detract from the powers and duties of the Boards. New functions given to the committees by the Minister will have no practical effect unless they

  439
  are brought into play by an appropriately worded order of the Board itself.
  I cannot say when the proposals for a wages structure will be worked out, and it may be a considerable time before they are implemented by order of the Board. It could, however, be longer still before there is another opportunity for amending the Act, as the Board has requested, and this is why we have decided to insert a Clause in this Bill.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Clause, though, perhaps, it might have helped us more if the Clause had appeared in the Bill originally. However, we understand that there may be reasons why it has been possible only recently to bring it forward. We on this side welcome at least the intention behind the Clause. It is a step forward in a process which has been evolved over a considerable time. Over the years, there has been a lot of thought and, sometimes, a certain amount of controversy regarding a wages structure for the industry, but I believe that it is a logical step forward, and for that reason we welcome this proposal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will deal with the provision regarding Scotland, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. This is, we believe, one of the rare occasions when, perhaps, Scotland is a little ahead of England and Wales. We readily acknowledge that.
  As regards the generality of matters raised by the Clause, the Minister will agree that its introduction at this time has a certain appositeness. The whole question of training and education in agriculture has come very much to the fore, as he knows. The right hon. Gentleman has not been so closely concerned, perhaps, because these matters have come under the Ministry of Labour, but he will know very well that, to put it no more strongly, there has been considerable perturbation about the Agricultural Training Board.
  There is something of a duality here. The Agricultural Wages Board is dealing with a wages structure, and the whole question of training must be involved in it. Other industries have wages coun-
  440
  cils, as they are mostly called, and these come under the Ministry of Labour. Agriculture has its own arrangements which come under its own Minister. Nevertheless, the point has been made on previous occasions in the House that there may well be a case for the Agricultural Training Board to come under the Minister of Agriculture. I am not suggesting that it would be possible to do this under the present new Clause, but there is that close relationship.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter cannot be discussed on this Clause.
  Mr. Godber: May I submit the point to you, Mr. Speaker? We are dealing here with the question of a wages structure, and the Agricultural Wages Board must be concerned with the training which enables people to fit into a particular part of the structure. I do not wish to develop the point, but I submit that it would be wrong for us to deal with the present question completely in isolation, when there is a clear link between what is provided under the training scheme and the categories to be provided for under the Clause. I put it to the Minister that, at some stage, the Government of the day ought to look at the relationship here just as they do in relation to other industries, bringing the two sides of the business under the umbrella of one Minister. There is reason to consider whether things may not go at cross-purposes under the set-up which we now have. I take the matter no further now.
  The development of a general wages structure within the industry will help to provide what we all want to see in the long run, namely, a proper recognition of skill in the industry and proper rewards for the skill which is undoubtedly there. This is what we all wish to achieve. If the new Clause will help to that end, we on this side give it a warm welcome.
  Mr. Anthony Stodart: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply, to clarify one or two points? I think that I was probably right to assume that the Clause would have slightly more relevance to England and Wales than to Scotland, but a phrase in line 8 has caught my eye. It is:
  "…any person who is a member of any special class of worker…"

  441
  I do not know if that is the kernel of the proposal. My understanding is that in England and Wales there is no classification of workers under the Wages Acts for wage awards, although it exists in Scotland. I do not have a wage schedule with me, but my recollection is that male workers are grouped as ordinary farm workers—or what are called in Scotland orramen, of whom there are very few nowadays—grieves, tractormen and shepherds, each of whom has a minimum wage rate, probably varying between each wage district.
  If that is so, and if power is being given for England and Wales to come into line with us, could the hon. Gentleman tell us what application the Clause will have to Scotland? There is a reference in subsection (3) to its application in Scotland, and it would seem that that was not put in for no purpose. What will be the effect on the agricultural wages system in Scotland?
  Mr. Bert Hazell: As a member of the Agricultural Wages Board for over 20 years, I welcome the Clause. As my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, the Board has for a very long time had some form of wages structure for agriculture under consideration. The matter has not been easy. I have taken part in discussions on the Board for more than 20 years, off and on, but it is only within the past 18 months or so that it has really got down to detailed consideration of how a wages structure could work for an industry so involved as British agriculture. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that the Board has not yet finalised its plans or arrived at details of a wages structure. But it is confidently expected that by the end of this year a detailed plan will be submitted. Then it will be a question of how to operate the plan.
  When making its unanimous decision to ask my right hon. Friend to introduce a Clause on the lines of that which we are considering, the Board had in mind that undoubtedly about 90 per cent. of the workers employed in agriculture will automatically fall into the scheme of a wages structure, but that there will be 10 or 12 per cent. about whom there will be problems of whether they have the necessary skill and knowledge to be
  442
  classified for the plus rate that the various scales will permit. It is unanimously suggested that the better people to sort out the problems of that minority are the members of the local wages committees, who have local knowledge of the men and employers concerned. But the Board understood that at present it does not have the power to delegate that responsibility to the committees, and that is why it sought the support of the Minister and the introduction of the Clause.
  In its early stages, the operation of a wages structure will create some difficulties, but in view of the importance of attracting men on to the land and of men recognising that the industry has a career and opportunities to offer, it is essential that something more than the basic minimum wages should be legally operative, and that there should be fair recognition of skill and responsibility in the pay packet. That is the practical way in which recognition of skills and responsibilities is appreciated by workers.
  It is well known that many good farmers unofficially pay premiums, bonuses, plus rates or some other form of additional payments above the basic minimum rates. But the Board long ago came to the conclusion that it was unfair that good employers should recognise their responsibilities in that way when perhaps some others did not recognise their obligations to reward the skill of their workers financially. That is what impelled the Board to get down to practical details of working out a wage structure. The Clause will enable the local wages committees to iron out difficulties between employers and employed in the minority of cases that are not capable of automatically being fitted into a wages structure.
  Therefore, on behalf of the Board and my own union, I welcome the Clause and the reception it has received from both sides of the House.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I welcome the new Clause and entirely agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) that it is very important.
  We sometimes fail to realise how agriculture may well find itself extremely short of skilled men, especially skilled stockmen, in the years ahead. In the

  443
  big arable farms of East Anglia and Yorkshire, where there are fairly regular hours and where, during a great part of the year, not very much may be happening on the farm, it may be easy to get men. But my mind dwells much more on the stock-raising areas, where conditions are often not as good or comfortable as they are in the East, and where, particularly when one is handling stock, the men invariably work seven days a week and not five days a week. I know men who have had to milk cattle twice a day, day in and day out, all through the week, for years on end. The Clause will allow us to categorise the skills of agricultural labour and to fit in a wages structure suitable to those skills. It is only by doing that, and doing it generously, particularly for skilled stockmen, that we shall obtain the men that the industry must attract.
  What amazes me beyond all measure is that such an important matter as this should have been introduced into the Bill practically at the tail end of our proceedings. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. It has happened throughout the Bill, and the only conclusion I can draw is that when the Minister worked out what he wished to include in the Bill he did his job in a somewhat cavalier manner. One or two Clauses which we shall debate later today should never have been introduced at a late stage. I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of why an important matter like this is introduced at the tail end of our proceedings. What conditions have suddenly arisen to justify this? What conditions are coming today that were not coming last November?
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must surely have heard what I said at the beginning. I had to take action at this stage because of the recent decision of the Board.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining it. But I cannot help feeling that, the whole question of skills and wages having been under consideration for a very long time, the right hon. Gentleman should have been aware that this matter was coming up. However, I am grateful for and accept his explanation and I welcome the Clause.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I understand that the provisions of the Bill as it affects the Scottish agricultural workers will be more fully explained by my right hon. Friend in replying to this debate. Because wages in Scotland are being linked with those in England, I understand that the Bill will help raise the standard of life at least a little for the Scottish agricultural workers, and I am grateful for that.
  I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) attacked my right hon. Friend for being rather late in this respect. When did we get any Measure of this kind from the Conservative Government? It is entirely new to me that hon. Members opposite are concerned about the wages of agricultural labourers. When it comes to rents for landlords, they are always enthusiastic. Now they have decided at this late stage, after having enjoyed political power for so long, to accuse the present Government of being late.
  I rejoice in this new Clause and hope that it will result in raising the standard of living of agricultural workers throughout the country.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I, too, welcome the Clause, but I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Some of us have been interested in wages for a long time and practise what we preach.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is interesting.
  Mr. Mills: I have always believed in a wage structure and have always put it into operation on my farm. Many farmers do it because they want to reward their men for the skills they have—and they are genuine skills. The other side of the coin is that, if one did not introduce a wage structure, one would not get workers. I welcome the new Clause. It is right that, in 1968, men should be paid for the undoubted skill they have.
  However, I must criticise the Minister in that we should have had far more time to discuss it. There are many points one would like to go into—for example, whether the N.F.U. and the National Union of Agricultural Workers have been

  445
  fully consulted. There is also the problem of the small farmer with one man. This will create problems which must be overcome and we should have had a chance to discuss them.
  How do we define skills? How do we put a man into a category when he may be a cowman in the morning and a tractor driver during the day? How does one define the skilled worker? The Clause gives hope of a proper farm ladder for the farm worker which he can move up as he gains these various skills and can enjoy the very high standard of living which is true of the top people in the dairy industry at the moment. My cow man earns over £22 a week. He is a skilled man and is enjoying the advantages of that skill. That is only right and proper. Of course other men should have these advantages as well and that is why I welcome the new Clause.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I also welcome the Clause. It is important to keeping men on the land. I agree that it is a pity that we could not have had this provision before us in Standing Committee, when we could have had a good discussion of it. I think that the Minister feels that himself and he should have brought it forward in Committee.
  I also disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) about his aspersions upon East Anglian farmers and farm workers. It is not only stockmen who have to work long hours. People lifting sugar beet and loading it—
  Sir Frank Pearson: I apologise to my hon. Friend. It was never my intention to cast any aspersion on East Anglian agricultural workers. I merely wished to point out that the conditions in the wetter, colder grass areas of the west side of the country entail very long hours which will never be found, possibly, on the arable farms on the East side of the country.
  Mr. Hawkins: I invite my hon. Friend to come to Norfolk in November to lift sugar beet. He will see how the wind can blow.
  I must also cross swords with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I raised the matter of agricul-
  446
  tural wages 15 years ago. I have been fighting for higher wages for agricultural workers all that time. I mentioned them in my maiden speech and initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: What success did the hon. Gentleman have in those 15 years?
  Mr. Hawkins: As much, apparently, as the hon. Gentleman. It is a great concern to anyone interested in agriculture that agricultural workers earn £5 a week less and work five hours a week longer on average than manual workers in industry. So I welcome anything which will give the agricultural worker a status and enable him to qualify for better skills. I welcome the Clause, late though it is.
  Mr. John Farr: I, too, welcome the Clause, but perhaps with more caution than some of my hon. Friends. In the Midlands we have had to provide an adequate wage structure for our farm employees for years. Industrial employment in the Midlands is at a very high level, with the unemployment rate at about or just under 1 per cent. per annum on average. The result has been tremendous competition for skilled and sensible agricultural labour, and unless one pays one's men not what the Wages Board lays down but considerably more, and one's skilled stock men considerably more still, one has not a chance in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire or Nottinghamshire of keeping men on the land.
  In the Midlands, therefore, in some respects we are ahead of the Board, and I welcome the Clause. But my welcome is somewhat cautious in so far as I can see considerable difficulty in laying down exactly what the remuneration should be or, for example, a stockman. He has many ancillary duties. Will the rate be based on the number of animals in his charge? This will have to be worked out with great care so that the industry does not get too bogged down in red tape and difficulty.
  I give a cautious welcome to the Clause. I was not lucky enough to be a member of the Standing Committee, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has acted a little unfairly in bringing this before the House at such a late stage.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I cannot help feeling that the traditional party's enthusiasm for agricultural wages is of fairly modern date. For generation after generation the agricultural wage was kept at the very bottom. The county road man got two bob a week more and the groom got two bob a week more. I can remember my father telling me about the trouble which he had with the neighbourhood when he paid £1 a week instead of 18s., which was what his neighbours were paying. He was told that it was letting the side down. Perhaps that is going back a bit, but, none the less, there is no doubt that that was the attitude for generations.
  It resulted in a highly inefficient agriculture. The lower the wages, the more inefficient an industry is, right through that industry. The most inefficient industries of all are the slave employing industries. Slavery went less because of enlightened ideas than because it proved hopelessly inefficient as a means of production. The great improvement which we have seen since the war—and it is since the war that the great rise in agricultural wages has occurred—has been caused more than anything by high agricultural wages, for as wages went up, labour had to be used more efficiently. Farmers could not afford to use labour unintelligently when they had to pay so much for it.
  Agriculture has increased its efficiency far more than has any other industry in the country. Agriculture is ahead of the towns, ahead of the factories. It is far more efficient than any of its European competitors, a factor which always comes into my mind when I hear discussions about the Common Market. It is all founded on the fact that we pay the highest wages.
  However, I am by no means certain that this proposal will work in the rather special terms of agricultural employment. Demand for skilled men now exceeds supply and a good man can command a very high wage, far higher than any wages board can give him. I doubt whether at this stage the skilled man needs this protection and I wonder whether, instead of being a minimum wage, the rate laid down by the Board will be treated as a maximum wage. This wants watching. It is for the Board to consider this—we are not settling anything—but I
  448
  doubt whether at this stage regulating wages will be to the benefit of the men or the industry.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It is an honour to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I agree with much of what he had to say at the end of his speech. I will not comment on his history of agricultural wages other than to say that much of what he said was true.
  I, too, wonder whether the new Clause is a good idea. I wonder whether the time has not come to do away with the Agricultural Wages Board. I begin to wonder whether it is necessary in the context of today. The hon. and learned Member was right to argue that the advance in agricultural wages was largely due to the shortage of skilled men, who are now in a very strong position. The whole purpose of wages councils has been to protect men who were in a weak position, to bolster their wages, but those conditions no longer exist. Can the right hon. Gentleman justify not only the Clause, but the retention of the Board in conditions in which it is no longer fundamentally necessary?
  I agree with those who have stressed the importance of a new structure of wages and of a ladder so that men can work their way up and receive higher rates of remuneration as their skills increase, but I do not believe that the use of the Wages Board is the best way in which to achieve that aim. I do not believe that we should extend its powers in this context. We have moved away from the days in the 1930s, and even the 1940s and 1950s, when the Board was necessary. In the late 1960s and 1970s it may be an encumbrance and even a hindrance and make us liable to forget that its wages level may be regarded as the maximum. Most farmers now pay well above the rates laid down by the Board and surely the time has come for the right hon. Gentleman to question whether this structure is necessary and whether amending legislation might not be needed to abolish it.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Minister has admitted that this is not only an enabling Clause, but, in a sense, a paving Clause, because he expects, before there is any future opportunity for agricultural legislation, to

  449
  agree a general scheme as a basis for regulations. From what we have already heard, there seems to be material for a fairly general debate on the whole problem. The disadvantage of taking the Clause this afternoon is that we do not have a background against which to debate it. Our next opportunity to hear of any developments in this important project may be only when regulations have been published.
  I therefore hope that the Minister will assure us that, as and when a general scheme with agreed principles comes into being, we shall be able to discuss the wages implications in advance of any regulations. It should be possible to arrange for such a short debate and I should be much happier about accepting this admittedly important Clause if we could have some such assurance.
  Mr. Hazell: As the Agricultural Wages Board is now constituted, it is unneccesary for regulations to be issued for a variation in basic rates, and the rates to be applied under the new structure to particular branches of the industry will be basic rates. The whole Board, farmers' and workers' representatives, is fully alive to the difficulties which have been mentioned. All that the new Clause does in effect is to empower the wages committees to sort out difficulties as between men and employers, and the Board itself will determine any argument about where a man fits into the scheme.
  Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has reinforced my case, which is that the Clause will not give us the automatic right to discuss the principles of a wages structure. That is important because, as my right hon. Friend has said, there must be co-ordination of the bodies deciding what categories of skill can be used in an agricultural wages structure, and those bodies are nowhere near providing for agricultural training and education.
  I apprehend that the easiest way of running the classification system would be on a basis of certification. It is only when there is no certification, that that kind of appeal to the Wages Board of which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) spoke will arise. I hope that the Minister will give us some undertaking about a debate. He will get his legislation, but we need to debate
  450
  the principles and the subject matter covered by this new Clause.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I join with most of my hon. Friends in welcoming this new Clause, for one particular reason. If we can get a wages structure operating within the industry it will materially help to keep more men on the land. I am very worried about this drift from the land, which has been talked of all through my life as a farmer, but which has become much more serious lately, when the effects of mechanisation are being felt and when there is a real shortage of labour on farms.
  If we can get a wages structure and can formalise the existing informal structure it will provide a great boost for training. Some of my hon. Friends are rather dubious about training and have some rude things to say about the Agricultural Training Board. I share most of those feelings but one cannot get away from the necessity to have a greater degree of training among our farm workers.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss training on this new Clause.
  Mr. Jopling:This structure works well informally. It will be desperately hard to organise. If we are to have such a structure it must take place with the Minister's assistance. We can only have a healthy wage structure in industry if the prosperity of agriculture is much higher than it is now. I know that I will be out of order in going any further, but this is an absolutely vital matter.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to ask four brief questions on the new Clause, which I welcome. First, why has the Minister brought it in now? There was a long, massive Agriculture Act and it seems that that would have been the appropriate moment for it. There has been a very long Committee stage, which I did not have the pleasure to attend, but I would have thought that it could have been brought in then.
  Secondly, can the Minister explain how this wages structure will work? No one will want to be at the bottom of it. There will be two essential features, categories and differentials. It is extremely difficult to define categories among farm workers. Farm work is an

  451
  all-round occupation. Often, on my own small farm, I find that on the same day I am called upon to work as a carpenter, a bricklayer, a stockman, a book-keeper, a general labourer, geneticist and stenographer. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of how he is to do it.
  Thirdly, if the Board is to do it, what criteria will the Minister give to the Board as to how it should establish differentials between one branch of farm work and another? During the debate the suggestion seems to have crept in that this new Clause could mean an increase in farm workers' pay. I can see nothing suggesting that. When the Minister replies I hope he will say that the enormous new skill and investment that is now to be seen on the land will reap its commensurate reward. If a new wages structure does not succeed in improving the take-home pay of the farm worker it will not be worth the paper it is written on.
  I must comment on the extraordinary speech made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who is not in the Chamber now. In my constituency of West Suffolk we have been seeking higher real pay for the farm worker for a very long time. It is disgraceful that an unemployed person in the Midlands car industry can still get more pay for not working than the farm worker gets for putting in five or six days, in all weathers, at all skills. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there is nothing in Government policy that will prevent this new wages structure improving the real income of the farmworker.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): We have had a good debate, covering a good deal of ground. I regret that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is out of the Chamber, because I know that he would have been delighted to have had so many allies in his plea for higher wages. There is nothing in this Bill relating to wages, as hon. Members will know.
  452
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked about the effect of this new Clause in Scotland. He was referring back to the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act, 1949. In subsection (5) of the Third Schedule the question of a special class of worker is written in. The position is that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board has not so far advanced proposals for a wages structure of the kind that has now been agreed in principle in England and Wales. It has adopted a rudimentary wages structure prescribing minimum wages for general workers and higher minimum wages for various classes of general workers, such as shepherds, stockmen and so on. There has been no difficulty in doing this; it is a function for the Board, not for a direction from my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The reason I ask the hon. Member to say that there was nothing in Government policy that would affect such things is that, as he knows, there is a prices and incomes policy and the need to prove productivity—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may know, but he cannot talk about it now.
  Mr. Buchan: I did not know it, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that the question was out of order.
  More than one speaker has asked why this new Clause should be brought in now. The answer is perfectly simple. It is only now that the Board for England and Wales has reached agreement in principle on these proposals for a statutory wages structure. It is agreed that we should bring this in as quickly as possible. The proposal meets with general agreement in the industry, both farmers and workers supporting it, and agreeing that it should be brought in at the earliest possible moment. We have consulted the Scottish employers and workers organisations who support the proposal that this opportunity should be taken to make possible the extension of these functions to Scotland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2.

  (REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK.)
  4.30 p m.
  Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 25, after ' food ', insert implant or injection '.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 46, in line 26, after food ', insert implant or injection '.
  Mr. Davidson: I apologise to the Minister for the lateness with which the Amendment was submitted, but I was trying to ascertain whether the point in question had been raised in Committee. I understand that it was not. The Clause gives powers to Ministers to introduce regulations to prevent suffering to animals due to either constricted accommodation, improper diet or mutilation of any sort. An outstanding omission from the powers which the Clause gives to Ministers appears to be that of prohibiting or regulating the introduction into an animal by means of implantation or injection of substances which might cause suffering or have other side effects. The Amendment seeks to remedy that omission.
  In addition, I had in mind the human aspect of the problem. As the Minister well knows, substances are used by implantation for capernising fowls for later consumption. Substances such as hexaestrol are implanted behind the ears of. fattening livestock to make them grow faster and fatter, and various preparations are introduced by means of injection—iron injections in pigs, for example—to which additives could be added. A whole variety of vitamin and antibiotic preparations is used for injection into various livestock.
  I do not say that those substances are necessarily dangerous or cause suffering to the animal, but while the opportunity exists it should be taken of giving the Ministers additional powers to prohibit or regulate the use of certain substances, if necessary, if it is considered that they might cause suffering to livestock or have undesirable side effects on human beings who later consume the carcases or products of the livestock which have had implantations or injections.
  454
  If it is not out of order to say so, the whole thalidomide incident and the results from it should be a warning to the nation of what can happen if substances are used in any way without having been properly tested by research and other means. I do not believe that people yet fully understand the possible side effects or outcome of these growth elements which are implanted into livestock to make the meat more tender or to make them grow more rapidly.
  I urge the Government to use this opportunity not only to take extra powers to protect animals against possible suffering due to injection or implantation of undesirable substances, but also to ensure control in safeguarding the rights of the public. The Minister will be well aware that there are many among the public who are extremely worried about the type of substance which is now used to aid the farmer—and being a farmer myself, I should, perhaps, declare an interest—in getting his fatstock more quickly to market.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Being a farmer, I suppose that I should declare my interest in this subject. The House will appreciate that the generality of regulation-making powers which we seek in subsection (1) would enable us to deal with the welfare implications, if any. I ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) to realise that there is no proof that any welfare issue is attached to implanting or injecting. I have been trying to think particularly of injections which could involve a welfare consideration other than the welfare of the animal in a veterinary sense. It would be difficult to argue that implanting was in any way cruel to the animal.
  The hon. Member mentioned that we had particularised three points in the Clause. This part of the Bill arose out of the Brambell Report and we have particularised the three points which that Report particularly put forward. If any welfare consideration is attached to implanting or injections, it can be dealt with by the generality of the power to make regulations. We will, of course, keep an eye on all practices which are adopted in the rearing and keeping of farm animals and we shall deal with welfare aspects as they arise. That is

  455
  why we have sought the wide powers under the Clause as a whole.
  The hon. Member made a point of the human aspect. This really has nothing to do with animal welfare. In any event, it is dealt with under the Food and Drugs Act and that position is not altered under the new Medicines Bill which is now in course of passage through the House. For these reasons, the Amendments would be entirely unnecessary additions to the Bill and I must ask the House to reject them.
  Mr. Godber: I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) in moving the Amendment. We in the Conservative Party have viewed the Clause in a rather different light. Our view was that the Government were taking unduly wide and general powers. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that in Committee we had a considerable debate on this aspect. We said that the Clause went too wide and covered too great a generality of matters and gave the Minister powers which we did not feel had been justified.
  In resisting the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman rests his case on that generality of powers which the Clause contains. He is almost putting it forward as a virtue of the Bill. It is extraordinary how Ministers can become, as it were, corrupted by their own power in this way and in seeking these enormously wide powers.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, "Don't worry, old boy. If it does not come by the use of your words, subsection (1) is so wide in phrasing that we can get in practically anything we want." It is deplorable that such legislation should be brought forward. That was why we were critical of the Clause in Committee. We believe that it is too widely drawn.
  I would not be opposed to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, because he seeks, in a sense, to make the Clause more specific. The whole Clause needs redrafting, however, to make it narrower and in such a form that Ministers do not have the wide, sweeping powers in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary so clearly revels.
  456
  Therefore, while I am in no sense hostile to the Amendment, I regret to say that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is right in saying that he has these wide powers. I do not think that he should have them, and we resisted them in Committee. Having dealt with the matter at some length upstairs, however, Mr. Speaker, I know that you would not wish me to follow it further here. I merely wanted to make clear our position in regard to the Amendment.
  Mr. James Davidson: I listened with interest to the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I appreciate that sweeping powers are taken in the Clause, but at this stage in the progress of a Bill there is no opportunity to undo any damage which may have been done by the Government in seeking to take wide and sweeping powers.
  My point, which I hope I got across, is that if the Government are taking those wide and sweeping powers, they have made an omission in them in that there is nothing which I can read into the Clause to cover the possible suffering which might be caused to livestock by injection or implantation. I realise that the Brambell Report is behind this part of the Bill, but surely that does not preclude the introduction of other principles into the Bill. By my Amendment, I seek to work in a little bit of consumer protection and perhaps, in the broadest sense, I am treating human beings as livestock, but I should have thought that that was permissible under the Bill. If the Minister insists that that is so—and I should like him to answer this point—I will naturally bow to his judgment and accept his assurance that his point can be dealt with in regulations. I seek to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
  Mr. George Willis: On a point of order. I understood that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) was withdrawing his Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman was speaking for a second time which, I understand, is out of order on Report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): On Report, an hon. Member who moves an Amendment has a right to reply. I understood the hon. Member

  457
  for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) to say that if the Minister gave a certain assurance he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. That is why I looked to the Minister to see wheter he will give that assurance. As the Minister did not rise, and as the Amendment has not been formally withdrawn, I called the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he will define a "balanced diet". Apparently he will consult such persons appearing to represent the interests concerned. Is he proposing to lay down precisely what kind of balanced diet my constituents should have in their piggeries and livestock units at any stage of the breeding or fattening cycle? If he is, I suggest, as many of my hon. Friends did in Committee, that he is taking far too much power. The farmer is likely to know a good deal more about this matter than the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will say precisely how he will define a "balanced diet" and whether he proposes to go into enormous detail in the regulations which emanate from his Ministry.
  Mr. John Mackie: With permission, I should like to give the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) the assurance that his point is covered under the clause and in the Food and Drugs Act. The point about a balanced diet has absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment. However, if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) cares to join me in a cup of coffee, I will tell him how to balance a diet.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I can understand what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) is trying to achieve. He is trying to protect the consumer. But there is another side to this matter, and this is why I am not happy about the Amendment.
  It is important that we should be allowed to use all the modern methods in agriculture. As I said many times in Committee, the consumer cannot have it both ways. If people want good food at a reasonable price, the farmers must be allowed to use the most modern methods, which include implants and injections.
  458
  To give a practical example, suppose that pigs are suffering because they are doing badly. An injection of iron, or aureomycin in their feed, can alter the whole picture. The difference in the health and growth of the pigs after they have had these injections is remarkable. They no longer suffer, and a healthy carcase for the consumer results. If people want food at a reasonable price, farmers must be allowed to use the most modern methods.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): I should like to ask the Minister whether he would have power—and I presume that this would be one of the powers which would be given if the Amendment were accepted—to stop the injection of something into a calf which created anaemia. Anaemia has been deliberately created by means of an unbalanced diet to make veal white. I have seen these animals in Holland. As the Minister probably knows, the President of the British Veterinary Association and I wrote a paper on this matter.
  If as a result of the Brambell Report the Minister is given power to ensure a balanced diet and that an injection can be substituted for the iron which is provided by a balanced diet, it will destroy any action which the Minister may take and create the very conditions which I am sure he and all of us who have any care for animals are anxious to avoid.
  Mr. John Mackie: Before the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, I made it clear that we have the very wide powers which he would like us to have but which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) would not like us to have.
  Mr. James Davidson: I believe that the remarks of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) were irrelevant to the Amendment. If he cares to visit my farm in West Aberdeenshire, he will find that we employ not only modern but humane methods of husbandry.
  In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 45, at end insert:
  (3) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  I should like to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 39, in page 39, line 23, after 23(1)(b) ', insert:
  ' and regulations under section 2 '.
  Amendment No. 1 fulfils an undertaking which we gave in Committee. It means that Ministers will have to secure an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament before any regulations made under Clause 2 can take effect. Amendment No. 39 is purely consequential. I am sure that the Amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
  Mr. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for the Amendment. We welcome it. We said from the start that we felt that there was a need for affirmative Resolutions to be passed. We are glad that the Government have accepted our view. The Amendment will give the opportunity of putting the sweeping powers of the Clause before the House for affirmative Resolution.
  Without wishing to be churlish, may I, as a student of Parliamentary procedure, ask a simple question? In Committee, we put forward an Amendment the wording of which was very similar to the wording of this Amendment. It proposed that
  "No regulations made under this section shall come into force until they have been approved by … each House of Parliament."
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in indicating that he had some sympathy with our proposal, said:
  "… I assure him "—
  that is, me—
  "that, on Report, we will seek to insert words to cover the point, but in a better way".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th November, 1967; c. 63.]
  I should like to know in what sense the words of the Government's Amendment are better than the words we proposed. It would be nice if that could be explained to us.
  Mr. Peart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not being churlish, but I would chide him by saying that I thought we had conceded a major point to him,
  460
  and in view of that I hope we can meet it by being allowed this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.

  (EXTENSION OF CLASSES OF OPERATIONS IN WHICH ANAESTHETICS MUST BE USED.)
  Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 40, after represent ' to insert ' producers of livestock and '.
  In Committee, when the Government considered this matter and undertook to reconsider it, I made the point that by Clause 5 the Ministers are obliged to consult the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We felt that in a matter of this kind the producers of livestock should be consulted as well. To that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) in effect said this: "We do not want to waste words. We are bound to consult the producers under the heading of interests concerned ' and if we were to start to specify any particular group of people we should have to string along a whole host of others." This, of course, is an argument which was not advanced for the first time. Indeed, I can well recall using it myself on one occasion—I do not know with as much conviction as I would have liked. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has already been specified in the Clause, and, therefore, I would say of the hon. Gentleman's argument that that particular pass has already been sold.
  There is, I would have thought, no question as to the relative importance of the livestock producers. I am not going to say whether there are other people who are important and who might have to come in as well. The hon. Gentleman did not specify who they were. I would certainly say that in this matter the producers are what one may describe as primi inter pares with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
  Mr. John Mackie:Primi?
  Mr. Stodart: They are in the plural, not the singular. I think that if the hon. Gentleman reflects he will see that I am meticulously accurate in this matter.

  461
  The National Farmers' Unions have expressed their approval of this Amendment. I do not say that that should weight heavily with the hon. Gentleman, but I would have thought it a reasonable request, and I hope he has reconsidered it and will give us a favourable reply.
  Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that we had a long argument about this in Committee, when he made all the points he has made today, including the point that we have particularly mentioned the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This, as I think he may agree, is in a slightly different category, for this is a question of animal welfare. By the words "other interests concerned" the National Farmers Union is included. If there is any body capable of putting forward views for consideration it would be that one. I think those words cover the point which the hon. Gentleman makes about the N.F.U. I do not think he brought forward any new arguments today to alter the position. I said that we would look at it. Our lawyers give us the advice that the Amendment is unnecessary. We do not want to clutter up the Bill with unnecessary phrases. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all interests are adequately covered. I hope that, with that assurance, he will be content, as I thought he was in Committee.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I am still not satisfied by what the Minister has said. I do not think we are cluttering up the Bill at all by just including three or four words. That seems a very stupid answer to me. These words should be inserted, and I support my hon. Friend very much in seeking to have them inserted. These very important producers should be consulted. That is not to say that the N.F.U. will not do its job properly, but it should be made quite clear, and clear to all future Ministers of Agriculture, that the producers of livestock should be consulted.
  I want to reiterate again the reason why I think this Amendment should be made. Farmers are doing many of the operations which are necessary on their farms. This is right and proper. As farmers become more and more skilled, so it is right and proper that they should do these things. Perhaps the agricultural training board can help in this so that
  462
  farm workers as well may be able to do more of this sort of work. Indeed, with ever rising costs upon farmers it is important that farmers should do as much of their work themselves as they can. I would be very upset if they were to be restricted in this type of work. Therefore, it is vitally important that they should be consulted at every point.
  The Minister may say we are making a lot of fuss about a very small point. He nods his head. If he will think about this carefully he will realise that we are not, and I hope that he will allow us to have this Amendment.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I think it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept this Amendment because by doing so he would maintain a real balance within the Clause. The people who will be really affected by the operation of the Clause will be the livestock producers themselves. Of course, he is absolutely right in saying that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may well, at the final point, he the experts in any of these cases when they come up. They will be the experts, but all too often in agricultural practice the practical farmer finds that he has certain cause, sometimes at any rate, to be not wholly convinced by what the experts tell him. All too often he gets one expert telling him one thing and another expert telling him another thing.
  Therefore I would have liked to have seen this Amendment accepted, if only for the one reason that it would make it quite clear in the drafting of the Bill that we recognise the producer of livestock as an important person and that his processes of production do mean something to us, that we realise his difficulties, and give him a special place in this Clause about consultation. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the N.F.U. will be consulted, but there are so many other bodies, poultry societies, breed societies, a hundred and one different societies and interests which might well be consulted. If he can give an assurance that the general terminology of national farmers unions includes other special interests which will also be taken into account, that will be helpful. Nevertheless, I would like to have it in the Bill, and I think it is a pity that the Minister has not been able to accept this

  463
  specific Amendment and give the producer a very special place in this Clause.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The entire House will sympathise with the view of hon. Members who have spoken that the producers of livestock should be consulted in a matter of this kind, but provision is made in general terms for this. It is a matter of drafting. I should have thought it would have been quite abundantly clear now, as it must have been to those who read the speech of the hon. Member in Committee, that it would be highly undesirable to single out for special mention any single category of persons to be consulted. On a matter of statutory construction, I can match the hon. Member's primi inter pares with another tag, a canon of construction, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. By specifying one category, it might be open to Ministers to come to the conclusion that it was not incumbent upon them to consult any other category of person who might be very importantly connected.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I want to support the Amendment in plain East Anglian English. I cannot think of a worse reason for rejecting any Amendment than the one that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave, namely, that he had consulted his lawyers. He said that his lawyers had told him that it was unnecessary. But does he not realise that most troubles with legislation arise because lawyers are consulted? What is important here is not what lawyers have told him but what those who will be empowered to enforce this Measure will do.
  In the Clause as it is now drafted, it is clear that the Minister has made a distinction between that minority which is to be consulted by Statute, namely, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the rest, who will only be consulted at the Minister's discretion. I am sure that any Minister of Agriculture would never dream of bringing in regulations without consulting the National Farmers' Union, but there are other bodies representing livestock producers who might not be consulted, and I think that the Minister should take the point that, among those to be consulted by statutory
  464
  right, there should be those who produce the livestock. If they did not produce, the need for the Clause would not arise and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would not have a job to do. I ask the Minister to think again and recognise that he ought not to distinguish between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who will be consulted by right, and the livestock producers, who may be consulted if he so decides.
  Mr. Stodart: We have had a very disappointing reply and a most unfair one. The hon. Gentleman said that I had given no new reason for the inclusion of the Amendment. However, he did not ask me to. In the light of the arguments advanced upstairs, he agreed to think again, but he did not ask for any new reasons.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he had consulted lawyers, my mind went back to an occasion upstairs when he was forced to admit that the one category of people about whose advice he was dubious was his lawyers, and he said some extremely dusty things about them.
  Will he tell us who are the others he may have to string along? This is an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. In such a Bill, mention must surely be made of agriculturists. They are among the people who are worthy of mention under the covers of that Bill.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not show himself to be completely solidified on this issue.
  Mr. John Mackie: If I may, I will deal first with the argument about what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has called "stringing along". He made the point that this was an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and, therefore, should concentrate on agriculturists. I would remind him that some of his predecessors, with Mr. Christopher Soames at their head, were under tremendous pressure and, as a result, appointed the Brambell Committee. This Measure results from that Committee's Report. There are interests outside agriculture who have had quite a say in it, and I would point out

  465
  to him that, if we included one agricultural interest, the pressures to include other responsible categories would be just as great. We do not want to differentiate in any way. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is in a different category, but there would be no case for not stringing along a lot of other interests if we accepted the Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Clithero (Sir Frank Pearson) made the point that there were a number of other bodies interested in livestock production which might not be included in the N.F.U. However, I can think of no facet of animal production which has anything to do with this Clause and which is not included in the N.F.U. For example any other type of breeding which is not agricultural has nothing to do with the Clause, and I am certain that, if the hon. Gentleman went to the N.F.U., that body would give him the same assurance.
  I do not think that we should go too much into our belief or otherwise in lawyers. I think that they are a necessary evil. Although I may have made the facetious remark attributed to me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, we have to pay some attention to them. They have given us certain advice on this matter and, accordingly, I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, because I at least have been persuaded by them that the Amendment is unnecessary.
  Sir Frank Pearson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he said that he could not think of any sphere of livestock production which was not covered by the operations of the N.F.U. However, let us take the case of someone who breeds dogs, which might come under the Clause—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on Report.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 6.

  (POWERS OF ENTRY, ETC.)
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move
  466
  Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 4, leave out ' Any constable and any ' and insert ' A '.
  It might be for the convenience of the House to take with it Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
  The main purpose is to change the rôle of the police under Part I and make an additional provision relating to the production by an authorised person of his authority to enter upon land. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) will remember that I promised to look at this point again.
  We have been reviewing the role of the police under Part I, and we propose to confine the power of entry for the purpose of checking whether the statutory provisions are being observed to persons authorised by Ministers or local authorities. Accordingly, Amendment No. 4 deletes the reference to the police from Clause 6(1).
  It was argued in Committee that an authorised person might already have entered the premises before meeting anyone wishing to see his authority. We accepted that point and, accordingly, have tabled Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to provide that an authorised person should, when requested, produce his authority when on the land, instead of only before entering it. The specific point made in Committee is met by the second of these two Amendments. The first one makes it clear that the subsection applies to persons authorised to enter upon land for the purposes set out in the two preceding subsections, and it makes a necessary drafting change to allow the subsection to be divided into two paragraphs, (a) and (b).
  Finally, I come to the question of support for authorised persons when carrying out their inspection responsibilities under Clause 6. With the removal of inspection and sampling responsibilities from the police, the specific power of entry previously given to them would disappear. Thus, to enable authorised persons to call on police support on the rare occasion that it is thought desirable, it is necessary to make provision for such persons to be accompanied on the land. Amendment No. 8 would achieve this and allow the police to enter upon the land when accompanying the

  467
  authorised person. I believe that a strictly limited rôle of this kind is justified.
  Amendment No. 9 makes a simple change in Clause 6(4) confining the power to take samples of feedingstuffs to authorised Ministry or local authority officers. It completes the changes in Clause 6 as a whole as the result of the proposal to remove inspection and sampling powers from the police.
  I hope that the House will agree that these are desirable Amendments. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen who suggested them. I hope that I have met their point of view.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Though not a member of the Committee, may I express my gratitude for the way in which the Minister has taken the points made in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and others.
  The Amendment will be much welcomed by the police, with whom, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a connection. With the tabling of the Amendments yesterday, I have already received from those representing the police a letter thanking those who have assisted in this fashion and also expressing their satisfaction with the action that the Minister has taken.
  Mr. Godber: I add my thanks to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). These Amendments, taken together, fully meet the points which we made upstairs.
  We felt that a mistake had been made in the drafting of Clause 6 and we advanced our reasons. This series of Amendments meets in detail the specific points we made. For this reason, they are warmly welcomed. We think this is a sensible way in which to make provision. We have always recognised that there may be a case for the police to have to assist possibly, but this would appear to be covered fully by Amendment No. 8. This seems to be the right and proper way in which to deal with it so that authorised persons, as laid down in the Clause, will be the only ones responsible for taking the samples that are envisaged. While the police will give any help that is necessary, this
  468
  makes the position what we think it should be, and we are glad that the Government have made these Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 12, leave out "but only for ascertaining".
  Perhaps we might take this Amendment and No. 10 together.
  In Committee right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to emphasise that the authorised local authority officer's power of entry in Clause 6 (2) should be exercised solely in connection with feedingstuffs and dietary matters and not with any other aspect of livestock welfare. They accordingly pressed for the insertion of the words "but only for ascertaining", which now appear in line 12. This was accepted.
  Although we have heard that these additional words were not necessary, we appreciated the argument made about them. I have since been advised that amending the subsection in this way creates a contrast between it and the preceding subsection which also deals with the powers of entry. The House will agree that a distinction of this kind between two subsections is one we should try to avoid. We have, therefore, considered what might be done to resolve what is, after all, a technical difficulty. We have concluded that the reasonable solution would be to amend Clause 7 (3) so that the powers there conferred on local authorities in England and Wales should be confined to proceedings for such an offence as is mentioned in Clause 6 (2)
  If Clause 7 (3) were amended in this way, we should achieve the required emhasis on limitations of local authorities' responsibilities under Part I of the Bill. Without affecting this emphasis, the additional words inserted in Clause 6 (2) in Committee can be removed and thus avoid the present unwanted contrast.
  We have, accordingly, Tabled Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 5 removes the words added to Clause 6 (2) in Committee. Amendment No. 10 amends Clause 7 (3) so that prosecutions by local authorities in England and Wales are limited to offences relating to feedingstuffs and animal diets which are referred to in

  469
  Clause 6 (2). This makes it clear that neither local authorities nor their authorised officers would be concerned with animal welfare matters other than feedingstuffs and diets. The situation in Scotland is not affected, as prosecutions there would be instituted by the Procurator Fiscal and not by the local authorities.
  5.15 p.m.
  I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to the House. I assure the House that there is nothing sinister in them. They are designed solely to meet the Opposition's view expressed in Committee in relation to Clause 6 (2) while avoiding the technical difficulty to which I have referred.
  Mr. Stodart: I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. The effect here is achieved in the different way that he suggests.
  One point has occurred to me which I would like to put to him. The person authorised by the local authority is permitted to take such other persons as he thinks are necessary. Would those other persons be subject to the same limitation as lie local authority inspector? That is not entirely clear. It would defeat the whole object if one of the persons that the local authority inspector decided to take was not bound by the same limitation.
  Mr. Hoy: I can clear that up right away. He would not have any greater power than the person who has been authorised.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 6: In page 4, line 17, after section ', insert:
  'to enter upon any land—(a)'.
  Amendment No. 7: In line 18, leave out from ' entering ' to end of line 19 and insert:
  ' and while present on the land '.
  Amendment No. 8: In line 19, at end insert:
  '; and (b) may take with him on to the land such other persons as he considers necessary '.
  Amendment No. 9: In line 20, leave out from ' person ' to may ' in line 21 and insert ' authorised as aforesaid '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 7.

  (PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES UNDER PART I.)
  Amendment made: Amendment No. 10: In page 5, line 30, after ' offence ', insert:
  ' as is mentioned in section 6(2) of this Act which is '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 9.

  (ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO TENANTS QUITTING AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.)
  Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 32, leave out ' resettlement of the tenant ' and insert:
  ' reorganisation of the tenant's affairs '.
  We are introducing this Amendment to allay certain fears expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stoddart) during debates in Committee. It might, he suggested, be arguable whether a sum described as being to assist in the resettlement of a tenant would be payable to a tenant who was dispossessed of only a part of his holding, since such a tenant would not have to resettle himself physically in the sense of picking up his goods and chattels and taking them somewhere else. It is not the Government's intention to render such tenants ineligible for the payments for which the Clause provides. In view of that, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the Amendment puts the eligibility of tenants beyond doubt.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor): The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the Second Reading debate we discussed the original phrase in the Clause. The discussion was about whether any payments made by a landlord to a tenant in compensation for notice to quit because the farm was required by a local authority for building or other development purposes would be deduct-able against any possible Capital Gains Tax or development levy. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary of State for Scotland knew the answer then, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) raised the same point in Committee, and on 12th December the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "He "—

  471
  that is, my right hon. Friend—
  "has asked me whether, when the landlord sells and pays the additional sum to his tenant, he can offset this against any gain on the transaction before Capital Gains Tax is charged. The answer is ' Yes '."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 12th December, 1967; c. 214.]
  Later on, however, the right hon. Gentleman was less clear about whether this would apply to any development charge. He said that these were complicted matters, and that he would let my right hon. Friend know the answer later, subject to confirmation by the Treasury. As far as I am aware, this matter is still outstanding.
  If the assurance in respect of Capital Gains Tax about a landlord's compensation payments was clear in the old phrase of the Bill—
  "a sum to assist in the resettlement of the tenant "—
  I imagine that it is equally watertight in respect of the Amendment, which describes it as a sum to assist in the
  "reorganisation of the tenant's affairs."
  I imagine that there is no technical difficulty about that, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this is so.
  The other point was that raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is following this.
  Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not being discourteous. I was making certain that I had a copy of the letter which I wrote to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: This is a slightly technical point. My hon. Friend asked whether, if a landlord gave a tenant notice to quit on a 50-acre farm, of which 30 acres were required by a local authority for building, and the notice to quit had to be in respect of the whole holding because the 20 acres remaining would not be viable, and, therefore, the landlord would have to pay the tenant four years' rent compensation for the whole of the 50 acres, that compensatory sum could be offset against any sum which the landlord might receive by way of the purchase price of the
  472
  30 acres before attracting either Capital Gains Tax or any possible development charge.
  Let us assume that a 50-acre farm is rented at £10 an acre. This means an annual rent of £500. On the basis of four years' rent compensation, the landlord would have to pay the tenant £2,000 in respect of the whole holding. Would the total compensation be offset against any liability for Capital Gains Tax if it arose, or for any development charge if it arose, in respect of whatever price he received for the 30 acres being compulsorily acquired by the local authority?
  Those are technical points, but they ought to be made clear. I do not wish to cast the slightest doubt on the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, but I think that it would be helpful, in case these situations arise, if, now that the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to insert a new phrase describing the resettlement of the tenant, made this clear.
  Mr. Godber: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has raised this point. I think the Minister will agree that it is a difficult and intricate one. Both on Second Reading and in Committee we discussed the phrase relating to the resettlement of a tenant. The Minister explained the reason for it was to assist in clarification for taxation purposes.
  Subsequent to the discussion in Committee upstairs, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) played an important part, the Minister has introduced this new phrase. I think that it clarifies the tenant's position, and we are all grateful for this. We all wish to achieve the same objective with regard to the taxation position of payments which will be made under this Clause. It would be nonsense if the benefits were taken away in a way which was never intended by the Government.
  We are satisfied about the position of a tenant, but the position of a landlord is somewhat different. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 17th January, and I think that my hon. Friend has seen a copy of that letter. I do not think that it entirely disposes of the point made by my hon. Friend, but it is clear from the Minister's letter that this is a difficult matter to dispose of. We had

  473
  hoped that it might have proved possible for the Government either to have spelled out the position more clearly in relation to the wording of the Clause, or to have given an assurance from the Despatch Box about the way in which the matter would affect landlords.
  If the Minister can say something further on this aspect of the matter, I think that it might help to clear the air. If he cannot do so fully now, perhaps in another place a precise form of words can be included to make the position clear. I think the Minister will appreciate that, in justice to the landlords, as well as to the tenants, this is a matter which requires clarification.
  Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for what he has said. I appreciate his concern, and that of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). As I said earlier, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I was being discourteous when he was addressing me. I was looking at the letter which I wrote to his right hon. Friend and another letter which I wrote on 23rd January to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). In my letter to the hon. Gentleman I said:
  "In Standing Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill you asked whether a landlord who gave his tenant notice to quit a 50-acre holding in order to sell 30 acres for development would be able, for Capital Gains Tax purposes, to offset the whole payment he had made to the tenant under Clause 9 of the Bill against the sale proceeds for the 30 acres.
  I am advised by the Inland Revenue that he would not. The Clause 9 payment, like the original cost of the land, would be apportioned in proportion to the current use value of the land sold and the land retained."
  This is a difficult matter, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to ask whether the new payments will be liable to Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax, or betterment levy.
  5.30 p.m.
  Tenants will not be liable for Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax or betterment levy on sums received under Clauses 9 and 12. These sums do not constitute a capital gain or, in the Land Commission's view, a realisation of development value, nor do they constitute a part of the tenant's taxable income. The Financial Secretary replied on this point
  474
  to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) on 21st February, 1967.
  The following is the position on the landlord's liability. Hon. Members moved an Amendment in Committee with the proper objective of clarifying the landlord's tax liabilities in regard to payments under Clause 9, and there was a full debate, reported in the Committee HANSARD in Cols. 211–16. If a landlord sells his land with vacant possession, after paying the appropriate sum under Clause 9 to the tenant, he can offset the payment against his gains for Capital Gains Tax purposes. I said this in the debate, in Col. 214, and add that, in practice, the incidence of Capital Gains Tax on land sales is not yet great, because the starting date for the reckoning price is 1965 and the tax hits only the enhancement of the land's value for its existing use.
  On betterment levy I understand that the Land Commission take the view that when a landlord pays the new sum to an outgoing tenant, he will not be able to add it to the base value of his interest for betterment levy purposes when he sells the land for development. Questions of liability for betterment levy are the responsibility of the Land Commission and a Bill like this cannot legislate away existing liabilities. However, a landlord is not obliged to sell with vacant possession, although he will no doubt do so when—as will generally be the case when he sells for development—he thereby gains enough on the sale price to leave him well in pocket after paying the new sum to the tenant and discharging his tax liabilities.
  This is a complicated matter, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he wants. If more precision is necessary here or in any other related part of the Bill, I will certainly ensure that it is remedied elsewhere. I note what has been said, and will have close consultations. I have tried to clarify the subject and I trust that what I have said will be helpful.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that I have understood the Minister's explanation. He seems to be saying that, if a landlord gets Y thousand pounds for the sale of an agricultural holding but has, rightly, to pay Z thousand pounds to the tenant who is dispossessed of part of the

  475
  holding, he cannot set off one against the other for a development levy.
  Mr. Peart: The landlord is in the clear on Capital Gains Tax. He could offset the payment under Clause 9 against the gains. For betterment levy, however, he will not be able to add the sum to the base value of his interest. That is the advice which I have, but I will try to get more precision if it is needed.
  Frank Pearson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 23rd January about a small holding of which only a part is taken for development. If he is to consider capital gains, would he consider this again also? I entirely understand the logic of the ruling by the Income Tax authorities, but as a matter of policy, it may lead us into difficulties. I can imagine a situation in which part of a small park was to be used for development and the landlord did not serve notice to quit on the tenant with a farmhouse and 20 remaining acres but left him there, possibly without enough land to earn a living, until the tenant said that he must go, which would mean that the tenant would not get his compensatory payment.
  Would it not encourage the right hon. Gentleman's policy of the merger of small units if, in this case, he allowed a certain concession, so that, when a landlord serves a notice to quit on a tenant who has been left with the stub end of a holding and has to compensate him, the compensatory payment for the whole unit is allowed against the sale price of the land for Capital Gains Tax purposes? This would follow the Minister's policy. If we do not do this, we may encourage the retention of small units.
  Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The difficulty is that I cannot alter tax law in the Bill, although I will take note of what has been said.
  Mr. Godber: We obviously cannot pursue this complicated matter now. What the right hon. Gentleman said has not reassured me but seems to have gone back in some sense on what I understood was his position in his letter to me. I hope that he will have further consultations before the Bill goes to another place and that some statement can be made there which will not only clarify
  476
  the matter but reassure landlords. I fear that they will be worried otherwise.
  Mr. Peart: I said that I will do this and I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. James Davidson: On a point of order. May I speak to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no such Question on Report stage.

Clause 10.

  (PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 9 IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Mr. Godber: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 30, at end insert:
  (d) the tenancy in question was the subject of a written agreement entered into less than five years before the termination of the tenancy and containing notice that the holding or the part of the holding as the case may be would be required by the landlord within that period for development purposes, and the development is commenced within the period of six months following the termination of the tenancy.
  We frequently said in Committee that Clause 10 is one of the most complicated in the Bill. We are not seeking to complicate it further, but to clarify it with the addition of this subsection, which will follow and relate to the initial words of the Clause,
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, no sum shall be payable in pursuance of section 9 of this Act in a case where—".
  I hope it is clear that, although we have always accepted that the compensation under Clause 9 is right and fair. nevertheless one category is not covered, in which automatic payment is not right. Under Clause 9 compensation, a tenant will expect to receive this additional sum for a disturbance, but, in the type of case for which the Amendment would provide, where a written agreement had been entered into less than five years before the termination of the tenancy and containing notice that the holding or part of the holding would be required by the landlord within that period, the development would have to commence within six months after that termination. We make it clear that we are restricting the

  477
  provision to a fixed term tenancy for a period of five years or less. This is the type of tenancy for which we believe that it would not be reasonable to make the provisions of Clause 9 apply.
  It is common justice that this should be done, because the tenant enters into this arrangement for this period of time knowing that it is a short-term arrangement. He therefore cannot later claim that he is being put to unreasonable expense or difficulty because of the termination of the tenancy. This is a special problem which arises in various cases where land is required for development purposes and where the land cannot be immediately developed.
  It could be argued that the Government's policies in other spheres will lead to the delay of certain development which would otherwise take place. The present economic difficulties, the present high Bank Rate—there are plenty of reasons why development should be delayed. It is nonsense that land should fall out of agricultural use in the interim period. The Amendment seeks to deal with such eases. Otherwise a landlord who lets land for a period of less than five years will at the end of that period, if Clause 9 applies, have to pay at least five years' compensation and will, therefore, receive nothing for the use of the land. He could well be out of pocket if he has let it for two or three years and has had to pay five years' compensation. This is nonsense in view of the conditions into which leases are entered into for these short periods. The tenant will not have suffered unreasonably, because he knew the conditions when he entered into them. Yet he will get an advantage under the Bill as it stands and the landlord will be penalised.
  I cannot believe that this is the Government's intention. If this happens, land will be allowed to go derelict in those two or three years. This would be wrong. It would be wrong from the point of view of the nation, because this land should be productive. It would be wrong from the point of view of neighbours, because the land will produce weeds and vermin. From an agricultural and a general economic point of view it makes nonsense. Therefore, some provision such as that contained in the Amendment must be incorporated.
  478
  If the wording of the Amendment is not wholly in line with the Government's desires, we would naturally bow to their view, but before parting with this matter we should want a firm assurance that the Government would introduce in the other place something which would have the same effect, otherwise we should have to record our view that this is something which should be provided for. I hope that the Government will see the justice of this case and will make some provision.
  To be fair to the Government, another way in which this could be dealt with is by short-term lettings under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holding Act, 1948. Such holdings are subject to Ministry approval. If there is to be no provision in the Clause. Section 2, which is useful in certain cases, will have to be used to a much greater extent and the Ministry's officers will be called on to approve a much greater number of cases.
  We often talk in the House about the need to avoid the proliferation of civil servants. In a recent debate we were assured that the number of civil servants would not increase. If the Bill is passed in its present form, and if the only way in which the land can be used is by the utilisation of Section 2 of the 1948 Act, this will mean an additional amount of the time of officials being spent considering and approving short-term lettings over a period of time. If it were for a five-year period, it would have to come up for reanproval at least four or five times by officials and, presumably, by Ministers.
  I therefore hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not, in rejecting the Amendment, call in aid the provisions of Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I do not think that that would be the correct way to deal with it. A clear case arises here, because the Clause has created the situation that a landlord letting for a short period knows that in the event of his dispossessing the tenant he has this greater sum of compensation to pay.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to face up to this fact and not merely to rely on Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a case to be met and that it should be met in the Clause. If he does not like the wording of the Amendment, that is fine, so

  479
  long as he can give us a clear assurance that the point will be met.
  If the hon. Gentleman rests his case on Section 2, he must state much more clearly than has been stated so far what his Department's attitude would be in future to applications for Section 2 consents where development is expected in less than five years. I do not press that point, because I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will meet me in another sense. If he does not, we must have a specific assurance that Section 2 consents will be more readily granted to take care in some way of these requirements.
  My main concern is either that the Amendment be accepted or that something very similar is written into the Bill, otherwise I fear that waste will occur and inefficiency will be unnecessarily created.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Mackie: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall rest my case on Section 2, although we appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman has made. We agree with the spirit of the Amendment, in that something needs to be done here, because it would be grossly unfair to a landlord who might collect three years' rent and have to pay anything up to six years in compensation for resettlement—for "reorganisation", as it will now be as a result of the last Amendment.
  The circumstances are adequately covered by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. When I studied that Act, I had to go backwards and forwards through four Sections to get the point clear. Nevertheless, it is clearly there. Such licences or lettings require the Minister's consent. Applications can expect to receive favourable consideration where there is a reasonable expectation of development within the reasonably near future. Short-term lettings may not be given for periods of longer than 364 days. They can, however, be renewed if necessary, and this "if necessary" is an important point. The prospects of development may change or recede, although perhaps not for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he is adept at making political points. It is right that they should be re-examined at suitable intervals. Licences may be for longer periods.
  480
  —This covers the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the proliferation of civil servants.—For the same reason, consent would not usually be forthcoming for a period extending over many years.
  The Amendment would not give the tenant adequate safeguard against changes in development schedules or priorities. If the development did not turn up within the stipulated five years, the landlord could press his tenant to make another five-year agreement and even another one after that. The whole purpose of the Bill could be undermined in that way.
  It is a basic principle of the Agricultural Holdings Act that there can be no contracting out of its provisions, and the same principle is given clear expression in Clause 10(4) of the present Bill.
  There can be little doubt that, if agreements such as the Amendment envisages were to be permitted at all, they would soon become standard provisions in every tenancy agreement, and a tenant's chance of becoming eligible for the new sum would be slender indeed. For this reason, we think that the Amendment is not only unnecessary but might be dangerous.
  I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman with that explanation and that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment, in the light of the assurance which I have given. We see the point, but we consider that Section 2 of the 1948 Act covers it adequately. Licences can be given for a period much longer than one year. This would meet the right hon. Gentleman's other point about a proliferation of civil servants or extra work for existing staff.
  Mr. Jopling: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that Section 2 of the 1948 Act provides for these arrangements to be made for periods longer than 364 days. Is he then saying that, if such an application came to his Ministry, the Minister would grant a controlled tenancy of that kind for up to five years? I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that clearly, and we want to know.
  The other point which the hon. Gentleman made was very arguable. He said that, if the Amendment were accepted, tenancies could go on and on, five years after five years. This is met by the

  481
  concluding words of the Amendment. There is a proviso that development should be commenced within six months following the termination of the tenancy. If the development were commenced, no question of another five-year period could arise. I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument at all.
  Mr. Godber: I am greatly disappointed by the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He disappoints me fairly regularly, but this time more than ever. It was an appalling reply. He has rested his case on Section 2 of the 1948 Act, but that gives us very little encouragement. The only argument which the hon. Gentleman adduced against this clear Amendment is that he thinks that it could be abused by people seeking an additional five years. The Government's Parliamentary draftsmen are perfectly capable of so wording an Amendment as to meet that point. Instead of the words,
  "following the termination of the tenancy "
  the words could be,
  "following the termination of an initial tenancy".
  There are lots of ways in which it could be done. The lawyers of whom the Parliamentary Secretary is so fond in other connections could help him out if he is willing and anxious to deal with the problem.
  The truth is that, knowing that Section 2 of the 1948 Act existed, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his officials really directed their minds to this point. The trouble is that we are now confronted with the narrow provision in the 1948 Act, produced for entirely different purposes but now to be foisted on to the requirements of this Bill, requirements which were known by the Government by reason of the additional burden which they are putting on landlords. We have never quibbled at that—we think it right—but we consider that it is the Government's corresponding duty to make provision for the type of case which I have put.
  As I listened to my own argument earlier, I flattered myself that I must have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary because it was so clear and so logical that it could not be resisted. I am amazed at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. We are not seeking to lay down an unreasonable impost. We seek merely
  482
  to clarify the legislation and to put it in such a form that both landlord and tenant are safeguarded and land which is required for agriculture for a short time shall not be sterilised or fall into disuse. Yet I fear that that is precisely what will happen. There will be pockets of derelict land in the countryside. Perhaps the total fall in agricultural production will not be enormous—I do not want to overstate the case—but there will be pockets of land on which weeds will grow and infect other land and on which vermin can breed. This is entirely against what the Parliamentary Secretary himself would wish, being a good farmer. In order to safeguard the hon. Gentleman from the consequences of his own Bill unamended, we shall express our view in the Division Lobby against him if he cannot give us a better answer.
  Mr. John Mackie: I said that I saw the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I agree that something is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman must not say that we did not look at this matter. We looked at it very carefully, but we decided that it was covered by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to add legislation if the point can be covered already.
  I have given an assurance. I appreciate the point, but, in being fair to the landlord, we must be fair also to the tenant. In our view, the Amendment would erode the security of tenure of a tenant, or could do so. Licences for periods longer than a year do not create tenancies, and each period of five years would be a new tenancy. The position would not be safeguarded by putting at the end of the Amendment such words as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. They would not be adequate.
  However, I give the assurance that we shall look at the matter again. If we feel that it requires something extra we can put an Amendment down in another place. In the meantime, I reiterate our view that the Amendment is unnecessary and could be dangerous, and the matter is covered already by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. To show that we looked at the question carefully and did not skate over the Amendment, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the whole picture by citing the references: it starts at Section 2, it goes back to Section 1, from

  483
  there it goes to Section 94, and then back to Section 34.
  On my assurance that we shall look at it again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES

  [5.58 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant, Anthony

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Astor, John

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peel, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pink, R. Banner

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Braine, Bernard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brewis, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pym, Francis

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)

  Holland, Philip

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Burden, F. A.

  Hordern, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hunt, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Sharpies, Richard

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Jennings, J. C. (Button)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Clark, Henry

  Jopling, Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kimball, Marcus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Cordle, John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Corfielcl, F. V.

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dance, James

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Longden, Gilbert

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Doughty, Charles

  Loveys, W. H.

  Wall, Patrick

  Eden, Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Walters, Dennis

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Eyre, Reginald

  Marten, Neil

  Webster, David

  Farr, John

  Maude, Angus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Foster, Sir John

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wright, Esmond

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hn. George

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  More, Jasper

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gower, Raymond

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Anthony Royle.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Blackburn, F.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Alldritt, Walter

  Boardman, H.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Boston, Terence

  Cronin, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Archer, Peter

  Bradley, Tom

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Barnes, Michael

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Barnett, Joel

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Bessell, Peter

  Chapman, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Bidwell, Sydmy

  Coe, Denis

  Dewar, Donald

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dickens, James

  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided:Ayes 150, Nose 232.

  Dobson, Ray

  Kelley, Richard

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Doig, Peter

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lawson, George

  Pentland, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Ellis, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Price, Thomas (webthoughton)

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Find, Harold

  Lamas, Kenneth

  Randall, Harry

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeeton)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rankin, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rees, Merlyn

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Ford, Ben

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Forrester, John

  McBride, Neil

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Frastir, John (Norwood)

  McCann, John

  Rose, Paul

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacColl, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Garrett, W. E.

  McGuire, Michael

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergton)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mackie, John

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

  Gregory, Arnold

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Griffiths Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Slater, Joseph

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Small, William

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Manuel, Archie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hannan, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Mtchaei

  Harper, Joseph

  Marquand, David

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marsh, Rt, Hn. Richard

  Swain, Thomas

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Symonds, J. B.

  Hazell, Bert

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Urwin T W

  Hooley, Frank

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Horner, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wainwnght, Edwin (Dearne valley)

  Hougltton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wallace, George

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Albert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hoy, James

  Neal, Harold

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Huckfield, Lesile

  Newens, Stan

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  HugJws, Roy (Newport)

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

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hunter, Adam

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hynd, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Janne-, Sir Barnett

  Orbach, Maurice

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Woof, Robert

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Yates, Victor

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pardoe, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Park, Trevor

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Judd, Frank

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Mr. loan L. Evans.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is Amendment No. 14, with which I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendment: No. 17, in Clause 11, in page 10, line 22, at end insert:
  (7) Where a landlord has served a notice to quit after the initial date and before the passing of this Act and the reason for the service of the said notice was one of those specified in section 26(1) of the principal Act, notwithstanding the landlord's failure to specify the said grounds in the said notice, the landlord shall not be liable to make any additional payment as provided by section 9 of this Act.
  Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 30, at the end to insert:
  (7) Where a landlord has served a notice to quit after the initial date and before the passing of this Act and the reason for the service of the said notice was one of those specified in section 25(1) of the principal Act, notwithstanding the landlord's failure to specify the said grounds in the said notice, the landlord shall not be liable to make any additional payment as provided by section 9 of this Act.
  The Amendment refers to a matter which I raised in Standing Committee on a Scottish Clause. I said then that

  487
  it might very well also apply to the English Clause, and we have therefore put down Amendments to cover both Clause 10 and Clause 11. They concern the position of the landlord who last November may properly have served a notice to quit. The initial date for the Bill was 1st November, which is very close to the beginning of the Martinmas term, and it is unlikely that landlords were then fully aware of the details to be required by the Clauses. They cannot reasonably be expected to have become aware of them for quite a time after the publication of the Bill, because it is unlikely that it would be every-day reading in the average landlord's home. Therefore, as it has not been standard practice in Scotland, England or Wales to state specific reasons, which are now necessary, in notices to quit, there may well be many landlords who failed to do so immediately after 1st November out of sheer and natural ignorance.
  For example, a notice sent out in November last will not take effect until after this Bill is law, but failure to state specific reasons in the notice means that four years' rent has to be paid under Clause 9 in each case. This matter was commented upon in the edition of the Scots Law Times of 12th January, 1968. I do not propose to read the article at length. The heading was:
  "Notices to quit agricultural holdings under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1967."
  The sub-heading was:
  "Is it negligent not to know the contents of an Act of Parliament before it has been passed? "
  The general trend of the article, which is of considerable length, is that it would be a matter of great injustice if the compensatory payments had to be paid merely because notices did not fulfil the requirements of a Statute which had come out so recently as to make it virtually impossible for those serving the notices to know it.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough in Committee to welcome the point when I made it rather late in the day on this Clause, and we have put down this Amendment in the hope of clearing the difficulty up. The effect of the Amendment would be to release from the four years' resettlement grant notices
  488
  which were served between 1st November, which was the initial date, and the passing of the Bill. It is with that objective that it has been put down.
  Mr. John Mackie: As he has said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) drew attention in Committee to the danger that a landlord who gave notice to quit soon after the introduction of the Bill might inadvertently fail to give it in the terms required by Clauses 10 and 11 and find himself obliged to pay the new sum to the individual concerned, even though the notice to quit had been given for a purely agricultural reason.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture accept the hon. Gentleman's argument and we are indebted to him for pointing out this possibility. However, the Amendment will not do quite what is required. It is cast rather too widely and would—unintentionally, I am sure—allow a landlord perhaps to avoid payment of compensation for private afforestation, for example, and would not give the tenant the opportunity to query the notice with the Agricultural Land Tribunal or, in Scotland, the Land Court on non-agricultural grounds, although he is entitled to do so when four years' rent depend on it.
  I note what the hon. Gentleman says about his legal reading and the point as to whether or not it is negligent not to know the law. The law says, of course, that ignorance of it is no excuse. However, we take the point about Bills, which are not law, and if the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment, I undertake to introduce another Amendment at a later stage which will give effect to the same general principle, which we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out.
  Mr. Stodart: I gladly fall in with the hon. Gentleman's request. It would have been a miracle if my drafting of a provision on such a subject had covered all the points necessary. This is a matter in which considerable injustice might be done, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11.

  (PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 9 IN SCOTLAND.)
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 21, at end to insert:
  (c) the relevant notice is a notice to which, apart from the provisions of section 18 or section 19 of this Act, section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act, 1958, would apply and, if an application for consent in respect of the notice is made to the court in pursuance of the said section 25(1), the court consent to its operation and state in the reasons for their decision that they are satisfied with regard to the matter mentioned in paragraph (a), or the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) to (iii), of section 18(2) of this Act; or.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment 16, also standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in line 37, after "Act", insert:
  "or in section 18(2)(a) of this Act".
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: These two Amendments are consequential on the new Clauses in Part III of the Bill so they are, in a sense, paving Amendments. Clause 11 deals with the circumstances in which a landlord, who gives a notice to quit becomes liable to make the new additional payments of four years' rent to a tenant—that is only when he requires the land for a non-agricultural purpose. He is not obliged to pay them if he proposes to use the land for an agricultural purpose.
  Clause 18, however, creates a new set of circumstances in which a landlord may issue a notice to quit to a near relative of a deceased tenant, and these Amendments are required to ensure that the landlord will not be liable to make the additional payments, if the notice to quit, which is given on the grounds set out in Clause 18(2), is given for agricultural purposes.
  These Amendments take account of an Amendment we propose to make to Clause 18 to enable the Land Court to consent to a notice to quit if a near relative successor has neither sufficient agricultural training or experience to fit him to run the holding. The Amendments we are now discussing therefore take account of the fact that a landlord may
  490
  under Clause 18(2) state in a notice to quit that the notice is given because either, first, the tenant has not the training or experience required; or secondly, he proposes to use the land for amalgamation.
  Amendment 15 provides that if the landlord states either of these reasons in his notice to quit, he will not be liable to make the new payment of four years' rent under Clause 9. It is, of course, clear that, if the land is required for amalgamation, this is an agricultural purpose and the provision for non-payment of the additional four years' rent is in line with the principles of Part II of the Bill. But, in the case of notices to quit given because of the tenant's lack of agricultural training or experience, the land might, or might not be going to be used for an agricultural purpose. We therefore have to modify the effect of Amendment 15 by ensuring, by Amendment 16, that the landlord shall be liable to make the additional payments, in cases where a notice to quit is consented to on the grounds that the tenant has neither adequate training nor experience—if the land is in fact to be used for a nonagricultural purpose.
  All this is in accordance with the general principles in Part II of the Bill. Although the Amendment sounds complicated, I hope that my explanation has been sufficiently lucid for its purpose to be understood.
  Mr. Stodart: Despite all his efforts, the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State serves to emphasise the extreme complexity of Clause 11, which brought from the Secretary of State one of the biggest bombshells of his life on Second Reading when he said that it was not complicated but extremely simple. Those who wrestled with it in Committee did not find any reason to share that view.
  Having examined this Amendment, my conclusions about its meaning coincide with those the Under-Secretary of State has given and because it deals to such an extent with—and, it would be fair, to say is occasioned by—the Clauses to which we shall soon be coming, this does not seem to be the time at which to start a debate which would no doubt immediately he ruled out of order. I will say, therefore, that I accept this

  491
  Amendment as being an essential perquisite of Clauses which we shall discuss later, and I have no objection to that. We reserve our position on those Clauses, however.
  Sir John Gilmour: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I take it that if a tenant dies and the heir to the lease loses his claim to it, through his inability to farm, this extra four years' compensation would be paid to that would-be successor to the lease. If a landlord has a farm which he wishes to put to some non-agricultural use, but of which he has a tenant with no heir likely to succeed to the farm, he might try to continue the lease to that tenant during the tenant's lifetime, but if, having done that, he then had to pay an extra four years' compensation to the heir who was not to become the tenant, that would be unfair and would be loading it rather heavily against the landlord. It would be penalising the landlord who, by his goodness, had allowed the tenancy to continue during the tenant's lifetime.
  Mr. Buchan: I am not clear where the difficulty is. In the first place, it will have to be decided whether the heir is eligible. If he is, the decision will then have to be made on the basis of whether the land is to be used as non-agricultural land, or agricultural land. If it is to be used as non-agricultural land, the four years' reorganisation payment would become due, but it would be due only in the case of dispossession for a non-agricultural purpose such as development.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 37, after Act ', insert:
  ' or in section 18(2)(a) of this Act '.—[Mr. Buchan.]
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 1, leave out from beginning to ' references ' and insert:
  (9) In this sectiont.—
  (a)
  Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21.
  Mr. Buchan: The significant Amendment is No. 21, which again underlines
  492
  what has been said about complexity. These four Amendments are required to make the changes to Clause 11 which are consequential on the introduction in Committee of the Clauses which now form Part III. Clause 11 sets out the circumstances in which the new payments provided for in Clause 9 are to be made and provides in particular for the landlord stating in a notice to quit the reasons for his giving the notice. This is required to make it clear whether the notice is given for a non-agricultural purpose, thus attracting the additional payments, or for an agricultural purpose, thus not attracting the additional payments.
  In Clause 19 we have made special arrangements for the transitional period between the publication of these Clauses and the passing of the Bill. This is analogous to other aspects of the Bill. One of the provisions is that a landlord who has served on a near relative a notice to quit under Section 6(3) of the 1958 Act before the passing of the Bill may notify the tenant that if the tenant serves a counter-notice, the landlord proposes to apply for consent on amalgamation grounds, or, under Amendment No. 23, on the ground of the successor's lack of agricultural training or experience.
  The Amendment therefore provides that where a landlord makes such a notification to the tenant in accordance with the procedure set out in Clause 19, any statement which he makes in the notification will be treated as though it had been made when he gave the original notice to quit. The effect is to ensure that where a notice to quit was given during the transitional period and a subsequent notification has to be served, setting out the reasons given for seeking consent to dispossess the tenant, the reasons given in the subsequent notification shall be treated as though they had been reasons given in the original notice to quit, for the purpose of determining whether the landlord is liable to make the new additional payments under Clause 9. These Amendments help and strengthen the position.
  Mr. Stodart: I want only to repeat that this is yet another part of what we regard as the distasteful provisions to which we are coming, and that is speaking with a degree of moderation to which I am not accustomed. However, this fits in with the transitional Clause to take account

  493
  of Part III. I cannot say that I welcome the Amendments, but, in view of the debate to come, they are certainly a necessary part of these provisions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 3, leave out "and" and insert "(b)".
  Amendment No. 20, in page 11, line 7, leave out "and" and insert "(c)".
  Amendment No. 21, in page 11, line 10, at end insert:
  (d) subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall have effect in the case of a notice to quit to which, apart from section 19 of this Act, section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act, 1958 would apply as if any statement made in a notification under subsection (2) of the said section 19 had been made in the relevant notice.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 18.

  (TERMINATION IN CASE OF NEAR RELATIVES OF DECEASED TENANT.)
  Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll): I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 15, line 33, leave out Clause 18.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 27, in page 17, line 15, leave out. Clause 19; Amendment No. 33. in page 18, line 20, leave out Clause 20; Amendment No. 41, in Clause 51, page 40, line 12, leave out
  "and Part III of this Act "
  and Amendment No. 43, in Title, line 7, leave out from "purposes" to "to" in line 10.
  Mr. Noble: Our reason for proposing to leave out Clause 18 is based simply and solely on the fact that we believe that it is not in the best interests of Scottish agriculture for it to be included in the Bill. In Committee, there were a number of discussions about why the Clause should have been introduced after Second Reading and about whether there were proper negotiations and so on. I do not want to waste any time in debates of that sort, because we now have the Clause and it is our duty to decide whether it is bad.
  As the House knows, I am a landlord and, as the House probably knows, I have never been a tenant. But many of my friends in Scotland are tenants and I have discussed these matters with them
  494
  frequently. The by-election which I fought in 1958 was exactly at the time when the legislation of that date was going through the House. The by-election was in an agricultural community and, naturally, I got the full arguments from both sides. I said them, as I say now, that the 1958 alteration was correct and that restoring the position, although not in the same form, was wrong.
  One of the main reasons why this form of legislation is bad is that it is inevitably based on hard cases. I do not know exactly how many cases have arisen since the 1958 Act repealed the earlier provisions, but in Committee it was suggested that over the last year or two there had been only two such cases. If that is so, I know of one of them, because I was responsible for bringing it to the attention of the Scottish Office. It was an extremely hard luck case of a young man who had always worked for his father. When his father died, at a great age—the young man had, in fact, been farming the land for the previous 15 years—I tried, first with his landlord and then with the Crofters Commission, then with the Highlands Development Board and then with the Scottish Office, to see whether there was some way in which we could give this, by then not so young, man a chance to stay on his farm.
  6.30 p.m.
  This particular case would not have been covered in any way by the provisions of this Clause. As so often happens with these things that are brought to the attention of Members, this case (could not conceivably have been related to a two-man farm. It was barely a one-man farm, and only that because the young man concerned had been brought up on it, lived it, and was prepared to work on it and make a very small living from it. If there were only two such cases, one of them certainly would not have been affected in any way by what we are considering in Clause 18.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: In the Clause there is the vital proviso of discretion to the Land Court as to what a fair and reasonable landlord would do. If the case the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is so outstandingly hard, that might apply.
  Mr. Noble: It might, and I hope that it ay be so. This is an individual case

  495
  and I had sympathy with the tenant. I told the landlord that I could not agree with his view about it. Under Clause 18 the landlord would have been strengthened in his view that this was a nonviable farm and therefore should not pass in the way that I felt in this particular case it should.
  In Committee the Under-Secretary took the view that because there were only a few cases in the past it could not be all that important a change. He said:
  "I hope that hon. Members opposite will not exaggerate the effects of these changes. It is important for the individual involved "—
  and there I agree with him—
  "but it would be wrong to suggest that it is of great importance for the agricultural economy of Scotland. The number of cases arising in a year under Section 6 of the 1958 Act is small, and the effect of our provision on the pattern of agriculture is consequently not likely to be significant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 1st February, 1968; c. 551.]
  This is not a question whether it is one or two cases; it is a question of the pattern that has existed over many hundreds of years, between landlord and tenant. Often I have listened to debates in this House and heard from one side or the other, people arguing that all landlords are wicked and all tenants are paragons of virtue. I have lived all my life in an agricultural setting, and I have never heard such arguments in any agricultural community, because an agricultural community is a practical community. It knows that some tenants are not perfect and that some landlords are not perfect either. It knows of the relationship between them. The trust and confidence between perhaps 95 per cent. of landlord and tenants has played an extremely important part in the build-up of efficiency in the system.
  This change is significant because I believe that in trying to put the matter right for the one or two hard cases that might exist per year—
  Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Noble: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, and I am sure he will adduce his view in due course—but it is in any case a very small number, and in order to try to treat the small number of cases and make a law covering such hard cases, we are fundamentally undermining the relationship between landlord
  496
  and tenant, which has existed satisfactorily for many years.
  It is a feature of agriculture in Scotland and England that there has been a tendency, going on for all of my lifetime, for the number of tenant farmers to reduce, and the number of owner-occupiers to increase quite considerably. Though their number is diminishing, there is still an important rôle for tenant farmers to play in our system. This is in part perhaps because it is the only way that young people without very much capital can get into farming, and if they are successful, in due course buy their own place. In part they have an important rôle to play because there are many people who have ideas, often new and exciting ideas, who are able to take advantage of a landlord who is prepared to back them. Often these people are in the forefront of progress.
  It is interesting that this proposal should be brought forward, at a late stage, creating as it does an hereditary system in farming. This from the party which is against the hereditary system in everything else. This is merely an interesting sidelight, and I do not want to develop it to any great extent. It is, however, one of the serious dangers to agriculture. There is no doubt that during the period between 1948 and 1958 there was a considerable reluctance on the part of a number of landlords, either to let their farms, or, if they let them, to put as much money into them, as much power behind the elbows of their tenants as perhaps was needed. This was because the tenant did not have security of tenure—he had complete fixity of tenure. This makes for a difference in the approach which any prudent landlord—a phrase often used in this House—makes in dealing with the situation.
  In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a great deal of play about this having the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of the National Farmers' Union. It is true that at fairly regular intervals, once every year or so, the N.F.U. puts a little note round saying that it thinks that this is a good idea. Like the present holder of the office, I was Secretary of State for a number of years and I can honestly say that the N.F.U. never once raised this with me as being something of real importance

  497
  for the extra efficiency of Scottish agriculture.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It did not expect anything from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Noble: That might be. It might have been convinced by the arguments which I made continuously on this subject in the past. If it had been something of importance I cannot believe that the N.F.U. would not have raised it when I was Secretary of State because of the opportunity of getting some publicity.
  Mr. Dewar Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
  Mr. Noble: I cannot give way to two hon. Members at once. I will give way to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely the right hon. Gentleman reads the agricultural Press? Surely he reads the Scottish Farmer and knows that the most popular writer for that journal is a man called William Young? If he does not know William Young's ideas about this, he is not following agricultural journalism.
  Mr. Dewar: About 30 seconds ago the right hon. Gentleman said that it was possible that the N.F.U. had been convinced by the continuous repetition of his own excellent arguments. Was he making these arguments in a vacuum? I would have thought that they were in response to some sort of agitation or some awareness of the problem shown by the public.
  Mr. Noble: In reply to the last intervention, as I told the House, I fought the by. election in an agricultural area on this issue. In reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, of course I am aware of the writings of Willie Young. He is one of the most prolific writers I know. Before his day there was a Mr. MacDonald of Blyth, who wrote continuously on this subject, and he bored even the I do not believe that any serious leader of the N.F.U. in Scotland would stand up and say that he regarded this as one of the key points, necessary to safeguard Scottish agriculture.
  I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House but arguments on this. point are often based on the fact that what a farmer needs to farm successfully is security of tenure. Everybody
  498
  who has farmed will agree about that. But this Bill does not give security of tenure; it gives fixity of tenure. The Government may just as well admit it and not try to quibble about it. I have often heard the argument that if the farming is badly carried out by the heir there are ample provisions in the 1948 Act under which the farmer can be dispossessed for bad husbandry.
  All I can say is that in all the time I have known Argyllshire I have known only one farm dispossessed for bad husbandry. He was dispossessed by the Department of Agriculture during the war. The Department ran his farm for six or seven years and when it had finished with it, it had to pay him several thousand pounds for having run the farm so badly. The dispossessing of people for bad husbandry is a very rare action and when it is done it is not very successfuil.
  The Secretary of State will have serious worries about this matter because he is the biggest landlord in Scotland and probably has more farms under this control than anybody else.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who is the next biggest?
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Member can make his own point on that matter. The Secretary of State is certainly the biggest, and at the time when I remember coming back to farming after the war the two worst groups of farms in Scotland were those run by the Secretary of State and the Forestry Commission. I am glad that things have improved a little since, but those farms were outstandingly bad examples of the system of State landlords.
  We in Scotland have always had a much higher appreciation of the importance of security of tenure. For that reason, leases in Scotland have always run for a much longer time than they have in England. We realise the importance of the issue, especially in a country mainly given to livestock rearing.
  I find it very odd that the Government should seek to make a major change in the land tenure system of Scotland, and to do so only in respect of Scotland. Is it not a little curious that not one English Minister is in the Chamber? It is widely known that the English N.F.U., which has as much right as the Scottish N.F.U. to be interested in small farms and in

  499
  farm tenure, has not asked for this provision, because it shares my view that it is not in the long-term interest of agriculture.
  It will be interesting if the Minister will say that the English N.F.U. has asked for it. I am certain that he will not. But if something which is believed by many English farmers not to be in the interest of their community is made applicable only because one or two hard cases came to light a few months after the Bill was drafted, and after the Second Reading debate, and therefore it was thought a good thing to import this Clause in Committee, it proves that this a Government sop to the Scottish people in the N.F.U. who have been asking for it, and that they do not feel that it is really of importance to agriculture in Scotland. For that reason my hon. Friends and I will oppose the inclusion of the Clause.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I am glad to have this opportunity to declare Government policy on a very important principle. I am also glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made such a direct challenge. He rightly called attention to the fact that he fought a by-election when this was a matter of public discussion and controversy in Scotland. I remember it very well. I believe that the first vote he cast was on the Report stage of the 1958 Bill.
  Mr. Noble: It was not my first vote.
  Mr. Ross: It was one of his first votes.
  I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has been doing a little research. He has heard about my discussions with landlords at a private meeting that I had with them in St. Andrew's House and has proceeded to find out whether or not I directed the opposition to this proposal in 1958. He did not come into the House until after 1958. I do not know whether he had by then released himself from the Liberal Party. It may be that he was opposing the very thing that he is now proclaiming.
  I have the advantage of knowing the right hon. Gentleman. I used to go round the country with him doing a radio programme when he was a Liberal. In
  500
  those days the Scottish farmers were very angry because of what the Government were doing, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree. This matter was contested in the House. The opinions of farmers were produced. The Scottish farmer has never resiled from his position of opposition.
  Whatever arguments there may have been about fixity, the Scottish farmers were satisfied that the pendulum had swung too far back and that they were in a worse position than they had ever been. The new incontestable notice to quit went against everything they felt they were entitled to after the war. There had been a considerable change in 1940.
  In the present mood of Scotland it is quite wrong for the right hon. Member to say, "The English farmers do not want it; let us pay no attention to what the Scottish farmers want". I should have thought that that was a very dangerous argument to use. Our concern must always be to try to deal with the problems of Scotland at the right time and in the right way.
  Mr. Noble: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. I said at the beginning of my speech that in opposing the Clause I was thinking about the best interests of Scottish agriculture in referring to the fact that the English N.F.U. did not want it, and citing it as a rather curious example of the fact that the Government feel that they must do something which they do not regard as very important to Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman said that it strengthened his argument opposing this being done for Scotland, that the English farmers took a different view. That is a weak argument for him to put forward. It is not one that I would expect to come from any Scottish Member. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the English N.F.U. did not shut its eyes to the fact that there might well be hardships. In its publication "Tenure of Farm Land", the English union indicated that it did not feel that a special case on behalf of sons succeeding stood any chance of success and added that it hoped
  "that all landlords and agents will give particular consideration to the sons' hopes and recognise that confidence in succession gives

  501
  many older farmers a strong incentive to maintain and improve their farm as though it was their own."
  That was the attitude of the N.F.U. in England and Wales. But there is no doubt where the Scottish N.F.U. stands.
  When the Government's proposals were announced, Mr. A. B. Campbell, convener of the union's Legal and Commercial Committee, said:
  "Good farming needs long-term planning and this is only possible for a tenant farmer where he has security of tenure. It is reasonable that a farmer's immediate family should be able to succeed to the tenancy and this right will remove the uncertainty which has hindered tenant farmers from spending money on capital improvements. The Union has pressed for the restoration of a measure of security of tenure since 1958. We are therefore pleased that the Government is introducing the necessary legislation as part of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill instead of trying to find Parliamentary time for a separate Act".
  This was the nub of the point of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not want to make much of it, but he wondered why the provision was introduced in this Bill in this way. He should know, as a former Secretary of State, that one can be held up if one has to wait for a special place in the legislative programme. If one sees a suitable vehicle, then one is wise to use it.
  The right hon. Gentleman and others have said, "But we did not know about this on Second Reading". I have been a Member of the House for a fair length of time, and I could list a number of Bills in the past 10 years in which very important changes were made after the Second Reading. A very important part—I think that it was Part I—of the Children and Young Persons Act did not apply to Scotland. After the Second Reading, after the Committee was set up—and there was not a Scottish Minister on it—the Government decided to apply it to Scotland. I should not be surprised if it was the hon. Gentleman who was deputed to be the Scottish Minister in respect of this new-found interest in the legislation.
  Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman's memory, for the third time tonight, is quite wrong. However, he said that the N.F.U. has been pressing for this. We know that. No doubt, mature consideration was given to the Bill for many months before 1st November, when it was published. What caused the right hon.
  502
  Gentleman to ignore that pressure, as he must have done, and suddenly put it in on 4th December?
  Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and this will be borne out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—that we tried for a long time to get agreement between the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the N.F.U., because every Government, when making changes of this nature, tries to make them on the basis of agreement. That went on for a long time—through 1965. It became obvious eventually that there would be no movement by the Scottish Landowners' Federation. When it was evident that we might be moving towards drawing up proposals for legislation, they sought certain assurances—and I think the correspondence was read in Committee—and wanted to see Ministers. I assure the House that no pledges were given, but their representatives did see Ministers; they saw me. We discussed the matter fully. It was evident to me that, once again, they were completely opposed to the principle; they were inflexible. But I found the meeting useful.
  The pressures were not merely there; they were here in the House. There were Questions during those years. Two hon. Members tried to introduce Bills under the Ten Minute Rule procedure to do exactly this. I assure hon. Members that there was very considerable anxiety in certain parts of Scotland. In one part of the Highlands a landlord acted, and notice to quit was given to a farmer. The right hon. Gentleman's memory is right concerning one case. There have been others. I know of some in Ayrshire. But I equally know of the effect of the existence of this. I know of cases in which the factor called on a widow shortly after the funeral. This kind of thing happens. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will be denying some of the things which have happened. He will be denying what his right hon. Friend said about the case with which he has sympathy.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie (Ross and Cromarty): To confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I attended a funeral myself. The factor was there, and he approached the widow before we left the church.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Before the right hon. Gentleman referred to factors attending funerals, he was in the middle of explaining—and it was very interesting—why this was not dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill, but was put in in Committee. I understood him to say that negotiations were going on all this time. But he seemed to contradict that, because I understood him to say that the negotiations with the Landowners' Federation had stopped in 1965. If there were no negotiations with the landowners after 1965, the pressure from the N.F.U. was there all the time. What was it that caused the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind after the Second Reading of the Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. We are on Report.
  Mr. Ross: A meeting was held by the Department of Agriculture with the Landowners' Federation and the N.F.U. on 20th December, 1965. Therefore, we are talking about not early 1965 but the end of 1965. The Scottish Landowners' Federation wrote to the Department of Agriculture on 29th September, 1966. A certain amount of consideration was given to its point of view and there were discussions with other people as well.
  Mr. Galbraith: That was all before the Second Reading.
  Mr. Ross: Of course, it was all before the Second Reading. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that our opinions have been hardening about what could and should be done as a result of the consultations which we had. Probably we could have produced these Amendments earlier in a much rougher form. But I do not think that anyone would have liked that. We took time to ensure that they were presentable Amendments, and met some of the principles which had been evolved in agricultural progress in the previous two years concerning amalgamations, and so on.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur Mr. Ian MacArthur(Perth and East Perthshire)rose—
  Mr. Ross: We are not in Committee. I should like to make progress and set out what has been done.
  Hon. Members should not think that this was suddenly thought up and
  504
  suddenly put in the Bill. However, we must note the feelings of the agricultural community which have existed since 1958 and which have been strengthened here and there by events. That is the kind of thing which people want—not just that the power should be there but people who are prepared to use that power when circumstances lend urgency to something being done fairly quickly.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. MacArthur: If it is true that this was involved in the right hon. Gentleman's thinking at that time, why did he not announce that it was his intention to introduce a new Clause in Committee? Why did he not give the House some indication of his intent, so that this very large change in the law could have been discussed by the House?
  Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this was raised on Second Reading. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Thomas Steele), and, indeed, I gave him an answer at that time. I think it was just about this time that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) announced publicly that they would have Ten Minute Rule Bills to do just exactly this.
  When there is that kind of feeling growing up and when there is an Agriculture Bill before the House I think it is right, having taken the decision, to implement it by that means.
  Mr. MacArthur: But why did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
  Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Landowners' Federation was aware of it before we put the Clause down and there was ample time to consider it. I certainly have no apologies to make with respect to the speed with which we acted. Indeed, some people may say we acted far too slowly and should not have tried to get agreement and co-operation before we proceeded.
  The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that to get the best out of agriculture we need co-operation between landlord and tenant, but I do not think that those people are right who claim

  505
  that that will be undermined and destroyed by what is being done here. I am quite sure it will not. There has been far too much exaggeration of the effects of this. In saying that, I draw upon the discussions I had with the landowners themselves. I do not think that they are suddenly going to change their altitude to the sons or near relatives of those who are their tenants. I do not think they will suddenly change their whole ideas about the proper way to run their estates. Far from it. I do not think that the consequences of this will be a tremendous reduction in the number of tenants in Scotland. Far from it.
  I think the hon. Gentleman was right in what he said about what has happened since 1958. I think it is true that if there has been a reduction in the number of tenant farmers in Scotland, it has been due to the fact that landlords have been realising what gains they could make and have been selling off farms. I have often argued this with my farming friends. I represent a farming community. When they tell me about the sad state of agriculture I draw their attention to a farm which has just been sold and I ask, "If things are so bad, why were such high prices offered for that farm?" and they say," It is the wrong people who are getting the farms." This runs counter to the suggestion being made that landlords desire to get the right tenants. One would have thought that they were at least as interested in getting the right buyers as well. We must get these things aright, and in the right perspective, and not have so much exaggeration of the effects.
  It is suggested that what we are doing is creating the hereditary system in relation to tenancy. We are not abolishing the hereditary system in land ownership. That was an argument I have heard more than once. What we seek to get within this pattern of stability is a certain measure of safeguard and of social justice in the balance of rights, and I am satisfied that what we have done is the right thing and that it is being done at the right time. Consultations have taken place and I do not think that the Bill will have on the farming industry the adverse effect which some people have suggested. We are continuing exactly some of the conditions already existing; we are bringing about a very narrow
  506
  range of change, and only a narrow range will be affected.
  I hope it will help the House if I explain in some detail what we are doing. We do not say that the landlord will never be able to recover his farm when the tenant dies. If there is no successor, or not one who wants the farm, the position remains as it is at present. Further, if a legatee, or the only people entitled to succeed, are not near relatives of the deceased tenant, the landlord can still, if any such person succeeds to the holding, give him an incontestable notice to quit, and a near relative is defined as a wife or husband and a son and daughter. When the successor is a near relative we are providing for two sets of circumstances in which the landlord can, with the consent of the Land Court, repossess his land. In the first place, if he requires a holding to amalgamate with another holding to form a more satisfactory economic unit, the holding from which the successor is to be dispossessed must, in such a case, be smaller than to be capable of giving full-time employment to two men. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there might have been an argument for our going further, but this is one of the things where we are taking into account the possibility of amalgamation and the making of viable and economic units, and that is what the Government are seeking.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: In that case, as the right hon. Gentleman says it would be a holding giving employment to two men, would it not be in order for a husband and wife to count, in this case, as two individuals?
  Mr. Ross: Oh, yes. In this case man embraces woman, and so I think that answers the point of the hon. Gentleman.
  Provided the holding is not already a satisfactory economic unit, the landlord may seek to repossess it for amalgamation with other land.
  The other safeguard which we propose to introduce, and which is contained in Amendment No. 23, at page 16, line 11, is to provide that the landlord may seek the consent of the Land Court to dispossess a successor, even if that successor is a near relative, on the grounds that the person who has succeeded to the holding has neither sufficient training in

  507
  agriculture nor sufficient experience in farming to enable that person to farm the holding with reasonable efficiency. This was the point raised by more than one hon. Member in Committee.
  I think that what we are doing is reasonable.
  Mr. John Brewis: I know a case which worries me very much. The son of the tenant has been convicted of cattle stealing from his neighbour. He pleaded guilty and was convicted. Normally, no landlord would want to take somebody convicted in those circumstances. As I understand it, under the Bill he can become the tenant of the holding when his father, the tenant, dies. I cannot see anything in any of the legislation which would enable the landlord to put such a man out.
  Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the 1949 Act he will find that an unsatisfactory person as a tenant can beevicted—[Interruption.]—at the discretion of the Land Court.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I remind my right hon. Friend that cattle stealing was not regarded as so bad at the time when the land was acquired, and the right hon. Gentleman who was the last Conservative Prime Minister boasted that his family were the most successful cattle stealers on the Border.
  Mr. Speaker: This is fascinating, but it is history, and we must come back to the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: We must come to much more recent history.
  Mr. Hawkins Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Ross: I must get on.
  Mr. Hawkins: I want to raise a particular point.
  Mr. Ross: We shall come back to particular points, I am sure, and the hon. Gentleman will make one of his very able speeches again.
  What we have done is to protect the landlord from having to accept as a tenant anyone who has not sufficient qualification or sufficient experience of farming. Altogether, then, there are several different circumstances in which
  508
  a landlord may be able to repossess his land, and I cannot see that what we propose should make the change in the position of landlords as a whole so desperate as some hon. Members have suggested.
  I do not think that there will be any drying up of the supply of tenanted farms because of what we are proposing. It may be that there will be a small reduction in the number to let, but it must be remembered that they will remain tenanted farms, and that is not unimportant. They will be tenanted by people who, according to the judgment of the Land Court, are fit and proper persons in terms of farming experience. Opposing this proposal must run counter to the great patriotic farming speeches which hon. Gentlemen opposite make time and time again. That is why I am glad that we have this opportunity for them to show clearly where they stand.
  Often, in the past, a landlord has sold a holding rather than let it, but the number should not be exaggerated. Neither should we exaggerate the point made about landlords being reluctant to invest in holdings. Let us remember what the N.F.U. say about the reluctance of the tenant and the attitude which he takes to spending money on his farm. The present law discourages a tenant from investing in his holding and from giving of his best in the running of the farm in his later years.
  It must be appreciated that though these hard cases are few in number, they have an influence which goes far beyond any one district. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) will all be able to tell us about one and the same case, because the effect that it had upon the Highlands of Scotland is something with which we have to reckon.
  It is not unfair to say that we have now met in considerable measure, though not in full measure, the complaints made about the difficulties and dangers inherent in the change which was made by Section 6 of the Agriculture Act, 1958. It may be that there will be hard cases

  509
  left, and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has cited one. But what we have done merits the support and the congratulation of the House, because we have been able to meet a Scottish problem within the framework of our existing procedures. It may be that we have shown how unfair are some of the criticisms about getting the right thing done at the right time for purely Scottish problems.
  Mr. Brewis: The Secretary of State might have produced some better reasons for this Amendment. In fact, he chose to make a political debating speech.
  One of the strong points which he can put forward is that, in these days, the equipment of a farm is becoming more expensive. Very often it is necessary that, as part of a partnership, a tenant has to lay out considerable sums on equipment, and it is right that he should have a certain security of tenure in order to get back the money which he has invested. That is about the strongest point in favour of the Amendment. However, it can be dealt with by the compensation provisions in the principal Act. If they are not satisfactory, the right hon. Gentleman should have looked at them in order to set out more clearly that a tenant is entitled to suitable compensation.
  7.15 p.m.
  I am sure that everyone will agree with the average farmer who wants one of his sorts to follow him in the tenancy of his holding. Quite often a farmer has two sons, and I know of one farmer who has four, all of whom now have farms of their own as tenants. The real danger of the Clause is that the number of farms to let will dry up, and that would be a very serious loss to the Scottish agricultural community. There is no doubt in my mind that a farm to let is very useful for the younger son of a farmer, for a young man wanting to come into the industry, or even for an older man who has been an agricultural worker and has saved, but who has not much capital.
  In my constituency, the average dairy farm needs about £60 an acre of a tenant's capital. Land is selling for perhaps £100 an acre. Anyone going into a farm requiring £60 an acre to be spent on it may be able to raise it from a bank. If he buys and has to raise more like £160 an acre, it is quite impossible.
  For those who are better off, borrowing £100 an acre from a bank will result in their having to pay something like £8 per £100 in interest. If they are paying rent, it will probably be more like £4 an acre. There is a great economic advantage there. In addition, however bad the landowner is, he will do a little for a farm even if it is only to pay the fire insurance premium. A good landlord will do a lot. A banker will do nothing.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: But in Scotland, frequently a banker is the landlord. Often the landlord is chairman of the bank which lends the money.
  Mr. Brewis: I am sure that we all agree that partnerships between everyone are very desirable, but perhaps I had better let the hon. Gentleman make his own speech.
  We have had experience of what happened between 1949 and 1958, when there was a similar provision in the agricultural legislation. Very few farms were available to let. They tended to be sold, and farms with vacant possession were almost double the price of those with sitting tenants. All this affected the young man wanting to go into farming, because the price of farms became very much higher. A sitting tenant often could buy his farm at one price and, by giving up possession, could sell a short time after for a large profit. Landlords were bribing tenants to give up holdings so that they could sell them with vacant possession.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point? He talks about bribing tenants to give up possession. I thought that he was arguing just now for compensation. What is the difference between bribery to give up possession and compensation to give it up?
  Mr. Brewis: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point. I was saying that, if there was an old man in a farm, it might be to the landlord's advantage to offer him £1,000 to give up the farm, so that it could be sold at double the price that would be realised with a tenant in it.
  I remember having a farm to let in 1956. There were hundreds of applicants from all over Britain. The man

  511
  who eventually got it had made something like 27 different attempts to get a farm over five or six years. Among the applicants there were at least 20 local boys with experience who wanted a farm. After 1958, all 20 of them were fixed up with their own farms in about five years, and that would not have happened unless the 1958 Act had had the effect of bringing more farms on to the market.
  By far the best farm would be one where there was a partnership between the landlord and the tenant. At present the tenant has security of tenure for life, with the compensation provision for improvements that he makes. If we make tenancies hereditary, we will turn farming into a closed shop, so that the second or third sons of farmers and young men who have gone through agricultural colleges like Auchincruive will have little chance of getting into the farming industry. Therefore, this Clause should not be allowed into the Bill.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: My only reason for troubling the House is that I played a prominent part in the Committee which studied this legislation in great detail in 1957. Mr. Tom Fraser and I were there and I have lively recollections of the proceedings. We had the Scottish N.F.U. lobbying us against the Conservative legislation of that time, because they said that it heavily overloaded the law in favour of the landlord. The Landlords' Federation was also there to back up the Conservative Government.
  Large sums had been given away in largesse to the slum owners under the Rent Act, and the big country landlords said, "What about us?", and this was about the last thing that the Conservative Government did. We had a very long struggle contesting this legislation. We had the best arguments, but the Conservatives had a majority. The result was that the landlords got their pound of flesh in the form of this Act, which has been a grievance of the tenant farmers of Scotland ever since.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was not there at the time. He understood he argument from the landlords' point of view. If he had taken part in the long protracted struggle that we had in Committee he would know that it was a struggle between the Conservative Party, which was solidly
  512
  behind the landlords, and those of us who wanted justice for the tenant farmers. We were not acting as Socialist propagandists; we were egged on by the Scottish National Farmers' Union. We were backed up by people who knew most about the law of tenant farming in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about hundreds of years of good relations between the landlords in Scotland and their tenants. Where could he have learned that? Only at Eton.
  Mr. Speaker is looking at me rather ominously, so I will not bother the House with any long protracted argument. However, I will mention my own immortal constituent, Robert Burns, whose father died after litigation with the local landlord at Lochlea Farm in Ayrshire. Robert Burns wrote some of his bitterest poetry about the landlords, with whom the tenant farmers were supposed to be living like brothers for hundreds of years.
  Thomas Carlyle, who followed him, politely described the landlords of his time as a lot of hyenas. I would not dream of using the language of Thomas Carlyle or even of Ramsey Macdonald or even of Tom Johnston. I will leave that subject.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has anticipated me. Perhaps he will come to the Amendment?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was provoked by the idyllic picture of the landlord and tenant getting on so well together. That is not historical fact and it would not pass as fact in any agricultural audience in Scotland.
  The Bill will be welcomed by the farming community of Scotland because it does something practical to remedy the injustices under which farmers have suffered for so long.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about the difficulties of the young farmer. One difficulty is that he has to borrow money at 8 per cent. I would point out that often he has to borrow it from a bank which is probably presided over by the Duke of Buccleuch, or families which I had better not mention in the House because of their historical political associations. All this bears heavily on the tenant farmer, but he will be delighted at getting justice from a Labour Government.

  513
  I read the Scottish Farmer regularly. It is a very interesting paper. The most interesting and ablest journalist in the farming world in Great Britain is Mr. Willie Young whose column is read and appreciated in thousands of homes throughout Scotland. Mr. Willie Young is an ex-Conservative convener of the Ayrshire County Council. We were against each other politically. However, anyone who reads his column regularly—which I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to do—will know that a very deep seated grievance of farmers is the subject of security of tenure.
  It is right that there is a rush for farms by young men. I have an extract here about one of the very few sales of land in the West of Scotland. It is headed "Tenant buys a farm from Sir Alec". I do not know who Sir Alec is. I find this description of the sale:
  "Sir Alec Douglas-Home auctioned off his 318 acres Newtonhead Farm yesterday for £25,000 to one of his own tenants."
  To see this sale along came several hundred farmers anxious to buy land, because so little was available. That is the position in Scotland.
  Land has gone up in price because the Conservative Government overburdened the 1957 Act for the benefit of the landlords. If the second or third sons of a farmer cannot find an opportunity to make good in following their father, the handicap has been placed upon them fairly and squarely by the landlords of Scotland who are organised politically in the Conservative Party.
  I have no quarrel with the right hon. Member for Argyll. He and I are very pleasant to each other when we meet. I thought that he had given up his interest in agriculture for fish. However, his conception of the relationship between landlords and tenants is simply a glimpse of unreality. Therefore, I hope that the farmers of Scotland will realise that the Labour Government is not their enemy. We are doing our utmost to get a fair deal for the honest, hardworking farmer who will perhaps not even vote for us at election time. I am sure that there will be gratitude in the hearts of many humble farming folk when they know that this Clause has been carried and the Bill is finally on the Statute Book.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I intend briefly to support the Minister's proposals and to oppose the Amendment. I find it remarkable that the Conservative Party feels itself far better informed about what is best for Scottish Agriculture than the Scottish N.F.U. This is clearly what hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are saying.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said that the N.F.U. was pressing this, but it was not pressing it very hard, that it was going softly, that it did not think it was very important, but what the Secretary of State said when he quoted Mr. Campbell represents the view which has always been held by the representative body of farmers in Scotland, and surely these people know something about the situation.
  I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he talked about this being rather a question of hard cases. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Galbraith: When reference was made to hard cases, I remarked, in parentheses as it were, that hard cases often make bad law.
  Mr. Johnston: Still in parentheses, I think that hard cases ought to be dealt with in this House. There are hard cases, and this has been conceded by the right hon. Gentleman. I know of some, the Secretary of State knows of many more, and I think that a series of hard cases necessitates the introduction of legislation to deal with them in some radical form.
  Farming is a long-term business. As the ex-Minister of State for Scotland said in asotto voce interruption, it is not very important when or why, but when the Secretary of State for Scotland says that this is being done at the right time, I must say that I think the right time was some time ago.
  Mr. Ross: I was referring to the fact that we had a legislative vehicle ready for use.
  Mr. Johnston: I thought that the Agriculture Act was equally a legislative vehicle which was ready for use, and that was considered some time ago.

  515
  I do not comprehend the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Argyll about fixity of tenure. He says that this Measure will freeze land tenure. I do not think that this is true. I think that there are relevant "outs" at the land court. I am not a farmer, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) looks bleakly at me whenever I rise to speak on these matters. People say that we must improve the farming ladder, that we must provide more opportunities for young people to get farms, but this is difficult to do.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, know more about farming than I do, but I am not sure that giving security of tenure to a proficient first-degree blood relationship relative, which is virtually what is being done, will make very much difference. In fact, I wonder what the argument is when someone says, "Very well. Here is a good son who may or may not secure the tenantship of his father's farm". We scrub the question of security of tenure so that the landlord may say that he does not want this bloke, but somebody else, or he wants to put the farm on the market. In terms of the efficient use of the farm, I am not sure that the fact that somebody else manages to get in, perhaps for financial reasons—as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, we are engaged in an auction—that the right man will get the farm. Whoever takes over may transform the place, but he may not be as good as the person who, in normal circumstances, would have succeeded to the place which he knows, a place which, as in the case of Sandy Matheson, a case in my constituency of which the Secretary of State is fully aware, his family has farmed for three generations. I am not sure that this proposal will necessarily result in the better use of land.
  Mr. George Willis: As my hon. Friend said, since we became the Government the N.F.U. has been pressing for this proposal, and certainly not in any casual manner. What the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said about this being an occasional reminder is simply not true. The Scottish N.F.U. has been pressing for this for some time, the fact is that it
  516
  was impossible to reach any agreement with the landowners, and one was forced to the conclusion that they did not want to reach agreement.
  It is significant of the case which has been deployed by the Opposition that the most exciting exchanges have taken place on whether it was right to introduce this provision by means of an Amendment to the Bill.
  Mr. Stodart Mr. Stodart indicated dissent
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) shakes his head. That was the most exciting part of the debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite kept popping up to say that we should not have introduced this by way of an Amendment.
  Mr. Noble: It is difficult to know what is going to excite the right hon. Gentleman. In my opening speech I specifically said that I regarded that issue as irrelevant, and the only person who excited the House was the Secretary of State for Scotland when he tried to explain why he had done it in this way.
  Mr. Willis: I am easily excited, but the case that I have heard from the benches opposite has not excited me.
  As I said sotto voce at the time, what does it matter how it is done? If it is a good thing to do, let us do it now, even by way of an Amendment. The House has not been prevented from debating the matter. In fact, we have had a better debate than we would have had if this provision had been in the Bill originally, because I am sure that English Members would have made scant reference to it during the Second Reading debate. I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life as I have heard tonight.
  I listened to the hon. Gentleman making his case. I tried to find out what it was. As I understand it, he made two points. First, that it was not a good thing to base legislation on hard cases. If there are a number of hard cases, surely the thing to do is to alleviate the situation. This is what the House is for. We are wasting our time if we take the view that hard cases do not matter. If we do, we should not be here. We should be in Scotland taking it easy, and not trying to argue the toss here. Our purpose in

  517
  being here is to bring these things to the notice of the Government, and to try to persuade them to do something about them.
  He said also that this was bad agriculture and quoted the case of two farms taken over during the war by the Government, the tenants of which were dispossessed. I do not know what that has to do with the argument. We were debating the merits of the principal Act of 1958 and the differences between the position before and that afterwards. I have heard nothing to show that agriculture and the state of the land is better and that more farms come on to the market for tenants. Some farms are coming up, but are not necessarily taken by tenant farmers. Representatives of the N.F.U. have several times complained to me that farms are sometimes taken over by the owners because it is profitable and in other cases are being sold. Once they are sold, they are not taken by tenant farmers—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] If not, they will be let by someone who is hoping to exploit the poor tenant farmer.
  These are being sold to enlarge existing farms. This might be good, but there are not necessarily more farms for tenant farmers because of the 1958 Act. I have seen no evidence for this and none has been produced tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) quoted the case of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) selling a farm, in which case the tenant ceased to be a tenant and became an owner.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is likely that this farmer borrowed the money for the land from the bank in which the right hon. Member is interested.
  Mr. Willis: When one of these farms comes on the market under the 1958 Act, it is generally for sale—
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne(South Angus)indicated dissent
  Mr. Willis: Well, this is my information. The young farmer simply cannot take it. This is another complaint made to me by the N.F.U. Someone said that a person who is not a good farmer might culture. In all our dairying districts—I buy it.
  518
  A much better case than has been deployed so far would be necessary before we took the Amendment seriously. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West did not produce a good case, though he took a long time. This is a good Clause, and I believe that it will be beneficial.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I had not intended to speak on the Amendment until I heard some of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. I was concerned first because in this landlord-tenant argument, the landlord is built up as an omnipotent ogre following the profit motive. In the last ten days, I have raised with the Under-Secretary the case of a small village joiner with an 18-acre croft of which he was the landlord and of which he could not get possession. We should also consider this kind of case.
  I am concerned about the opportunity to enter farming of those from agricultural colleges or those who work their way up through the industry. With the growth in owner-occupation, it is very difficult for such people, because of the size of the financial commitment, to get in that way. At least the tenant system has provided this opportunity. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) may say that we have not proved that there has been any improvement since 1958, but the Government must answer the genuine anxiety of those who feel that the proposal to increase security of tenure will give them less opportunity. Their only way is through tenancies and if the number is to be restricted, this will be serious.
  In Committee, mentioning agricultural students, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) quoted a student at Aberdeen University who was concerned about opportunities once he had qualified and had some experience. We should consider the considerable output of these people in Scotland, who come from the colleges and the agricultural courses in universities and want to go into research or manufacturing and—many of them—to farm practically. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this proposal will increase their opportunities? I doubt whether it will.
  I am also concerned about those who have worked their way up through agriculture. In all our dairying districts—I

  519
  am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has left, since he is probably acquainted with this—there are people prepared to work extremely hard and long hours to earn generally good wages and amass a good deal of money. Their aim has been to get a farm, generally a tenanted one. I know, from talking to them, that they are concerned that, if there is too great a security of tenure, they will have even less opportunity of eventually farming on their own. The object of their hard work—they often work seven days a week, which is more than other agricultural workers—is becoming increasingly difficult for them to realise.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not follow the logic. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, to give an opportunity to somebody who is working his way up in the industry—granted, we hope that there will be greater opportunities—he is prepared to dispossess the proficient son of a farmer who has perhaps been in possession for a long time and who is equally hard working?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not the point. [Hon. Members: "It is.''] I know what happened in the early 1950s. There are examples of people who stayed on, cases of hardship. I know the way that things worked out in practice. I have followed the Land Court cases. A member of my family was concerned in a Land Court case as a tenant. I know the way that this can work. The Secretary of State must tell us whether he believes that his proposal will increase the opportunities for the people I have mentioned—students from agricultural colleges and those who are working their way up in the industry.
  My final point concerns a constituency case which I raised two or three years ago with Lord Hughes, who was then the Under-Secretary responsible for agriculture at the Scottish Office. A farmer in my constituency was a tenant holder of one of the holdings of the Department of Agriculture. A few years ago he wanted to write into the lease that he should be able to pass the lease on to his son. This request was refused by the Secretary of State on the grounds that when my constituent eventually gave up the tenancy the Secretary of State wanted to amalgamate the holding with a neighbouring
  520
  Department of Agriculture holding. In view of the White Paper which the Government had produced favouring the amalgamation of holdings, I had to explain the case to my constituent and convince him that it was not an isolated individual case but was part of Government policy and that he would have to accept it as such, no matter what his personal feelings were.
  I was surprised to hear from the Secretary of State tonight that if a holding was sufficiently large as to justify the employment of two people the arguments for amalgamation would fail and the tenant would be allowed to continue or to pass the tenancy to his heir. This is what brought me to my feet originally. My constituent, who was the tenant of a 70–80 acre holding, was himself employed on that holding and employed his wife and son on it as well.
  This occurred within the period in which the Secretary of State has been considering the whole question of security of tenure and preparing legislation for the House. Two years ago he was prepared to refuse a request from one of his tenants to include his heir in the lease. What has happened to change the right hon. Gentleman's view? Should I advise my constituent to reapply to have the name of his son, who is a competent young farmer and who takes an active part in the activities of the local young farmers' club, written into the lease? This is a precise example of the double talk which we get from the Government. I would respect what they are trying to do much more if they would show a greater degree of consistency in their arguments.
  Mr. Maclennan: I listened with particular attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who speaks as one who has a special knowledge of this subject. He speaks as a landowner, as he said, and as a farmer. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he opposed the Clause on the ground that it was contrary to the interests of Scottish agriculture. For the rest of his speech I waited for the follow-up. It seemed clear from all that the right hon. Gentleman said that he equated the interests of the Scottish landowner with the interests of Scottish agriculture. I, who have no vested interests, not being a landowner, tenant or farmer, was unimpressed by that argument.

  521
  The right hon. Gentleman waited until the end of his speech to produce the ace of trumps with which to defeat the Government's case. It was nothing less than the opinion of the English National Farmers' Union. It would be hard to conceive anything more irrelevant to this debate.
  It has been argued, I think more effectively by some of those behind the right hon. Gentleman, that what is at stake is the availability of land and that there should be a frequent changeover of ownership. This is a respectable argument. This measure will not greatly increase the availability of land, nor will it greatly diminish it. Hon. Members opposite have tried to have this argument both ways. They have argued, first, that there is little damage done and that only one or two cases crop up each year. Secondly, they have implied that this proposal will fundamentally alter the whole structure of land tenure in Scotland. I cannot reconcile these arguments. The Opposition, in speech after speech, have failed to reconcile them.
  Mr. Noble: If I had spoken for much longer I might have got the point through to the hon. Gentleman's mind. The point which was made simply was that the key to the success is good relations between owner and tenant. As the Secretary of State said, for years owners realised that this was damaging to their relations with tenants. What extra arguments need be added to support the point of view of one very important partner in agriculture?
  Mr. Maclennan: I entirely agree about the desirability of there being good relations between landlord and the tenant. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, the right hon. Gentleman must move in a world of illusion if he thinks that this represents the position, particularly in the Highlands. The argument based on the broad notion of the general importance of agriculture of, as it were, dispossessing the tenant is not new in the Highlands. It was adduced as long ago as when James Lock and Patrick Sellar turned small tenants off my constituency. That is precisely the argument to which we are listening tonight.
  This proposal is a simple act of justice towards the many small farmers in
  522
  particular who have lived in fear of dispossession and whose efficiency has been substantially diminished by the knowledge that their children would not be inheriting the holding. In consequence, they refrained from investing what was needed to make the farm a proper economic unit.
  As one hon. Member opposite pointed out, farming today calls for considerable capital expenditure. When a farmer's security is threatened, as it has been in the last decade since the iniquitous Tory legislation of 1958, he is not likely to lay out large sums in capital expenditure, even if he has them available. What the Government propose is an act of justice, and they are to be thoroughly commended for it.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dewar: The only observation in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) with which I disagreed came in his opening sentence when he called this a short debate. I shall take no more than a few minutes because the debate has already gone on long enough and it has largely covered ground which was very well ploughed, for one and a half days, in the Standing Committee.
  Mr. MacArthur: But not on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Dewar: True, not on the Floor of the House. That point has been made. However, I hope that we can stick to the issues here and that the Conservative Opposition will not raise querulous complaints about procedure in order to rebut the Clause because they are frightened to attack it in principle. They do not want to be caught in open ground on a provision which covers an important matter of principle and which shows where general attitudes lie in relation to the whole of our agriculture and our system of land tenure in Scotland.
  The issue here is simple. The Government have introduced a Clause which we regard as equitable and commendable by any reasonable standards. The question is whether the relative of a tenant farmer, who is adequately qualified in skill and who has had adequate experience, should be allowed to follow the tenant when he dies, or should he, at the whim or will of the landlord, no longer

  523
  have the right to continue? It is no good talking about amicable relations between landlord and tenant. It is easy to maintain amicable relations if one is the landlord who, by definition, holds the legal whip hand.
  I should be prepared to accept the Opposition's case if the opening statement made by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) could be substantiated. He said that the Clause would create considerable disruption in the whole pattern of farming in Scotland. If his subsequent arguments had proved the point, I should reluctantly, have accepted that we must look elsewhere, perhaps at schemes of adequate compensation, in order to make the best of a bad job for the people about whom we are concerned. In that case, I should regretfully have agreed that we ought to turn our back on the Clause, but there was nothing whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's following arguments to justify his sweeping statement. No such arguments have come from his hon. Friends. There have been a few points of varying worth, but it seemed to me that they could either be set aside or be regarded as of meagre importance.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)—I know that he speaks sincerely and feels deeply on this matter—talked about the problem of the man coming up through the agricultural college. A good deal has been made of the argument about the need to have a supply of tenant farms coming on the market. It was asked whether this Measure would do anything to produce more farms for people of that kind. But that is not the question which should be asked. It is a relevant factor, but it is not the fundamental question here. The question is: what is just and right for relatives of sitting tenants at the moment? This is a quite different consideration.
  All we have to prove—it can easily be done—is that the interests of the people to whom the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred will not be prejudiced by the passing of the Clause. Of course, they will not. Let us take the situation at its worst. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) very properly said, it is simply a matter of a choice between
  524
  continuing as tenant the son or daughter who is properly qualified and allowing another tenant to be brought in. At worst, it is a balance of convenience, and it seems to me that, at the very least, there is, or there ought to be, an overriding prejudice in favour of the relatives of the tenant who has given so much and spent so much over the years on improving the property.
  We can take consolation in knowing that if the Clause goes through and a new tenant is installed under its provisions, the farm will still be tenanted, and there will still be tenant farmers. We can take satisfaction in that if we believe in tenant farmers as a valuable section of the agricultural community. If a farm falls vacant, the landlord may well say, "I shall pick from a wide pool of appropriate people to fill the tenancy". But we all know that tenants are being squeezed out by hard economic circumstances. I do not expect any landlord to be a paragon of virtue. I do not expect him to say that he will in his case set aside all the long-term economic trends which are leading to the squeeze and that he will prejudice his own financial interests by putting in another tenant. The reason why farms are going out is that it is economically sensible for landlords to do it, and it would be to ignore human nature to expect many landlords not to act in that way.
  Hon. Members opposite who have read the hand-out on these provisions from the Landowners' Federation will remember its eloquent and accurate argument that it is much cheaper at the moment to rent a farm as a tenant than it would be to finance the capital to buy it, interest rates being so high. The almost automatic corollary of that, certainly in a very large number of cases, is that, if one has the asset and has a choice between selling it and using the money on the market or re-letting, it is on one's financial interest to sell.
  It seems to me, therefore, that in a negative or, so to speak, static sort of way, the balance of advantage in the effect of the Clause will definitely tend to preserve and not diminish the stock of tenant farms.
  The right hon. Member for Argyll argued that capital would not be invested

  525
  by the landlord. Again, it is self-evident that that argument can he used the other way. The intelligent, progressive, forward-looking tenant will be held back in his turn, if he has not got security of tenure, from putting in really permanent and adequate improvements for the proper farming of his land.
  The argument boils down to this. On both sides of the House, we are legislating for a few hard cases. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said that hard cases make bad law. This is a legal saw, so to speak, drawn from the judicial interpretation of Statutes by the courts. It does not relate to the original preparation of Statutes in the House of Commons. But that is by the way. The basic point is that, even if there is only a handful of these cases, only one or two, we can accept the argument that the average landlord allows the relative of the tenant to succeed. That is all very fair. But, if that is the position generally, hon. Members cannot, in logic, go on to say that there will be a fundamental disruption of the general pattern of agricultural life as a result of the Clause.
  Either the Clause will change the habits of landlords, in which case, on grounds of sheer social justice we need it, or it will not, in which case there are only a few bad landlords and it cannot be said that there will be great disruption. In my view, because of the fundamental importance of this principle for the people concerned, we ought to give the Clause enthusiastic endorsement.
  We have heard a lot about whether the Scottish N.F.U. is for or against what the Government propose. In fact, there can be no argument about it. I took the trouble to consult the local Aberdeen-Kincardine branch—the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will agree, as he was present at the meeting—and I was left in no doubt that the Government's proposal was supported. This was subsequently confirmed by letter from the local branch and later by the N.F.U.
  I can offer no personal reminiscences about the habits of individual factors on the death of a tenant, but I am sure that, even if there are only four or five people a year involved, a rare sprinkling of cases where a landlord abuses his legal rights and prerogatives, this Measure will still
  526
  be worthy of support by the House of Commons. I hope that it gets it.
  Mr. Stodart: We have had a very balanced debate with very few exaggerations, and with views which seemed to be sincerely held on both sides of the House in direct conflict with one another. With one exception, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply, concerning a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), a fairly consistent point of view was expressed by hon. Members opposite.
  In Committee, I said that I believed that the ruthless landlord is no more common than what I would describe as the bloody-minded tenant. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, the N.F.U. are in favour of the Clause. I am a member of the N.F.U., and, incidentally, not a member of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and therefore I hope that I can speak with reasonable dispassion. The N.F.U. did not ask for the provision; it asked that a competent son should be able to succeed, not a son, daughter, spouse or adopted son or daughter who is supposed to be only reasonably efficient. The N.F.U. has made no protest. Perhaps that would be asking too much, for if one asks for one course and is given three one does not usually refuse the other two. But I believe that the N.F.U. and many of its members will rue the day the legislation is passed.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Although the N.F.U. asked only for the son, the reason it did not ask for more was that it thought that it would not get it. It is delighted at having got much more than it expected.
  Mr. Stodart: That is entering the realms of speculation.
  I want to limit my arguments to one aspect of the question, the effect on the industry's efficiency, which is all that really matters. I very well appreciate the emotional upset for anyone who must leave a farm, because I have had to do it I shall not bore the House with the details. I was not the tenant, but I would merely say that pouring capital into buildings and stock is by no means the major thing. Farming is a very creative job, and one cannot farm for over a quarter of a century in one

  527
  farm, as I did, without becoming extremely devoted to it. I spent a miserable 18 months after I left it. Therefore I fully understand people's feelings when this happens.
  The hon. Member for Inverness questioned what my right hon. Friend said about fixity as opposed to security. I think that security lies between a state in which one is at risk and somewhere where one has cast-iron certainty. I should have thought that if a tenant has his farm for life, because that is the present situation, if the lease runs out he can go on tacit relocation; he has his farm for life and his heir succeeds to the remainder of the lease. Nobody could say that that is not security. If it is to be said that a near relative shall succeed and that as the generations go on exactly the same thing will happen, I believe that that is no longer security but becomes fixity, although I accept that my view may not be shared.
  What effect will the Clause have on the industry's efficiency? The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the difficulties of the industry over capital. What will happen in the sort of example, which I believe will be legion, in which a tenant has one son, or perhaps two, and a couple of daughters? The older son gets the farm, but the farmer may well say that he wants each of the others to have £2,000 or £3,000 apiece. Unless securities are available, and in many cases in farming they are not, the only place that that cash can come from is a bank overdraft.
  8.15 p.m.
  I am so certain that one of the terribly inhibiting factors in farming today is the lack of capital with which to develop that anything that will aggravate that lack is a step which we should not take on any but the gravest account. The Under-Secretary of State summed up his arguments in Committee by saying that his interest in the matter was the future of Scottish agriculture and the protection of the tenant farmer in Scotland. He thus totally ignored the part to be played by those who contribute long-term capital, which is indispensible to agriculture.
  I do not believe hon. Members opposite when they say that the fact that tenants know that they will be able to
  528
  pass farms on to their sons will encourage them to invest long-term capital. It is not the function of the tenant to invest long-term capital, and very well he knows it. I do not believe that the Clause will effect such a revolution that the tenants in Scotland will begin to say that they can now put vast sums of capital, which they have not got, into long-term equipment.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the function of the tenant farmer to maximise his profit and those of the successive tenants, and that if investment capital will contribute he, like any other businessman, will be likely to invest it?
  Mr. Stodart: Even if the Clause is passed and the present tenant can look down the long, long trail awinding to the second, third and fourth generations, I am certain that if the Advisory Service suggests that he would get much greater output by putting up a new hay shed or installing grain-drying equipment or something like that he will still say that that is part of the landlord's job.
  On the whole, the landlord and tenant system works pretty well. I do not believe that the bad landlord is more common than tenants who will not make the best use of their farms. Certain faults on either side are not enough to justify very drastic interference with such a system.
  The future of Scottish agriculture depends on its efficiency, on its readiness to accept new methods and to adapt to change. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put a fair question. Has efficiency increased or decreased since 1958?
  Mr. Willis: We have had two periods in which we have had two systems. I would like to have had a comparison.
  Mr. Stodart: I have sought far and wide for some sort of statistics which would give the answer, but I do not think they exist. I do not believe that one can isolate any particular aspect of the efficiency which has taken place thanks to new plants, new fertilisers, new equipment and so on. But I am convinced that, for farming to accept new methods and adapt itself to new changes, there must be a steady flow in—I do not say

  529
  a flood—of new blood, enough of a flow to bring in the pioneer. I myself am a bad pioneer and when I look over a pioneer's hedge to see what he is doing, if he is successful I follow his example next year. Without such pioneers coming in, farming would be in a very bad way.
  The question has been put as to whether the Clause will help or hinder that flow. Before the Committee Stage started, I determined to make no effort to exaggerate the case and all I have ever said is that the Clause is certain to make entry more difficult. That, I believe, cannot be denied. Indeed, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland admitted to the fact.
  I think that the giving of first refusal—and I think that I am interpreting the qualification Amendment correctly—to those who cannot be said not to be able to farm with reasonable efficiency in a sense bars the door a little and will narrow the gap through which new entrants can get in. When people say, "But the Land Court is there, so you can get a certificate for bad husbandry", I reply that this is extremely difficult to do. Farming has to be appallingly bad before one can get a certificate from the Land Court.
  What concerns me is that we shall get just the words of that Amendment—" reasonably efficient "—which means, to me, going on in roughly the same way as farming is going at present. My right hon. Friend has been criticised for quoting the words of the English N.F.U. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a little from its observations as well. I shall quote them not because they are by the English N.F.U. but because this is an organisation whose views on any farming matter, no matter where it takes place, are of value. In that same paper it was stated:
  "The day has passed when the mere fact of having been raised on a farm gives one enough experience to manage it efficiently. The fact of having been born a farmer's son does not of itself provide the degree of managerial capacity, business acumen, practical application and sound judgment which the more exacting demands of modern farming require of successful farmers."
  It goes on to make the point that it is extremely difficult to plead a special case now for having a pre-emption, as it were, by the son or any other relation of a farmer.
  530
  This matter was debated for 5 hours in Committee and we have had a good debate tonight, so the arguments have been well put. I say frankly, out of conviction and nothing else—no consideration of this Lobby or of that but solely out of conviction—that this Clause will not help Scottish farming to play its part as a major industry in future, to compete, as we have to, with places like New Zealand whose climatic conditions are vastly superior to ours and to get our wages up so that they are equivalent to those which can be earned in the town. This is a stupendous task and it is because this new Clause fails to meet it that I hope I have managed to convince my hon. Friends that we should vote against it.
  Mr. Buchan: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has convinced his hon. Friends that they should vote against this Clause. The problem faced by the Opposition is whether they can convince the farmers of Scotland that they are right in voting against it. I feel rather sorry for hon. Members opposite. The debate tonight has been much less vigorous than the debate in Committee on this subject. I suspect that this is because our debate here is more likely to be seen by the public gaze.
  Of course, I accept the honesty and sincerity of the hon. Gentleman. We have known each other a long time throughout the proceedings on this Bill. But I think he is wrong in his view because he is suffering from the deeply engrained illusion, as are his hon. Friends—I do not accuse him of hypocrisy—that a landlord cannot make a bad choice, that for some reason his choice must be correct. An example was given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who is a great fount of wisdom in agricultural matters. He quoted from a newspaper and gave an example of a farm being sold regardless of who bought it. It was more than likely that the son of the deceased farmer knew the farm and could have farmed it better than the man who had most money at the auction.
  8.30 p.m.
  Hon. Members opposite have asked whether our proposal will increase efficiency. I have been asked to prove that

  531
  it will on the basis of the increase in efficiency between 1949 and 1958 and between 1958 and now. But hon. Members themselves answered their own question. It is not possible to disentangle any single factor and to say that, for instance, because there was security of tenure between 1949 and 1958, there was more or less efficiency, any more than we can disentangle a particular lime subsidy and analyse its effects one way or the other. If we could exactly predict what kind of input would produce what output in agriculture, some of our problems in the Annual Price Review would be solved.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there could be no sillier method of testing the efficiency of a farmer than having a sale?
  Mr. Buchan: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
  The question is whether the capital investment and the consciousness of continuation which comes when a farmer knows that his son is to inherit will outweigh the apparent loss of capital which hon. Members opposite fear if we remove the landlord-tenant relationship in a certain number of cases. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) defined fixity as being the position midway between being at risk and having cast iron security. He suggested that what we were giving was cast iron certainty, but it is nothing of the kind, for this proposal is to be subject to a number of provisions.
  For instance, there is that dealing with the relative hardship of the landlord and tenant, the provision dealing with the agricultural training and experience of the tenant—
  Mr. Hawkins Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Buchan: I was very generous in giving way to the hon. Member in Committee.
  Mr. Hawkins: This is a new point. Will the Amendment dealing with qualifications include a consideration of whether there are sufficient capital resources?
  Mr. Buchan: I have already analysed this. One consideration must be whether the efficiency resulting from capital investment by the tenant will outweigh the
  532
  efficiency resulting from capital investment by the landlord, but the number of farms coming up for letting will not be reduced. What we are saying is that sometimes the choice should be of the son or a near relative rather than an outsider, but there is no loss in the sense of the number of new entrants. Hon. Members opposite have spoken about a flood of applications for tenancies, but in many cases it will be sons of deceased tenants who will make up the flood. Our proposals will not reduce the number of farms available, but merely give security to the descendants of farmers and remove the possibility of the kind of thing which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire described.
  I shall not deal with every argument, for my hon. Friends have crushed the general terms of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. However, there are one or two specific matters with which I should deal. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke of a farmer who was the tenant of the Secretary of State for Scotland, than whom there is no better landlord. He asked what his position was under the present law. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not know this case, but I have a hunch that it is not the simple proposition which the hon. Gentleman suggested. I take it that it concerns the assignation of the lease to the son before the death of the farmer and is not a request to name the son as a successor. This demonstrates that the hon. Gentleman should vote against the Amendment, because under our proposals security would be given if the son fulfilled the conditions about amalgamations.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith Mr. Buchanan-Smith rose—
  Mr. Buchan: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not understand my argument.
  Mr. Buchan: I think that I do. I took the point exactly. The hon. Gentleman asked what the position would be if his constituent applied for his son to be his successor. The Secretary of State would be bound by these proposals as much as would any other landlord. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular matter to raise about a particular constituent, I

  533
  hope that he will write to me. He knows that I will give it, as always, my fullest consideration.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point.
  Mr. Buchan: I am sorry. In that case the hon. Gentleman should have put it better. It has been completely answered.
  The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked whether a cattle stealer could become a tenant, especially if he had stolen cattle from landlords in the area. This was the point. I want to be sure that I have got the point in case I am accused of giving a wrong answer. In that case, as my right hon. Friend said, the landlord could object to him as a tenant. My right hon. Friend said that, and there were shouts of "No but my right hon. Friend was correct, according to the 1949 Act. If it was found that there were reasonable grounds for objection to the successor he would be dispossessed.
  The other points raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) dealt with entry to the industry. He put this better than most. There is a need to bring into the industry people with agricultural training. I doubt whether the number of agricultural tenants, for example obtaining tenancies to farms, will be affected to any great extent. In a few cases we will be changing the type of person who will be getting particular tenancies. This is a different matter.
  It has been suggested that we are dealing with only a few hard cases. It has been said that hard cases can produce bad law but that is not always so. Hard cases may make good law, as a result
  of the arousing of social conscience. This is what is happening in these circumstances. While we have been accused of rushing this through too quickly, I know that later this evening some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be criticising us, saying that people have been suffering because we have not rushed things quickly enough.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) sent me a letter which arrived on my desk this morning raising the question of a constituent, asking whether she will be covered by the new legislation.
  Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman sees fit to reveal correspondence before he has even discussed it with me, he will also take the point that I put this question to him in perfectly good faith, despite the fact that I do not support the proposals before the House, as my constituent knows. She came to me as her Member of Parliament, and I have dealt with the matter quite rightly and openly. The hon. Member has no business to make reference to the correspondence like that.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not know why hon. Members are getting angry. I have made no suggestion that the hon. Member supported these proposals. He has made it quite clear that he did not in his letter. I thought that I was being considerate to him, but when I try to help I get clobbered. I have covered all the points raised. The Amendment must be rejected.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 205.

  Kirk, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stodart, Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Osborn, John (Hal am)

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Peel, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tem'th, Langttone)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Loveys, W. H

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Prior, J. M. L

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pym, Francis

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maddan, Martin

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Webster, David

  May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Royle, Anthony

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  More, Jasper

  Sharpies, Richard

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Silvester, Frederick

  Younger, Hn. George

  Murton, Oscar

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Neave, Airey

  Smith, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr. Hector Munro and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacColl, James

  Alldritt, Walter

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Allen, Scholefield

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ford, Ben

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Archer, Peter

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Garrett, W. E

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T

  Ginsburg, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Bence, Cyril

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Manuel, Archie

  Bessell, Peter

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mapp, Charles

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marks, Kenneth

  Blackburn, F

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Marquand, David

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Boardman, H

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J

  Millan, Bruce

  Boston, Terence

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M

  Hamilton,, William (Fife, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hannan, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Harrison., Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

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

  Hazell, Bert

  Neal, Harold

  Buchan, Norman

  Henig, Stanley

  Newens, Stan

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hooley, Frank

  Norwood, Christopher

  Cant, R. B

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carmichael, Neil

  Homer, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Malley, Brian

  Chapman, Donald

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Coe, Denis

  Hoy, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Coleman, Donald

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oswald, Thomas

  Concannon, J. D

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Cronin, John

  Hynd, John

  Park, Trevor

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Probert, Arthur

  Dewar, Donald

  Lawson, George

  Randall, Harry

  Dickens, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rankin, John

  Dobson, Ray

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunn, James A

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rose, Paul

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Ellis, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton, N.E.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fernyhough, E

  McCann, John

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Slater, Joseph

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Wilton, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Small, William

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Walker, Harold (Doncader)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Woof, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Yates Victor

  Swingler, Stephen

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Eric G. Varley.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 16, line 11, after ' subsection ', insert:

  (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

  (b).

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 24, 29, 30 and 32.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Clause was discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary undertook to consider whether we should insert some qualification to limit a little further the class of successor to be protected against being given an incontestable notice to quit under Section 6 of the Agriculture Act, 1958.
  It was pointed out that under our proposals as they stood, a near relative who succeeded to a holding might have no relevant agricultural experience, and it was suggested that we should apply some precise test, such as that he had worked for a number of years on a substantial holding or taken an approved course in agriculture. My hon. Friend discussed this question with me, but I thought that it was a little rigid. Experience on some other farm may be just as valuable, and it would be difficult to make out an exhaustive list of appropriate courses of training.
  What, therefore, we are seeking to do in the Amendment is to ensure that a near relative shall not succeed to the holding if he or she has neither sufficient training in agriculture nor sufficient experience in the farming of land to enable him, or her, to farm the holding concerned with reasonable efficiency. Hon. Members will note that we have related this to the specific holding to which the notice to quit relates, so that experience on a small farm would not necessarily qualify
  538
  the successor to take over a much larger holding for which quite different experience might be required.
  I think that we have proposed a reasonably flexible provision which will ensure that a landlord may obtain possession of a farm if a tenant who has inherited it has neither the experience nor the agricultural training to enable him to run it. We have made this alternative provision so that the successor must be qualified either by experience or by training. On the first case, the successor may have adequate experience, although he has had no formal training, which may indeed not be at all necessary to run a smallish farm. The reference to Auchincruive and the rest can be overdone. It cannot always be balanced against practical experience and we should not discount practical experience. On the second case, we cover a successor who has taken a course in agriculture but has, perhaps because of his father's early death, not had the opportunity of farming for any length of time.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is a fairly sensible provision. It adds a further ground on which the landlord may seek the consent of the Land Court to a notice to quit to a near relation who succeeds to a holding. If the tenant contests the notice, it will be for the Land Court to decide whether the tenant has neither the agricultural training nor the agricultural experience which would have enabled him to farm the holding with reasonable efficiency. I commend the Amendment to the House.
  The other Amendments are consequential. In view of the time, I hope that the House will accept my assurance on that so that I should not have to go into further detail on them.
  Mr. Stodart: This is better than nothing, but I cannot bring myself to enthuse about this qualification. I accept that the Amendment which we drafted in Committee probably went to the extreme of rigidity. We specified a

  539
  number of years on a farm. I remember that in moving the Amendment I made it clear that we would have no objection if the Government chose to amend our suggestion to take in another farm of a similar kind.
  Although the Secretary of State has used the word with which we associate his right hon. Friend, "flexibility", which he is always urging on us, it will be extremely difficult to determine with any consistency what is meant by "sufficient training" or "sufficient experience" and what the norm of "reasonable efficiency" will be This could change enormously with each successor to the chair of the Land Court. People could have very different views. We might get into the same sort of difficulties as we had with the marginal agricultural production grant, which we improved with the winter keep scheme, by going all out to get a uniform standard throughout Scotland.
  I can see considerable difficulties arising in assessing "reasonable efficiency" in different areas. "Reasonable efficiency" in the lowlands is very different from "reasonable efficiency" in a hard hill area. I should have thought that the Government's proposal went to the other extreme. However, I share the Secretary of State's view that we have had a fairly long run on this. The Amendment modifies the Clause to a certain extent. I accept that all the other Amendments are consequential.
  The only thing which I confess I am baffled about—and I hope that the Secretary of State will explain it—is the reference in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 30 to
  "the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(1) to (iii)".
  As I understand it, paragraph (b)(i) to (iii) is supposed to be in Clause 18. It certainly has a paragraph (b), but it has no (i) to (iii). I have been trying to see what has gone wrong. There was a previous reference to this matter, and I could not then make out what 18(b)(i) to (iii) referred to. This may be a drafting error, but I should be obliged if the Secretary of State could give an answer to this point.
  Mr. Hawkins: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question about the
  540
  Clause and Amendment. I think it is important. When we were talking about this in Committee we were concerned lest the tenancy might be left to somebody who had no farming experience whatever, but there is one grave omission here. It does not appear that the successor has to have sufficient capital to work the farm. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is appreciating the point.
  Mr. Ross: Yes.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by this Amendment the tribunal will be able to take into account whether the farmer has sufficient capital with which to run the holding. I believe it is important. I myself have sat for a number of years on a smallholdings committee where we choose tenants for smallholdings, small farms. We believe it is essential that the tenants should have sufficient capital as well as know-how and knowledge of how to farm the land. I shall be very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply on this point.
  Mr. Ross: I noted the point, which the hon. Gentleman made in Committee more than once. I did not think it would be right to put this specifically into the guidance we shall give to the Land Court.
  The answer to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is that there are no sub-paragraphs (b)(i) to (iii) in the relevant subsection, that is Clause 18(2), but in addition to for paragraphs (a), (b), (c), we are introducing a new paragraph (a) by this Amendment, No. 23, which also has a reference to paragraph (b) and the paragraphs (a), (b), (c) in the subsection will become (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (b). The hon. Gentleman was right in thinking that this might be drafting. It is for drafting reasons that those paragraphs now become (b)(i) to (iii).
  Mr. Stodart: I must impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the hours of difficulty I have experienced in trying to understand what this means.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member intervening only? Because if not he must have the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Stodart: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By leave of the House, may I just say that I have somewhat tender thoughts of what might have happened to me if I had been sitting in the right hon. Gentleman's place and putting in "paragraph (b)(i) to (iii)" and of the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman to that. He would probably have noticed the point more quickly than I did, and also detained us very much longer than I intend to detain the House now. I am grateful to him for his explanation. This is drafting, and there is no sinister reason for that Amendment, and I am perfectly prepared to allow the right hon. Gentleman to have it.
  Mr. Ross: I apologise for giving the hon. Gentleman those hours of perplexity. He is right: I probably should have spotted the point. Indeed, I remember spotting something not dissimilar on a Bill in 1958 and demanding an explanation from the then Lord Advocate. But would not it have been very much better if the hon. Gentleman had come and asked the Scottish Office?
  Amendment agreed to
  Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 39, at end insert:
  ' on the grounds mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section '.—[Mr. Ross]
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 17, line 14, after ' daughter ', insert or adopted son or daughter '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take with it Amendment No. 26.
  Mr. Buchan: When the Bill was in Committee, this is another point that I undertook to look at again, and it concerns the definition of "near relative" in subsection (7) of the Clause. Hon. Members wanted to make sure that it would cover adopted children. At the time, we meant to cover them and thought that we had done so. However, a second look has shown that we, too, are in some doubt about the position.
  Section 23 of the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964, provides that the adopted child
  542
  is treated as the child of the adopter for the purposes of succession and the disposal of property. An adopted son or daughter may, therefore, succeed to a holding. The first of the two Amendments provides that he or she shall have the same protection under these Clauses as other near relatives of a deceased tenant. So we have taken care of that point.
  The second Amendment is purely consequential and provides the necessary legal definition of the phrase "adopted son or daughter", and it does it by reference to the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act under which the rights of succession are conferred on adopted children.
  Mr. Stodart: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman gave us the definite impression that the use of the words "son or daughter" included an adopted son or daughter. We accepted his explanation. However, this Amendment widens the field considerably. We now have an entirely different situation in that something which we suspected was covered by the Act was not covered at all. We are now faced with the widening of the range of near relations in a way that we had no reason to suspect. I have always maintained that this should be as narrow a range as possible. We now have a situation where a near relative will include not only a spouse, a son and a daughter, but someone else who could be adopted, provided that he or she is under 21.
  It seems to me that that is going far beyond what we were prepared unwillingly to accept. It no longer means that a holding is necessarily being kept in the family. Presumably it would not be impossible for a tenant with no family, who was one of the small minority of bloody-minded tenants, to decide to ditch the landlord by adopting someone to perpetuate his tenancy. If that is the case, I have no hesitation in saying that we take great exception to it and will wish to register our protest in the Lobby
  Mr. Maclennan: Within the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) there is something of a contradiction. He led us to believe that he had understood originally from the wording of the Act that "son or daughter" included an adopted son or daughter, and he did not

  543
  register any protest in Committee about that understanding.
  Mr. Stodart: Of course we protested in Committee against the whole concept, but we were assured that it made no difference and that, whether we liked it or not, a son included an adopted son. We realised that, if that were true, there was nothing we could say. That is very different from having the position forced upon us.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has not really met the point. The Amendment does not widen the scope of the Bill as he originally conceived it; it clarifies the intention.
  Mr. MacArthur: I would be grateful for more information from the Government on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). I am sure that the spirit behind the Amendment is acceptable if, in the Clause as it stands, the House decides that the adopted son or daughter of a tenant should succeed to the tenancy on his death. It is reasonable that a son or daughter genuinely adopted by the family and living in the same relationship with the tenant as a blood son or blood daughter should have the same standing in the family and in the eyes of the law as a blood son or blood daughter. To that extent the spirit of the Amendment is acceptable, although I still believe that the broadening of the succession to include daughters as well as sons is questionable.
  I am concerned at the possibility, if only a theoretical one, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West has described, namely, that a bloody-minded tenant might, to ensure the continuation of the farm beyond his death within a remoter branch of his own family, for example, provide artificially, as it were, for the adoption of a relative under 21 years of age to secure for that adopted child the succession which would otherwise be denied him.
  This may be far-fetched, but I suggest that it is a real point. It is important that the Clause should be precise on this point. If there is room for a distortion of the spirit behind the Amendment, the Government would be well advised to produce a further Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
  Mr. Godber: I had not intended to intervene on this point, because we have had long debates on the Scottish Amendments. However, we must understand a little more clearly what the Under-Secretary has said before deciding what we should do.
  Much as we on this side deplore the general line set out in Clauses 18 to 20, nevertheless, if it were felt only fair that an adopted son or daughter, meaning somebody equivalent to a close relation and having been adopted at a very early age, should be entitled to succession, we can understand that there might be a case in relation to the Clause. But if the position is as I understand it to have been announced, that in fact a tenant could adopt somebody at a very late stage for the purpose of enabling him to dictate in what way the holding should be left, that would be a very serious and damaging widening of the whole effect.
  I ask the Secretary of State either to give us a clear indication about this or to undertake to have another look at it between now and its going to another place. If there is a widening, we would take that as a serious step which must be resisted. If he can assure us that it would be limited to someone adopted at a very tender age, we would acknowledge that he had a case for doing this. However, we would not be willing to allow it to go forward in the form in which we now understand it without registering our protest against it.
  Mr. Ross: I wish that this point had been brought out when we discussed the matter in Committee, because there has been a considerable change of attitude about it. For quite some time it has been a generally accepted principle of law that an adopted child is treated for certain purposes in the same way as a natural child of the parents.
  One of the most important Bills relating to succession is the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964, in which this provision was specifically made in respect of an adopted child. He was given the same status as the son or daughter of the family, and I would be loth to depart from that principle in relation to a hypothetical and very theoretical likelihood, bearing in mind that there are other conditions in respect of which the notice to quit can be applied.

  545
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked whether the adopted child was covered. Having read the Committee proceedings, I thought that they wanted the adopted child to be covered, but now I gather that they do not. I regret this, because it runs counter to the much more enlightened attitude which has been in evidence in the application of Scottish law, and in relation to other children for whom provision is being made in the Law Reform Bill, the principle of which was given an unopposed Second Reading in the Scottish Committee. I suggest that we rest on this.
  If there is something unreasonable in respect of an applicant to which objection is taken by the landowner, it may well be that the land court will have a discretion. I would not like to be dogmatic about this now, but I think that we are dealing with figments of the imagination when it is thought that for the purpose of getting round the law this kind of device will be used by people in Scotland.
  Those who are most vociferously denying what I am saying are hon. Members from the agricultural areas of England. They may have special knowledge of the attributes and practices of English tenant farmers who wish to circumvent the will of the House of Commons, but I think that the Opposition are drawing pretty long bows when they read this possibility into the provision. I am prepared to look at anything to see whether there is a reasonable possibility of this happening, but for the moment I am satisfied that what we have done meets the wishes of the Committee, that we should ensure that the adopted child is covered.
  Mr. MacArthur: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the spirit of the Amendment, and my objection, would be met if, at a later stage, the adoption were to relate to the adoption of the son or daughter in infancy?
  Mr. Hawkins Mr. Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has spoken once, and has, therefore, exhausted his right to speak again.
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I have not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hawkins: I agree with what has been said about an adopted child, but this is not a figment of the imagination. One can visualise an elderly tenant adopting a man of middle age for the payment of a sum of money. I do not think that this can be regarded as a figment of the imagination. There is no reason why the tenancy should not be saleable in this way by the adoption of somebody. This should not be written in, because it could lead to abuse.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Stodart: May I, with leave of the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should say that Mr. Speaker has deprecated an excessive use of second speeches, although, if the hon. Gentleman claims the leave of the House, I must put it to the House.
  Mr. Stodart: I promise to be extremely brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I would be the first to agree that it is not likely to arise often, but there could be a case in which a tenant had a flaming row with his landlord and was prepared to do this to ditch the landlord. We would accept my hon. Friend's proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider this before a later stage, we would be content. If he ruled out this possibility because it was a figment of the imagination, we would be obliged to vote against the proposal.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: This seems rather far-fetched, the idea conjured up by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South West (Mr. Hawkins), of a fairly old tenant virtually selling his concessions by adopting a middle-aged man. Even if this were possible, surely the landlord would be able to take the matter to the courts. Is that no so?
  Mr. Ross: I should be very surprised, as I said, if the Land Court of Scotland, hardheaded as its members are, could not see through this. What we thought we had covered—from studying the Committee proceedings and talking to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I thought that this was what the Opposition wanted—was the position of the adopted child under the general succession law of Scotland. The Amendment was designed to ensure this. I am surprised that this argument has been put to us.

  547
  It would be easy for me to say that I will look at it again. I always look at these things again, but I would be wrong to lead the hon. Gentleman to think that I should race to make some change—this is the proposal—in the law of succession in Scotland. One cannot do that in one

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES

  [9.19 p.m.

  Alldritt, Walter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Neal, Harold

  Anderson, Donald

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Newens, Stan

  Archer, Peter

  Gregory, Arnold

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Armstrong, Emest

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hannan, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bence, Cyril

  Harper, Joseph

  Orme, Stanley

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bessell, Peter

  Hazell, Bert

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Henig, Stanley

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Blackburn, F.

  Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Pardoe, John

  Boardman, H.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Park, Trevor

  Boston, Terence

  Horner, John

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Bradley, Tom

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hoy, James

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Portland, Norman

  Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hynd, John

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cant, R. B.

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &Spenb'gh)

  Probert, Arthur

  Carmichael, Nell

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Randall, Harry

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rankin, John

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Coe, Denis

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Richard, Ivor

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul

  Cronin, John

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Lawson, George

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davidson. James (Aberdeenshire. W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Slater, Joseph

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Small, William

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lubbock, Eric

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Swain, Thomas

  Dempsey, James

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dewar, Donald

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Dickens, James

  McCann, John

  Tinn, James

  Dobson, Ray

  MacColl, James

  Urwin, T. W.

  Doig, Peter

  McGuire, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &Crom'ty)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackie, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ellis, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  English, Michael

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Ferny hough, E.

  Manuel, Archie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marquand, David

  Woof, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Yates, Victor

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Fowler, Gerry

  Milne, Edward (Byth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Neil McBride and

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Mr. Eric G. Varley.

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Act and not in others. If the hon. Gentleman wants to vote against the adopted child getting these rights, we had better end in that way.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 107.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Griffiths, Eidon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

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

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bakar, W. H. K.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Peel, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bell, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Body, Richard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pym, Francis

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Renton, Rt. Hn. David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Royle, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Campbell, Gordon

  Jopling, Michael

  Silvester, Frederick

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smith, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Stainton, Keith

  Costain, A. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Stodart, Anthony

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kitson, Timothy

  Taylor. Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Currie, G. B H.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dance, James

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langslor.e)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Loveys, W. H.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Emery, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Wall, Patrick

  Errington, Sir Eric

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Farr, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Foster, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Webster, David

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gil our, Ian (Norfolk, c.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gil our, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gower, Raymond

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Grant, Anthony

  Murton, Oscar

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Neave, Airey

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Further Amendment mad: No. 26, in page 17, line 14, at end insert:
  (8) In the last foregoing subsection, the reference to an adopted son or daughter of a deceased tenant shall be construed as a reference to a son or daughter adopted by him (whether lone or jointly with any other person) in pursuance of an adoption order within the meaning of section 23(5) of the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964.—[Mr. Ross]

Clause 19.

  (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART III)
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 19, leave out ' between 26th January 1968 and ' and insert ' before '.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was right to emphasise in Standing Committee that the prime justification for this measure to limit the incontestable right of a landlord to serve notice to quit was that without it, without this restoration of the position, a number of individuals, however few, might suffer immensely. The purpose of the Amendment is to protect a few individuals—one of them is well know to the House as a result of the debate tonight—on whom
  550
  notice to quit was already served before 26th January, 1968, the date laid down ill the Bill after which it shall be possible to challenge the landlord's notice to quit.
  9.30 p.m.
  The date chosen is arbitrary in a sense. It is the date on which the Clause was published, and I suppose that in theory notice was then given to landlords and tenants alike that their positions would be affected if the Bill became law. Presumably that is the theory behind the choice of 26th January, but in fact the Government's intentions on the matter were known for some time before. On 4th December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in the House that the Government intended to restore broadly the position that had prevailed before the 1958 Act. He thus gave notice to landlords throughout Scotland that their interests would be affected. From that moment it became possible for a proprietor to serve notice to quit on the tenant. For all I know—and I have no evidence at all on this point—a number of notices were served between 4th December, when the Government's intentions were firmly, stated and 26th January.
  One can take the matter back even before 4th December and argue that

  551
  frequent Answers by Ministers on the subject made it clear that the Government intended to move, and that the operation was being held up only by the consultations under way with the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union, among others.
  The choice of 26th January is rather arbitrary, and if one is to restore the position to benefit those few individuals who have suffered—we are all agreed that they are a few—it would be wiser in logic simply to accept the Amendment and provide that where a notice to quit has been served before the Act, but will become operative after its passage, it will be possible to contest it. That is the Amendment's purpose in brief.
  I admit that I am asking the House to accept a retrospective principle, and I do so in the full knowledge of what that signifies. It is not capable of argument that the House never passes retrospective legislation. It has been passed on a number of occasions, but the general principle is that so far as possible it is preferable not to do so. It would be wholly repugnant in criminal legislation, but this is an entirely different situation. The views commonly held on retrospective legislation were perhaps most classically enunciated some time ago in the case of Phillips v. Eyre, in which it was said:
  "Retrospective laws are prima facie of questionable policy and contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried out upon the faith of the existing law."
  While that is true, it is also true that Acts are frequently passed which affect the private contractual relations between individuals and, indeed, the law takes cognisance of this in the doctrine of supervening impossibility and the consequent frustration of the contract. This is not, therefore, such an abhorrent situation as might be suggested.
  I suggest that here we have to weigh very carefully the interests of the individuals who will be affected and that we should not give support to the Amendment or vote against it on the ground that it involves a principle which is itself abhorrent. If we weigh up the interests of those involved, there is no doubt on which side the balance falls.
  In the case of the farmer who has been deprived in prospect of a tenancy, there is always the possibility of finding another. But in the case of the man who has perhaps been fanning his land for 15 years, there is a very different situation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) earlier rightly drew our attention to the wrench involved in being uprooted from one's farm, whatever the reason. I think that he will agree that there can be no comparison between the interest of the individual who is being deprived of his tenancy and the interest of the prospective tenant—the third party to the contract, as it were.
  I move this Amendment with the very narrow purpose of assisting those few well-known individuals on whom notices to quit have already been served, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. David Steel: I am pleased to be able to support the Amendment which, if accepted, would have the effect of conferring the same security of tenure for near relatives to which we have agreed in principle on those who at present are under notice to quit. The only argument which could even be laid against this in equity is that it involves some aspect of retrospective legislation.
  I have a clear conscience on this matter. [Interruption] I will explain this to members of the Tory Party who pursued their doctrine to the absurdity we saw in the last Division. I had this provision in my election addresses for the General Election and for the by-election before it. I said that, if elected. this was one of the measures I would press for. None of my constituents was in doubt as to the effect of returning me, and that is my position. But I accept that it is only an individual position.
  Nevertheless, having had strong representations from tenant farmers in my constituency before the last election on this issue, having talked to farmers about this and having included reference to it in my election addresses, I feel justified in giving support to the Amendment on a personal basis.
  There is another question. Why should these particular people who are at the moment under notice to quit suffer from

  553
  what is simply the dilatory nature of Government? There is no doubt that if the Government are correct in restoring a measure of security of tenure to near relatives, it was correct to do so a year or two ago. A couple of years ago I asked a Question about this subject and had a sympathetic reply, indicating that the Government were broadly in favour, but saying that they preferred to wait until there was more comprehensive agricultural legislation. I think that they were mistaken, but that is what they did, and because they delayed bringing in this legislation, a few people in Scotland will not obtain its benefits.
  In equity, that is neither just nor fair. If it is right to change the law and to give this measure of security of tenure to near relatives, I do not see why we should not give it as of now and prevent people from suffering from what will have been the old law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's argument will have persuaded the Under-Secretary. I know him to be a reasonable man who is open to persuasion at this time. However, if he does not accept the argument, I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not prove to be a paper tiger, but will press the Amendment to a Division. If he does, he will have our support.
  Mr. Dewar: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on moving the Amendment. When the issue was raised in Committee, it met with a very dusty reception. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was certainly sympathetic, but, for reasons which I can understand, did not feel able to be co-operative. From the Conservative benches, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) magisterially rebuked by implication anyone who suggested anything so risky as retrospective legislation. With rather Victorian dignity, he said that the Opposition could not countenance it on any terms.
  I believe that the instinctive reaction to any measure which has any taint of retrospection about it is all too hasty and all too stereotyped. We are too anxious to regard it as something which is a sin against the true gospel, against the true constitution. Although I agree that recourse to general retrospective legislation can be extremely dangerous and can lead
  554
  to a great deal of individual injustice, it should not preclude careful consideration of any individual case, or any individual set of cases.
  Tonight in the House, as in Committee, we have had exhaustive debates about measures which will give security of tenure to close relatives of farmers. The House has accepted that this is a valid measure, presumably on the ground that it accepts the case for it in equity and justice. We are now examining the transitional provisions. The very fact that the Government have included transitional provisions shows that they accept that there must be serious borderline cases of people in the twilight area between the bad old days, when they were completely unprotected, and the new and more just days when protection will be adequate and fair.
  I accept the view of my hon. Friend that there is an enormous distinction between retrospective legislation for criminal activities and retrospective legislation for civil activities. It would obviously be unfair in the first, but it is not such an open and shut case in the second. Let us consider the provisional arrangements which have the sanction of the Government and of the Opposition. We are to have an arbitrary date of 26th January, which can be justified only because that was the date on which the Clauses appeared. It is possible to argue that this makes a big difference, because it must be assumed that everyone knew about these Clauses from the time they were published. But this is surely taking the doctrine of constructive knowledge to ridiculous lengths.
  I call in evidence something which was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) earlier this evening about Clause 14 when he moved an Amendment to meet exactly a similar kind of circumstance in terms of the general principle, an Amendment which the Government accepted. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not likely to be an object of everyday reading for many farmers in Scotland, and it would he unfair for farmers to be victimised because of sheer, but perfectly natural, ignorance. He went on to quote the Scottish Law Times in his support, asking whether it was negligent not to know. His answer clearly was—and, as his Amendment was accepted by the

  555
  Government, this must be their answer, too—that it was not negligent not to know.
  9.45 p.m.
  It is unreasonable to except people to have this constructive knowledge in between the period in which the Bill was put before the House, was printed, and the time that it reaches the Statute Book. If the hon. Member applies that argument in that case and finds it acceptable, I would be interested to hear the distinction drawn as to why it is right to say that we must assume that people know about it between 26th January, when these Clauses were put down, and the time that the Bill actually reached the Statute Book.
  If it is accepted that it is unreasonable to assume that people know that, then the arbitrary date disappears completely. It is only fair that one should go for the neat, obvious and just solution, that a notice to quit which has been issued but which has not become effective by the time that the Bill reaches the Statute Book should be covered by the transitional arrangements.
  The other big argument used in Committee—and, no doubt, we shall hear it again later if a Conservative Member designs to come forward to comment on this Clause—was that there may have been sales made before 26th January, when one assumes that everyone suddenly became aware of the possibility of this Clause becoming law, but which had not yet come into effect, and which were based upon giving vacant possession. It was said that the position would be disrupted and there would be unfortunate consequences to the parties to the sale.
  If one looks at the law of Scotland, the law of contract, there is plenty of evidence and I have only to refer the House to Gloag and Henderson's tome of the Law of Scotland to demonstrate this. It will be seen on page 103 that it says:
  "If a change in the law renders performance impossible the result is to dissolve the contract."
  It goes on to quote a series of cases of which Mackeson v. Boyd and Tay Salmon Fisheries v. Speedie are possibly the best known in circumstances like this, to prove that no damages lie. So the
  556
  landlord, if there is a case falling into this transitional period, which is justification for refusing to accept this Amendment, cannot be victimised because no damages lie against him. The only person who could be caught is the potential purchaser.
  Let us look to see what he can have lost. He has lost only the "looking time" between the period in which he thought that he had concluded a bargain for a farm with vacant possession, and the time that it became clear, presumably 26th January, and absolutely legal fact, the day the Bill reaches the Statute Book, that his contract had dissolved and he had no bargain. It may be that he has suffered some inconvenience and he may have lost two or three months when he might have been looking for another farm, but it is not fair to say that it is anything like the inconvenience that will lie against the tenant farmer in this situation, who will be thrown off his land irretrievably, with no redress because he has not been given the cover supplied by these transitional arrangements.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to look at this matter extremely sympathetically. I know that it is difficult and I know that any Minister will fight shy of anything that looks like retrospective legislation. In Committee the Under-Secretary said, of retrospective legislation:
  "… it can be argued that to make illegal and improper an action which was not illegal or improper when it was undertaken would be a very difficult proposition to sustain in law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 8th February, 1968; c. 652.]
  I am absolutely sure that is right. I was glad to note that he said that it would be very difficult; he did not say that it would be impossible. While it may be difficult to sustain it in law, our case is that it is very easy indeed to sustain such a move in terms of justice and fairness, and I hope that he will not be entirely deaf to these particular cases.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The simple fact is that on this matter the Government have delayed for far too long and that if they had not delayed for so long, there would be no need for the Amendment.
  Away back in 1965, only six months after I came into the House, I put down a Written Question to the Secretary of

  557
  State concerning security of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I do not at present have it in mind to make any changes in the existing law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 72]
  Yet it was not a new controversy. It had gone on for a very long time.
  Two years after the Secretary of State replied to my Written Question, however, the following notice to quit was sent—by recorded delivery, naturally—was sent to a farmer, Sandy Matheson, in Elrig in my constituency.
  "You are required to remove from all and Whole the farms and lands of Elrig …and the buildings and other erections thereon at the term of Martinmas (28th November, 1968)."
  It states at the end:
  "The above notice follows upon your intimation dated 8th March, 1967, that by designation dated 8th March, 1967, by the executrix dative of the said late Angus Matheson, you acquired the tenant's interest under said lease, but is without prejudice to the landlord's pleas against the validity of that designation."
  The tenant will go out in. November this year unless something can be done about it.
  I know the argument which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) rehearsed about retrospective legislation. I have been in correspondence with the Minister about it. As he knows, I sought to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule, but I have not proceeded further with it for the simple reason that its purpose has been taken up in these proposals. I had intended, however, that the Bill would not only contain a repeal of the necessary Section of the 1958 Act, but would also have a retrospective element.
  The Minister does not like retrospection. In many ways, none of us likes it. Both the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South have touched upon it. In a letter of 11th January, after saying in general that the House did not like retrospective legislation, the Minister said to me:
  "There is also …the more practical difficulty that where a landlord has already given a notice to quit in good faith under the present law he may have entered into contractual commitments with a third party, or himself incurred expenditure on the assumption that he will have vacant possession of the holding in due course."
  558
  I admit that a certain degree of difficulty could be created and that one would not wish injustice to be done on either side—although certain people seem to be concerned with only one side. I am anxious that there should not be injustice on either side. Leaving aside, however, the more legalistic approach, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is much more fitted to take than I, it should not be altogether out with the wit of man to devise a form of wording which would, perhaps, allow those who are presently under notice to quit to serve a counter-notice and to have their case brought before the Land Court. That should be quite feasible.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not rise or fall by the precise way which is suggested in the Amendment. But we want something done. We want more than the empty promises which have been given for a very long time. Therefore, we want something categoric from the Minister.
  We are dealing with individual cases. It is said that hard cases make bad law. I do not believe that they do. We are dealing with cases which are hard cases because the Government have been too slow in doing something about it. Therefore, they have a bounden duty to do something now. The Minister can tell us that when the Bill goes to another place, the Government will seek to do something about it. I would like to hear him say so.
  Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite will know that I discuss this matter with a certain difficulty because I understand, perhaps with even more depth than some hon. Members who are involved here tonight, the case in question. I have met the individual involved together with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). Many people have seen details of the case.
  There is a difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness in not accepting that hard cases necessarily make bad law. The whole of human history consists of good law being created out of unfortunate cases. Frequently, however, the unfortunate cases have not been saved by the good law that came afterwards.

  559
  I used the word "difficult" in Committee, and I stick to it. I do not say that it is impossible to have retrospective legislation, but that it should operate only in the most abnormal and difficult circumstances.
  It may be argued that the case mentioned and similar cases are in this category. I am not sure. For example, I do not follow the argument that this Amendment is analogous to Amendment No. 14. The initial date is specified here, and in some way we have brought in an element of technical retrospection thereby.
  Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that we are grateful to him not only because the Clause has been brought in but also for what he has described as an element of retrospection. It may be that Amendment No. 14 is not analogous in terms of content but only in terms of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Does not my hon. Friend accept that?
  Mr. Buchan: I cannot accept responsibility for the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that there is an element of retrospection here. On one or two occasions tonight I felt that it was thought that we were doing nothing. The hon. Member for Inverness might have given us a little more credit for what we have done. The N.F.U. was pleased that we did not eventually stick to the decision to await agricultural holdings legislation, but put the provision into this Bill. I had hoped that this might have been recognised.
  I cannot accept the Amendment. I would prefer that my hon. Friend asked leave to withdraw it, for various reasons. It would be a pity if it were to be assumed that there was a division between hon. Members in respect of certain cases. I would prefer my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but if he will not I must ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
  The argument has been raised that there is a possibility of third party involvement. I do not agree that the situations postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) are likely to occur. There are many other possible situations, which I would prefer not to go into.
  560
  I remember the trial scene in the "Merchant of Venice", in which Portia, for part of the scene, at any rate, goes most of the way with the arguments of Shylock and says that not even to do a great right should we do a little wrong, because
  "many an error, by the same example, will rush into the state…"
  We must be careful, even with an issue like this which affects people in the way which has been described. We must not go against the principal of no retrospection except in the gravest circumstances.
  Having said that, I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that all those who are involved in this situation—whether on the landlord or the tenant side—will take note of the views that have been expressed without question and without opposition in the House this evening in relation to these cases, in order to see whether a more amicable solution may be found privately, in a way that has not been postulated.
  Mr. James Davidson: I support the Amendment. I want to convince the Minister that there is not one individual or event one or two individuals involved quite a lot of people are involved. There is a widow in my constituency who has farmed a holding in the parish of Kincardine O'Neil for many years. It is now farmed—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned
  Ordered
  That the Proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay]
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made
  Mr. Davidson: The farm is now very efficiently run by her son. There is no question of the property being needed by the landlord, who has given notice to quit which will take effect on 28th May this year. She is sitting under the guillotine wondering what will happen. I have told her in a letter than I hope very much that the legislation will be such as to allow her to remain in possession of the farm. The reason for the landlord wanting it is that he merely wishes to

  561
  round off his property, which is so large that I should not have thought that he would even have notices that some of the edges were a little ragged. This an example of people who will be particularly disappointed if the Amendment is not accepted.
  On the question of retrospective legislation, not being a lawyer, luckily I do not have to put legal arguments. That implies no disrespect to the legal profession. Much disrespect for lawyers has been professed during the debates on the Bill. I do not know why; it is a perfectly legitimate profession. I look on the retrospective aspect from the point of view that the notice to quit takes effect. If it has not taken effect, I cannot see, on layman's grounds, why is should be regarded as retrospective. Nobody suggests that it should go back to a date prior to the delivery of the notice to quit.
  I ask the Minister to have one more really hard look at this proposal to see whether he can give it his support. He will earn a lot of gratitude if he does. Very few people will suffer hardship if he accepts the Amendment, whereas a great many people will suffer hardship if he opposes it.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson Mr. Emlyn Hooson(Montgomery)rose—
  Hon. Members:Oh.
  Mr. Hooson: Despite the barracking of the Anglo-Saxons, and although I hesitate to take part in Scottish debates, I should like to make a few remarks on the point about retrospective legislation and the use made of the old adage that hard cases make bad law. This adage arises from the fact that it was said by many old judges that if one has regard to the equity of the case one makes the law uncertain, and it was because of the uncertainty of the law, or the potential uncertainty of the law, that this trite saying came into being. There would not be such universal support for it, even among lawyers, as there was in the old days when people insisted on certainty within the law.
  On many occasions in this Parliament the House has passed retrospective legislation. It is not unknown, and very often it is justified by the Government saying, "We have to balance these things. We have to have regard to the
  562
  arguments". Although retrospective legislation is undesirable in itself—and we start with that in the scales against it—we must put in the scales on the other side the question of what hardship will be caused if we do not pass the legislation.
  The Government accept that there is hardship which should be put right, namely, that a tenant's son should be able to continue in the tenancy. There is an acknowledgement in the Bill that this matter needs to be put right. The Government have promised this for a long time. None of the notices to quit with which we are concerned under this Amendment has reached maturity. We cannot deal with this quantitatively; we must consider the quality of the act. I should have thought that the injustice done by retrospective legislation was virtually nil. If a landlord has entered into a contract, then if the Amendment is passed that contract will be incapable of performance. So there is no hardship on the landlord. If he has put in certain improvements on his farm he can go to arbitration and get an increase in the rent.
  If we balance the two factors together, the retrospective legislation factor, and the hardship which is caused to undoubted worthy successors to the tenancies, the balance is in favour of the Amendment, and I would think that the House should accept it.
  Mr. Willis Mr. Willis rose—
  Hon. Members: Oh, no.
  Mr. Willis: This is very important to Scotland. I do not know why a bunch of English Members should try to deny the right of Scottish Members to try to say something about it.
  Mr. Dewar: It was the Tories.
  Mr. Willis: I want to support the arguments which have been made for the Amendment. I enter the debate to make my few remarks as a layman. I am not a lawyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At the same time I am quite prepared to recognise the importance of trying to avoid retrospection wherever possible, but, as has already been pointed out, I have been in the House a long time and I have seen a lot of retrospect-

  563
  tive Measures passed. They have always caused a great deal of controversy. Nevertheless, they have been passed, so we are creating no precedent here. My hon. Friend would not be creating a precedent by accepting this Amendment, or looking at it or doing something of that kind. I look at this from the point of view of whether we should follow the precedents which have been created and, if so, on what basis.
  It seems to me that the basis on which we ought to consider this is not so much that of retrospection but that of justice. Justice seems to me important; it seems to me to be rather more important than a principle which does not seem to apply Here we are dealing with certain actions which, I assume, will date back about 15 months. I cannot see that they will date back much further than 18 months. What we have to ask ourselves is, what actions have been taken by owners, and what is the effect on the tenants, and who will suffer hardships?
  We have had put to us by hon. Members opposite the argument that most of these things are done satisfactorily, that they have not created many problems. That is what has been argued, in which case I cannot see that a great number of owners will suffer great hardship. If the argument by hon. Members opposite is correct, then I cannot see that a great number is involved. There may be, as has been said, certain people who have taken certain steps because they have been able to give tenants 12 months' notice to quit, and they have taken certain steps as a result of that. I ask myself, are they going to suffer any hardship or injustice as a result of not being able to take those steps? As far as I can see, the answer is "No". They will be in exactly the same situation as they were 12 months ago, neither better off nor worse off. In other words, they will not suffer any more injustice or hardship, as I visualise it. They will be in exactly the same position as they were when they issued the notices. Listening to the debate, I have asked myself, will they suffer very great inconvenience or great hardship, sufficient to warrant inflicting undoubted hardship upon other people? I have come to the conclusion that they will not.
  564
  On the other side of the balance, we know that there will be a certain number of cases of very great hardship; we know very great hardship will be caused. In the view of most people—indeed, in the view of this House now—injustice will be caused. In view of the fact that others will not suffer great hardship, we ought to be prepared to accept an Amendment on these lines. The drafting may be bad, but I ask my hon. Friend to look at it again to see whether it is possible to do something about it in another place. I am sure that that would satsisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and certainly it would satisfy me if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us a kind look, rather than a denial of anything.
  Mr. Buchan: I have listened with the greatest interest both to the central part and to the closing part of the discussion, and I do not find the position any easier than when I started. It was suggested that the Government would gain great credit if we gave way on this Amendment. It is very easy to give way in order to gain credit, but there is more than one aspect involved. It is not just one case, because there arc other cases pending, and I know the hardship.
  We have been told that it is not a matter of law but of justice, and I suggest that, in the long-term, justice is best defended by good law. While I respect the feelings of my hon. Friends and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I hope they do mine, I urge them to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend not prepared to look at it?
  Mr. Buchan: I have been looking at it for a long time, and I am in no position to look at it if we are forced to vote on it tonight.
  Mr. Maclennan: The most remarkable feature of this debate has been the dog that did not bark. Not a word has come from the benches of the official Opposition and, for that reason, perhaps the debate has reached a higher level than usual. Real and important issues have been discussed, and a very difficult balance has been struck.
  Hon. Members on the Liberal benches find themselves, as I do, firmly of the view that justice would be done if the

  565
  Amendment were accepted. But I recognise that a very important principle of law is at stake, and no one has been mare eloquent about it than the present Leader 3f the Liberal Party who, in the debate on the Burmah Oil Company Bill in 1965—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the altitude of this debate, but it must come back to the Amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: I had intended to refer very briefly to the right hon. Gentleman's concluding words—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The attitude of the Leader of the Liberal Party to the Burmah Oil debate has nothing to do with this Amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not wish to go into that matter or to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The attitude of the Liberal Party tonight is in marked contrast to the words of its Leader on the principle of retrospective legislation. He said:

  Division No. 64.]

  AYES

  [10.16 p.m.

  Bessell, Peter

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Cromarty)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, w.)

  Pardoe, John

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnston, Russell (Internets)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Mr. Eric Lubbock and

  Mr. Emlyn Hooson.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempatead)

  Chapman, Donald

  Fernyhough, E.

  Adritt, Walter

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Coe, Denis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Anderson, Donald

  Coleman, Donald

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Archer, Peter

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ford, Ben

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Conlan, Bernard

  Forrester, John

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Foster, Sir John

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Fowler, Gerry

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Garrett, W. E.

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dance, James

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Bence Cyril

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Ginsburg, David

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Gower, Raymond

  Blackburn, F.

  de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Grant, Anthony

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dempsey, James

  Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Boardman, H.

  Dickens, James

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Body Richard

  Dobson, Ray

  Gregory, Arnold

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Doig, Peter

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Boston, Terence

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Dunn, James A.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Eadie, Alex

  Hannan, William

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Harper, Joseph

  Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

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

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, John

  Hazell, Bert

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Emery, Peter

  Henig, Stanley

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

  English, Michael

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Burden, F. A.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Cant, R. B.

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Holland, Philip

  Carmichael, Neil

  Farr, John

  Hooley, Frank

  ":The reason why we introduce retrospective legislation in this country is to protect people from the consequence of illegal acts. It is not to take away accrued or existing rights."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1156.]
  When I tabled this Amendment, I was aware that I was proposing that the House should interfere with the existing rights of landlords, the rights of tenants, and those of third parties acquired under the law as it stands at present.
  Therefore, with full appreciation of the seriousness of the measure, at this point I ask the Under Secretary not to stand on what he has said, but to consider this matter further. In this situation I will seek to withdraw the Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: No."]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 256.

  Horner, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Marquand David

  Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Hoy, James

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mayhew, Christoper

  Rose, Paul

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Hunter, Adam

  Millan, Bruce

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Hynd, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Monro, Hector

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

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  More, Jasper

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N.E.)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silver-man, Julius (Aston)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Slater, Joseph

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Small, William

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Smith, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Neal, Harold

  Stodart, Anthony

  Kelley, Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Swain, Thomas

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Newens, Stan

  Swingler, Stephen

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

  Kirk, peter

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Norwood, Christopher

  Thornton, Ernest

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Oakes, Gordon

  Tinn, James

  Lawson, George

  Ogden, Eric

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  O'Malley, Brian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Orme, Stanley

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Wall, Patrick

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Loughlin, Charles

  Paget, R. T.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Park, Trevor

  Webster, David

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  McBride, Neil

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McCann, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  MacColl, James

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Mackie, John

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Wright, Esmond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Yates, Victor

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Younger, Hn. George

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Pym, Francis

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Maddan, Martin

  Rankin, John

  Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Walter Harrison

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Manuel, Archie

  Richard, Ivor

  Mapp, Charles

  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. In view of what has just happened, may I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, should report our new coalition arrangements to Mr. King?
  Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's remark. I hope that it is not lesémajesté but it is not a matter for me.
  Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 29, in page 17, line 32, at end insert:
  (a) the matter mentioned in section 18(2)(a) of this Act;
  Amendment No. 30, in page 18, line 9, leave out the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)' and insert:

  (a)the matter mentioned in paragraph (a), or

  (b)the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) to (iii),—[Mr. Ross]

  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 15, leave out and (4) ' and insert to (5) '.
  This is a drafting Amendment, to correct a small omission from the new Part 3 which was put into the Bill in Committee, and provides that Clause 18(5) shall apply to cases under Clause 9, and that the penalty provisions of Section 30 of the 1949 Act shall apply to any conditions imposed by the Land Court in respect of a notice to quit for amalgamation purposes, to which they consent.
  It is intended that the same penalty provisions should be applicable to any conditions attached to any consent given to a notice to quit served during the transitional period covered by Clause 19. The Amendment is necessary because this was not adequately covered originally.
  Amendment agreed to
  Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 17, after ' (4) ', insert '(b)'.—[Mr. Ross]

Clause 29.

  (INTERPRETATION, ETC.—DRAINAGE CHARGES.)
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 33, leave out from second land ' to end of line 38 and insert:
  570
  'used as pasture ground on which the vegetation consists solely or mainly of one or more of the following, that is to say, bracken, gorse, heather, rushes and sedge, and land so used which is unsuitable for mowing by machine and on which the vegetation consists solely or mainly of grasses of poor feeding value '.
  We have reconsidered the definition of rough grazing ' in Clause 29 in the light of the helpful comments of hon. Members in Committee on this difficult point, and we propose to substitute this different formula.
  The new definition of rough grazing land is in two parts. First, we refer to pasture land on which the vegetation is solely or mainly bracken, gorse, heather rushes and sedge. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that pasture land comprising vegetation of this type is clearly rough grazing.
  The second part deals with land on which the dominant vegetation is grass of poor feeding value. Most farmers will recognise grass in this category. But we cannot accept that all land covered by poor grass is rough grazing land and have therefore added the qualification that it must be unsuitable for mowing. Grassland will only qualify, therefore, as rough grazing if the grass is of poor feeding value and the land is, for example, too steep, rocky, uneven or permanently waterlogged to be mown by machine. This accords with the generally accepted idea of rough grazing land.
  This is the first time that anyone has attempted to define rough grazing in law and I doubt whether, even with the help of the Committee, we have achieved a perfect definition. But it is the best possible and it should enable river authorities, who are responsible bodies, to distinguish fairly between land generally accepted as rough grazing and that which is not. Since the Amendment is designed to meet wishes expressed in Committee, I hope that the House will accept it.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: The point of the Amendment is clear. We discussed the matter in Committee and some of us questioned particularly the reference to self-seeded grass. We think that the new definition has got away from the problem that there arose. It is an interesting definition, but I am sure that one could pick holes

  571
  even there. It is very difficult to find an adequate definition of something we can all recognise quite easily. Like some other things, it is easier to see than to define. This is a reasonable attempt, and I hope that it will prove satisfactory in practice. It is important in the terms of this Clause that we should have a fairly clear definition so that those responsible will know how to deal with these matters. I feel that the Amendment provides an acceptable solution.
  Sir Frank Pearson: I, too, welcome the Amendment. In Committee, it was found that the question of self-seeded grass raised many problems. One could have all sorts of grass which were not self-seeded within the category one had in mind. Though the Amendment is a very great improvement, it might have been better to have given up all hope of finding any exact definition of rough grazing, and to have come down to the statement that rough grazing is what is accepted by the custom of the country as rough grazing. However, I have no doubt that with the usual capacity of the British people to interpret somewhat doubtful laws in an intelligent manner. we shall be able to interpret this definition in a reasonable way.
  Amendment agreed to

Clause 37.

  (FURTHER POWERS TO MAKE GRANTS AND ADVANCES TO DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES.)
  Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 31, line 40, at end insert:
  (4) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make to a river authority grants in respect of the cost of any works executed by the authority in pursuance of section 35 of the said Act of 1961 (under which a drainage board may execute by agreement with and at the expense of any other person any drainage works which that person is entitled to execute); and the reference to expense in that section shall be construed as excluding the amount of any grant paid under this subsection in respect of the works in question.
  Under the Ministry's farm ditching scheme, grants are available to farmers towards the cost of improvement works on ordinary farm ditches, and grants are also made to river authorities and in-
  572
  ternal drainage boards for improvements to arterial watercourses. Between these two categories, however, there is the watercourse which is too large to be classified as a farm ditch but which is neither a main river of a river authority nor a watercourse maintained by an internal drainage board. Difficulties arise where. in order to drain their land officially, farmers require work to be done on these intermediate channels.
  A measure to remedy this situation was included in the 1961 Land Drainage Act, under which county and county borough councils were enabled to sponsor schemes on behalf of the riparian owners and occupiers, and to receive grant towards the cost. In some parts of the country, however, a difficulty still persists for the farmer where a council is not in a position to handle land drainage schemes, and in order to fill this awkward gap between the farm ditch and the arterial channel more effectively we propose to supplement the existing machinery so that river authorities. as well as county and county borough councils, can do this agency work on behalf of farmers, and receive grant.
  The Amendment will thus ensure that facilities are available to farmers in any part of England and Wales to secure drainage improvements with the aid of Exchequer grant. For this reason I hope that it will be approved by the House.
  Mr. Godber: We on this side of the House think that this is probably a useful Amendment. It seeks to fill a gap, and will probably help in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I hope that the river authorities will make use of the provision where the need arises.
  I am not quite clear about the amount of grant that is envisaged, and perhaps, before we part with the Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what it is likely to be so that we may know whether the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind has been adequately covered.
  Mr. Hoy: In common with schemes undertaken by county councils, a 50 per cent. grant will be paid.
  Amendment agreed to

Clause 40.

  (GRANTS FOR BREAK CROPS.)
  Sir J. Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 35, line 17, after second "Wheat", insert "or".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 37, in page 35, leave out line 18.
  Sir J. Gilmour: The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that the Bill makes no exclusions as to what are acceptable break crops. I imagine that the reasoning behind the exclusion of oats, rye, potatoes and sugar beet—an exclusion which I seek to delete—is that these are crops which are subject to adjustment in Price Review terms and it may be thought that the Price Review should not apply to break crops. As it is Britain's avowed intention to enter the Common Market, the question of crops which are definitely subject to price review may easily go out.
  It is right that we should not exclude any crop from legislation which will last for a considerable time into the future. The Minister should have the right to pay the £5 an acre subsidy for a break crop in respect of any crop which he thinks suitable. This matter was discussed in Committee in relation to the sugar beet crop in Scotland on a day when I was not able to attend. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who spoke up on behalf of Scottish sugar beet growers.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland places too much reliance on difficulties of the sugar beet crop in Scotland by saying that it arose from the abolition of the transport subvention. Yields of sugar beet, which is one of the crops which the Bill as drafted would exclude but which the Amendment seeks to include, in Scotland in the five years from 1958 to 1962 were 12.96 tons—in round figures, 13 tons—per acre and included two years in which the yield was 15 tons per acre. This was well up to the United Kingdom average. It was the hope of those connected with the industry that the yields were sufficiently high to allow the crop to stand fairly and squarely on its own feet. As in the succeeding 5 years
  574
  from 1963 to 1967 the return has been only 11½ tons per acre, this hope has not been fulfilled. This is highlighted by the fact that for the first five years the average return to the grower was £77 10s. and in the next five years £74. In the meantime, costs had risen and, therefore, the profitability of the sugar beet grower goes down.
  Because there is a real need to increase the amount of livestock fed in Britain, consideration should be given to the growing of sugar beet where the tops are fed off to livestock. This might well be a condition to sugar beet's qualifying as a break crop. As those who have seen sugar beet crops in England and Scotland know, there is a much larger percentage of tops in the crop in Scotland. I suppose this is because we have more hours of daylight during the summer and, even with the same varieties, a larger amount of tops is grown. A recent article in the Scottish National Farmers Union Journal showed that a crop of sugar beet in Scotland which produced 12 tons per acre would produce, in addition. 12 tons of tops. By taking in the pulp which comes back to the grower, it is possible to produce from the tops and the pulp a better crop than a crop of field beans, and, at the same time, there is a cash crop of sugar beet.
  There is, therefore, a good case for saying that sugar beet could and should be used a break crop in any area where the tops are being fed off to livestock. This could apply not only in Scotland but in the North of England and possibly some of the other factory areas. It would be a more suitable way of employing the subsidy for break crop than spending money on growing, say, a crop of beans with a lower yield and less profitable results for the country as a whole.
  I hope that the Government will look at the matter again. All I am asking them to do is to remove a disability in regard to the crops which could be a break to wheat and barley. It does not mean that they will have to give the subsidy. It is the removal of an exclusion. I remember a previous occasion when we excluded things from another Measure and then discovered that it was a mistake. I recall being in the same Lobby with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on that occasion.

  575
  We had excluded the fishing industry, and then we realised that it was a mistake.
  On that occasion, I had the courage of my convictions and I went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Leith. I hope that, on this Amendment, he will ensure that his right hon. and hon. Friends have the same sort of conviction and accept what I propose. It would be an entirely helpful Amendment. It cannot do any harm. It would not make the Minister pay the subsidy for sugar beet, potatoes or anything else. But, if circumstances change, he will have the right to do so.
  Mr. Buchan: We have covered a good deal of this ground already, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on his ingenuity in framing an Amendment within the terms of the Clause, but, as his speech clearly showed, he is concerned about sugar beet, and I shall reply to his argument on that basis.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with his point simply by referring to the acreage grown between 1958 and 1963, 13 tons an acre and then 11½ tons later. There was another destructive occurrence at that time. We were doing reasonably well—15,700 acres until 1962–63—and the factory which is in our minds was viable. But something else then happened. The Conservative Government slashed the transport subvention brutally, and by so doing they brought about the fall from 14,000 to 10,000 and then 9,000 acres in successive years. We have begun to restore the transport subvention, and now we are beginning to move the acreage up once more.
  Our earlier argument on this question remains valid. These are commodities dealt with in the Annual Price Review. They should remain so. They should not be put in here. This Bill ought not to be used to change the present arrangement. The hon. Gentleman seems to feel no personal involvement or responsibility as a member of the party opposite, but what the Conservative Government did in slashing the transport subvention was very serious. There are other ways of raising or lowering the sugar beet acreage, apart from the break crop and Annual Price Review payments. The
  576
  transport subvention is one method. The effectiveness of it was shown when the Tories used it badly. We have shown how effective it is by using it sensibly.
  I take the point that we must pay attention to this commodity both for the sake of the commodity itself and for the factory in Cupar. We are giving a great deal of thought to it, but the solution which I shall put forward will not be along the lines which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Amendment negatived

Clause 42.

  (AMENDMENTS OF PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS ACT 1964.)
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 36, line 47, at end insert:
  (4) This section shall come into operation on a day appointed by an Order made by the Minister.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to delay the coming into force of the Clause which amends the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964. Having read a great deal of correspondence on this subject over the last months, I can say that this is a fiendishly complicated problem which concerns many rose breeders in this country, particularly Mr. Sam McGredy, the well-known rose breeder in Northern Ireland.
  The 1964 Act allows breeders of various roses to enjoy plant breeders' rights and royalties and it allows the Royal National Rose Society to have roses, among other plants, registered with it under the Society's code of registration. They are also registered with the Registrar of Plant Variety Rights, with the advice of the Royal National Rose Society, but the Registrar accepts only what are loosely called "fancy names" for roses, names such as Maria Callas, Daily Mail, City of Belfast and other names of roses which we all know very well. The purpose of the registration is, first, that the name of the rose should be protected.
  The Clause will make it an offence to sell that variety by another name. What is worrying many rose breeders is that the effect of subsection (3) is to stop rose breeders from registering double names.

  577
  Many rose breeders find it useful to register double names. They use a "fancy name", such as those which I have quoted and which are easily recognised by the public, and they register code names, which are names which are entirely meaningless to the general public, and they do so in order that they cannot be duplicated in any other country. When the names are double registered, the breeder is covered by plant breeders' rights and by trade mark protection in countries where the international convention on plant breeders' rights are likely to be observed.
  This method of double naming, with the fancy name which we all know and the code name which is rather different, has been used and well known in Europe since 1949, but there has recently been an international convention on plant breeders' rights which will tend to unify the law on this matter and which will eventually make life a great deal easier for many of the famous rose breeders in this and other countries in Europe. The difficulty is that this convention had not been ratified by more than two countries by the time the Bill was in Committee. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us how many countries have now ratified it.
  It has caused great concern to these companies to find themselves between two stools, not having got the international Convention ratified, and enforced, but at the same time being tied down by the effect of Clause 42. This would mean that many of our most famous rose breeders would get the worst of both worlds in the interim period. This feeling is not only expressed by Mr. McGredy, who has been particularly active and vociferous on this point, but in addition this Amendment is supported by the Plant Breeders Rights Association, who originally thought that this Clause was all right. When the problems were pointed out to it, it decided that there were very serious repercussions under this Clause and it now, as I understand it, sustains its approval of this Amendment.
  The greatest problem which will arise in the interim period will be for exporters. This is surely the time, above all others, when we should be doing everything possible to avoid harming or interrupting the trade, and the opportuni-
  578
  ties of our exporters, particularly in Europe. There has been a certain amount of opposition to the case which I am trying to put on behalf of rose breeders. I would like to quote from the Committee proceedings of 30th January, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was replying to the debate. He referred at some length to one of the objections that had been made to the point which I am now making, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). He spoke of a letter which he had received from one prominent gentleman in the rose world. He refers to this gentleman as being:
  "…Chairman of the Association of British Rose Producers; he is also Chairman of the Horticultural Trade Association's Rose Tree Trade Group, and Chairman of Rose Distribution Ltd.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee B, 30th January, 1968; c. 464.]
  This sounds very impressive. Here, one would think, was someone who would be jealous to look after the rights and prospects of our rose breeders. When one looks very carefully at one of these companies, Rose Distribution Ltd., one sees in the articles of association of that company the following:
  "To resist applications made by any breeder or distributor of any variety of plants for any proprietary right or interest in respect of such variety, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere."
  I hope that when we get a reply tonight we will be told that this would be wrong because this gentleman says so. We know that by the articles of association of one of his companies he has an interest in opposing the case that I am putting. His remarks should be invalid in any discussion that we may have.
  I have said how important it is to help our exporters. The question is when will this Convention be ratified? We do not seem to know. It would be wrong for this House to jump in at this stage and pass this Clause with all its manifestations until the internal Convention has been ratified. My Amendment would not bring the Clause into effect yet. It would mean that it could be delayed by the Minister until a future date when the Convention was ratified. This is a thoroughly acceptable and sensible Amendment. It means that we can put off the day when we impose Clause 42 on the British rose breeders—and they are a very small and select company of

  579
  people—until there is a single widely accepted code in the world for plant breeders' rights. What is more important, we can delay it until there is effective machinery for making it work. I hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. John Wells: I support what my hon. Friend has said. There are emany aspects of the rose growers' market and a great deal of special pleading from different points of view. My hon. Friend fairly quoted the case of a distinguished breeder whose name is a household word, and equally fairly quoted the extreme opposite view quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee.
  The merit of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that it will give the Government time to consider this matter again. They may feel that they have had a lot of time already, but the fact remains that these rose breeders, propagators and vendors are three minute industries, with three very different special points of view. They are bedevilled with many special problems. I mention a minor one: the great difficulty, in recent years, of getting landing permits for profesional budders who come to this country from Holland and Belgium for the budding season.
  We are feeling our way gradually in plant breeders' rights. We are breaking new ground, and we should continue to break new ground; but we should do so gradually. We should not rush in. We should at least enable the Minister to wait until this International Convention is ratified by more countries.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the need to help our exporters. In this purely pleasure market there is a big argument for hindering the importers, and saving imports. We are importing far too many high-quality and high-priced shrubs from Belgium, Holland and France. In addition to thinking about helping our exporters we should see that no preference or advantage is given to would-be importers. If the Clause goes through unamended importers rather than exporters will be the gainers.
  I therefore hope that the Minister will pay close attention to the merits of the Amendment, because it cannot possibly wreck the Bill; it can only help it.
  Mr. Godber: I support the Amendment. What has been proposed by my hon. Friend is a sensible way of trying to reach a solution to what proved a difficult problem in Committee. It is an interesting point in relation to rose breeders. We all recognise that few people are involved, but we discovered in our discussions in Committee that there is a wide divergence of view between them. Each man feels passionately about his own point of view, and he is entitled to say so when his business will be directly affected by the Clause.
  We have to recognise that a change is being instituted under the Clause. In Committee we discovered that there are some who see considerable merit in the Clause and others who see grave harm to themselves in it. Still more time is needed to arrive at a fair solution and we must see where the balance lies. It is a complicated matter.
  In Committee I tried to distinguish between those who breed, those who propagate and those who sell stock. Clearly the breeder has by far the greater expense, but it is a difficult matter to conclude who is right in this dispute. Even in the speech of my hon. Friend, when he mentioned a gentleman—I think it must have been Mr. Harkness, Chairman of Rose Distribution Ltd.—I thought he was a trifle hard on him.
  That gentleman, when he wrote to us. did something which is very rarely done by people who lobby Members of Parliament. He set out the arguments for and against. I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember the letter in which he set out a number of arguments for and a certain number against. He was clearly trying to find a fair solution. I honestly do not think that the Government have found a fair solution yet.
  11.0 p.m.
  The real trouble arises from the fact that this is almost the only country—there are one or two others—which so far has got involved in ratification of the Convention. It is because of this that my hon. Friends felt that some time is needed so that other European countries can ratify the Convention and then our breeders would be on level terms with them. This marks a considerable move from the position we took in Committee. I hope the Government will come towards us and meet us as we have honestly

  581
  tried to find a compromise position, and I hope that we shall arrive at a conclusion considered satisfactory by the rose breeders of this country. None of us wants to penalise our rose breeders. The Amendment hinges particularly on ratification of the Convention.
  Therefore, I hope the Minister will pay attention, when he replies, to the timing. I hope he will find himself able to accept the Amendment, which. after all, will leave discretion to the Minister as to when he brings the Clause into operation. The Amendment would give him more freedom to choose the time which would be least harmful to the breeders concerned.
  Mr. John Mackie: I agree with hon. Members who have spoken, not only in the House but in the Committee that this is a complicated matter and one which takes a considerable amount of study to understand. The Amendment would enable my right hon. Friend to postpone the operation of Clause 42 until an appointed day. As the Clause now stands, the amendment to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act, 1964, would come into operation when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Quite frankly, I do not think the arguments for this breathing space are strong enough for us to agree to it. and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) quoted a letter from Mr. Harkness. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, it was a very fair letter and put at the end the points Mr. Harkness thought were for and against. He himself was for the amendment in the Bill. I think it is right to point out that in his letter—and I presume the hon. Member for Westmorland has read the whole letter and not looked only at the articles of association of one of the bodies—there is set out a number of bodies. I shall not read out the list. I have various letters which have been written to me in favour of the amendment in the Bill, including one from the Royal Horticultural Society of the United Kingdom, which, the hon. Member will agree, is no mean body. The body which was against the amendment in the Bill was the Plant Breeders Rights Association. Mr. Harkness told us that
  582
  "31 persons living in the U.K. have applied for plant breeders' rights.…Of these, 12 are members of Rose Distribution Ltd., ipso facto either expelled from or going to be expelled from or not members of the P.B.R.A. I believe inquiries would show that 10 of the remaining applicants are members of neither organisation; which leaves 9 out of 31 applicants…."
  of that Association who were not in favour. This is one body connected to rose breeding. It was a very small minority indeed.
  Mr. Godber: It seems to me that that argument is not very valid. The number of rose breeders in this country is very limited, anyway. It is a small minority of the people of this country, but is that a small minority of the rose breeders as opposed to the rose growers? That is the point.
  Mr. Mackie: These are the figures Mr. Harkness gave us. We had to accept them. The list I had and his letter would lead us to believe that the weight of opinion in the industry as a whole was definitely in favour of the amendment of the 1964 Act to stop up this gap in it.
  We spent a tremendous amount of time discussing these various points in Committee. I do not want to go into all the details again. The hon. Member for Westmorland went through these various points, and I do not need to go through them again. The system of double naming is one which will lead to great confusion. My right hon. Friend is strongly supported by the responsible opinion that I have mentioned, including the majority of other rose breeders in seeking to prevent the confusion.
  There is a good case for making the new Clause effective as soon as possible. With the overwhelming support of the industry we want to strengthen the protection of plant breeders and to guard against attempts to introduce a system of double naming of rose varieties in this country. Such attempts have been made by a minority of breeders. My right hon. Friend is determined that they shall not succeed. It has been suggested that there is no hurry about this and that we should wait until the International Convention comes into force. This is the main point made by hon. Members opposite. This is a mistaken view. It is true that we would need Clause 42 when the Convention comes into force, but we need

  583
  the clause now for the benefits which it will confer on the industry.
  It has been suggested that we should wait, because otherwise our breeders will be put at a disadvantage compared with breeders in other countries which may intend to wait for the Convention to come into force. This is the point which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) made. This is not so. If for the time being a British breeder wants to protect his variety in another Convention country by trade marking the registered variety name, this Clause will not stand in his way. Nor will the Clause prevent the Controller registering as a variety name a word which the breeder has trade marked in another country. The Clause has no direct effect outside the United Kingdom. Whether a breeder can obtain trade mark protection in another country, and for how long he can go on doing so, entirely depends on the domestic law of that country. My right hon. Friend is aware that certain countries, unlike the United Kingdom, are at present prepared to register trade marks for the names of plant varieties. If our breeders wish to take advantage of that system the new Clause will not prevent them.
  For the time being, a variety name trade marked in, say, France, could be registered in the United Kingdom under the 1964 Act if acceptable in all other respects. I ask the House to note, however, that when the International Convention comes into force, countries which ratify the Convention have undertaken to drop trade mark protection in favour of the Convention system of plant breeders' rights. It is important that hon. Members should note that. The position then will be that all breeders, whether United Kingdom or foreign, will have to seek plant breeders' rights in Convention countries instead of trade marks, not, I emphasise, because of the Clause now before the House, but as a consequence of those countries changing over to the Convention system.
  I would point out to the hon. Member for Westmorland and the hon. Member for Maidstone that Holland and the United Kingdom have already ratified the Convention, and the prospects are that Denmark will ratify very shortly and there is no reason to suspect that Belgium, France and Germany will not ratify the
  584
  Convention before the end of this summer.
  I hope that I have said enough to show that we need Clause 42 now to stop double naming and that it would be wrong to wait for the Convention, and, further, that the Clause does not discriminate against our own breeders who will still be able to obtain trade marks in other Convention countries so long as the laws of those countries allow it.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland will be satisfied that the Clause should go into law with the Royal Assent on the Bill and let us get on with the job and not wait for other countries.
  Mr. Jopling: It is difficult to know what decision to make, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, which seemed to argue for a breathing space to enable other countries to ratify. He said that Holland and the United Kingdom had ratified and that Denmark would do so before long and that the process would not take long. I hope that he is right, but what if he is not? There can be no guarantee. Some of the other European countries do not seem very forthcoming in ratifying.
  But the matter may be raised in another place and that is probably the best course. If the breeders are still sufficiently concerned they will be able to arrange this, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said. With this understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 39, in page 39, line 23 [Clause 48], after "23(1)(b)" insert "and regulations under section 2".—[Mr. Peart]

Clause 51.

  (SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT, ETC.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 40, line 11, after 13 ', insert 44 '.
  This is purely a drafting Amendment, which excepts transfers of land to or from a river authority or an internal drainage board from the need, in a rural development board's area, to seek its consent. In Scotland, we have no river

  585
  authorities or internal drainage boards and do not intend at present to have rural development boards, so Clause 44 has no application and the Amendment makes this clear.
  Amendment agreed to
  Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 14, leave out and 45 ' and insert:
  ' 44, 45 and (Further functions of agricultural wages committees)'.—[Mr. Peart]

  Title.
  Amendment No. 44, in line 16, after 1926 ', insert:
  ', the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 and the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 '.—[Mr. Pear]
  Order for Third Reading read—
  [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  When I commended this Bill to the House on Second Reading on 9th November, I described it as a workmanlike and useful measure. After the discussions which we have had and the changes which we have made in Standing Committee and at Report stage, I can now commend this as an even better and more useful Bill, and thank those who made constructive contributions.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), and their friends on both sides of the border have put a notice on the Order Paper which has made possible this debate on Third Reading. I hope, on this occasion, to set out again before the House the main objectives which we have set ourselves in this Bill.
  The first objective which we have set ourselves is to take action on the Report of the Brambell Committee on animal welfare. This part of the Bill may not go as far as some welfare interests would wish, while some farmers may think they go further than is necessary or desirable. But we have tried throughout to avoid extremes and to retain a flexible approach. This we consider essential in the difficult and controversial field of animal welfare.
  586
  We set great store by the codes of practice provided for in Clause 3. As a preliminary step these codes are now being worked out by the recently established Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and other experts. The aim is to make the recommendations in them clear, precise and reasonable. The codes will be circulated in draft to all the interests concerned before being submitted to Parliament for approval. They will be backed by free advice from our veterinary staff. In this way, we shall be providing the farmer with guidance on how to avoid unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to his animals. Although the codes will not have the force of regulations, we confidently expect that livestock producers will welcome and follow the recommendations.
  There has been some criticism of the width of the regulation-making powers being sought in Clause 2. We have met one criticism and accepted the proposition that these regulations should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure. We believe that these powers are necessary because the agricultural industry is capable of rapid change and is quick to adopt new husbandry techniques. We therefore need to be able to deal quickly and effectively with any implications which these changes may have for farm animal welfare. In general, however, the use of regulations to provide for mandatory standards, particularly of accommodation, will have to await the outcome of research. This is why we intend at first to rely mainly on the codes of practice.
  Apart from inspection and sampling in connection with diets and feeding-stuffs, in which local authorities will have a part to play, the main responsibility for checking on the welfare of livestock and on the observance of any relevant regulations will rest on our own veterinary staff. We think that this is right, because, as hon. Members will appreciate, much of this work will involve veterinary judgments. I know also that most farmers will welcome this.
  My right hon. Friend and I believe that the Bill represents a reasonable but important advance in the welfare of livestock, and I am sure that the House will support it.
  I turn now to payments by landlords to tenant farmers—Part II of the Bill—

  587
  who are dispossessed in order that their land may be put to some non-agricultural use, or who are dispossessed at such short notice as to lose the profits which they would have been able to make if the more usual period of notice had been observed. It is widely agreed that tenant farmers have particular difficulties. The acreage of rented land is steadily falling. The pressure from such major land-consumers as new towns and reservoirs increases as our population expands. We cannot remove these pressures from the tenant farmer but we can, by the measures included in the Bill, assure him of a reasonable lump sum to help him while he is reorganising his life after leaving the farm or reorganising his farming practices after losing some part of his holding.
  This part of the Bill has been welcomed, in principle, on both sides of the House. There has been some criticism, however, that it is unnecessarily complicated and that in basing the sum which the tenant farmer will receive under Clause 9 on the current rent of the farm, we have taken insufficient account of differences in individual circumstances. I do not think that the Bill could be made simpler without opening the door to uncertainties and leading to many more references to the Agricultural Land Tribunal or some other adjudicating body.
  I recognise that the tenant who has been paying a high rent will himself be more highly paid on dispossession than the tenant whose rent has been low. But if the new payments are based, as the present disturbance compensation is based, on actual known rents, it will make for a simpler and speedier settlement for both landlord and tenant. Part II is in essence a first-aid measure to bring relief to a section of the community on whom the community's needs have been bearing with particular harshness. I know that hon. Members are in sympathy with this objective.
  I shall not attempt a detailed statement of Part III. This is a purely Scottish provision and was introduced, as hon. Members know, in Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be more than willing to answer any questions about it. Its main purpose is to restore to the
  588
  nearer relatives of deceased tenant farmers in Scotland some measure of the security which they had under the Scottish Agricultural Holdings Act, 1949, but which they lost under the Agriculture Act, 1958. I am of course considering whether there is a case for something of a similar kind in England and Wales. I am very conscious of the concern of my hon. Friend, the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about this. In England and Wales, however, it would be an entirely new departure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to matters which are not in the Bill. That is out of order on Third Reading.
  Mr. Peart: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to put on record that I was looking at this, and had earlier said that I would undertake a review. I leave it at that.
  Part IV—land drainage—is the longest Part of the Bill but is perhaps the least controversial. It substitutes acreage for Schedule A as the basis for assessing drainage charges on agricultural land. It provides a new method for determining the amount of the general drainage charge which will make it more closely equivalent than before to the contribution which the general ratepayer makes to the river authority precept. It also enables internal drainage boards to remedy the more serious anomalies which have arisen from the use of Schedule A values as a basis of assessment for drainage rates. The proposals in this part both on drainage charges and on drainage rates have been generally welcomed by all the interests.
  There remain the Clauses of the Bill which deal with a number of small but useful developments of Government policy. We provide help for the bacon curing industry. We take powers to give grants for break crops; on this we are indebted in particular to the hon. Member for Edinburgh. West (Mr. Stodart) for his suggestion that crops which are not harvested in the normal sense should not be excluded.
  We have taken powers which will aid the process of co-operation in agriculture, forestry and fishing. It has been my consistent objective to stimulate this process. We have just agreed on Report a new

  589
  Clause which is not far-reaching in itself but which will, I hope, make possible an agricultural wages structure, if this should be the wish of the industry. This is also an objective for which many have striven over the years.
  I do not think that I need say more about the details of the Bill. I remain confident that it will aid the improvement of the industry for which I am responsible. I commend it to the House.
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: I congratulate the Minister on having reached this stage. This is a useful, small Measure which, in the main, we welcomed when it originated and, in the main, continue to believe that it will serve a useful purpose. But when the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was an even better Bill than when it: started he was stretching things a little far. I will elaborate that theme in a moment or two.
  The Minister has paid his tribute to us on this side. We have tried to help to improve the Bill, and we are, of course, grateful for the way in which he has accepted a number of suggestions. To that extent, we agree that certain Clauses are better. We are grateful for the Amendment to Clause 2 introducing the affirmative Resolution procedure, because from the start we felt that the Clause contained very wide powers and that it was important to have greater restrictions on the Government of the day in bringing in regulations under it. Personally, I should have liked to have seen the Government of the day even more confined.
  The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to remove our fears about Clause 6. It is better for the Amendments that have been made to it.
  As regards Part I as a whole, we accept that it was perhaps wise to introduce legislation in some way following on the Brambell Report, and we believe that as long as the Minister adheres, as far as is practically possible, to the provisions of Clause 3 he will get the acceptance of the industry as a whole.
  We welcome the general provisions of Part II. We are, however, still somewhat unhappy with the explanation given by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries about the position of the landlord under Clause 9. This will be pursued in another place. We believe that there is still much confusion of thought on this
  590
  question. The Minister made particular reference just now to the question of the tenant on a low rent. This is the point we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is obviously still in the Minister's mind. A good case was made on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and others. I do not think that the Ministry has given sufficient thought to this question. In spite of what the Minister said about making the Bill more complicated, I believe that more could have been done to safeguard the position of the tenant on a low rental when he is dispossessed for development purposes. Subject to those comments, we think that Part II is useful.
  We find Part III thoroughly objectionable. We have debated this at considerable length today. I do not propose to go into it in any detail. It was obviously a matter for my Scottish colleagues to deal with, because it concerns Scottish matters. Were I not barred by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from venturing where the Minister sought to venture for a few moments, I would say that very dangerous precedents were being established here. If the Minister should be so unwise as to seek to emulate his Scottish colleagues, he will seek to emulate his Scottish colleagues, he will meet very stiff resistance from this side. We think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has behaved quite deplorably over this. By introducing a provision of this kind into a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and by introducing it as late as he did in the Bill, he has treated the House with a degree of levity which is deplorable. The reasons which have been adduced in support of this provision have not been anything like sufficient to justify the measures the right hon. Gentleman has taken.
  Looking at this matter from outside—I admit that it does not affect any aspect with which I am concerned, except in so far as it might lead to similar provisions for England and Wales—it seems to me that it has been introduced to try to serve some narrow political issue that may be confronting Scotland at present and is certainly not in the long-term interests of farmers in Scotland or anywhere else.
  A few moments ago the Minister said that one of the difficulties was that the

  591
  acreage of rented land was steadily falling. This is exactly the type of provision which will make the acreage of rented land fall. If provisions of this kind are in existence, if and when any farm comes to hand it will be either kept in hand by the landlord or sold off and will not be rented again. That situation will arise as a direct result of provisions such as this introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. What the Minister of Agriculture deplores the Secretary of State for Scotland encourages. There is a wide divergence of view between the two right hon. Gentlemen on this. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will maintain a stout resistance to any temptation to follow the line taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is unfortunate that this has been introduced into a Bill which otherwise is a useful one.
  I agree with what the Minister said about Part IV. It is a helpful, though complicated, Part, but one which I hope will help to make the drainage charges work in a way which they have not done before and enable drainage rates in internal drainage board areas to be so modified as to remove the serious anomalies. I renew the plea I made on Second Reading that qua drainage boards this be regarded as an interim measure pending full revaluation. Until there can be a full revaluation, I do not believe that a real solution to the problem can be found.
  We think that in general the miscellaneous provisions contained in Part V are useful. But a problem still remains in regard to Clause 42, and we shall have to return to it in another place. The Amendment which we put forward was a fair compromise, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not really face it. I hope that a solution can be found.
  With those comments—apart from what I have had to say about Part III—I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, which, I hope, will prove of use to the industry as a whole.
  11.30 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee for coming in again at this stage,
  592
  not having been on the Committee owing to other duties on Select Committees which I have to perform for the House. I shall confine my remarks, in view of the hour, to that part of the Bill which I discussed on Second Reading. The matter was discussed in Committee, but it has only been touched on tonight. I refer to Part IV, dealing with land drainage.
  On Second Reading, I raised a number of matters on behalf of the Association of Drainage Authorities, of which I am an honorary vice-president. The Association is extremely grateful to the Ministry for the co-operation which it has received, but there are one or two points outstanding which still give it concern. I should be grateful if they could be cleared up tonight. As Scotland has no internal drainage boards, if the Minister would care to intervene, I shall readily give way so that he may give the assurances which I particularly want.
  In replying to the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an assurance that new arrangements would be made-
  "… it will be necessary for owner-occupiers to have access to the register or rate book, and this is a matter which we have in mind. We are considering adding an appropriate provision to the Bill."
  I have studied the proceedings in the Standing Committee and, so far as I can see, no new provision has been added to cover that point. I shall be grateful to be corrected if I am wrong.
  Mr. Hoy: I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is asking whether we made provision for access to the rolls, this we certainly did in Committee.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am very glad to hear it. I know that there was an understanding that it would be done, but I could not discover the subsection which now covered the point. If we could be told that, I should be grateful.
  The second matter was referred to by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply on Second Reading when he gave an assurance that,
  "the Inland Revenue has agreed that local valuation officers may, if requested, give informal advice to internal drainage boards on apportionment of rateable values other than

  593
  for public utilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 1361.]
  This matter has not been cleared up entirely, and the Association of Drainage Author ties, which is the collective body for the internal drainage boards, is still worried about it. Many public utilities go right across many drainage board boundaries, parish boundaries, and so on. Most rating assessments of public utilities are based on the profits of the utilities, and the consequence is that drainage boards are unable themselves to assess what would be a fair revision of an assessment where utilities go outside their own areas as well as lying partly within them.
  I understand that valuation officers would be able to get at the full figures through the Inland Revenue, but the drainage boards themselves have no right to make inquiries outside their own borders. Therefore, a board can do nothing but make a wild guess, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to revise what he said on Second Reading. If the Government would agree to local valuation officers of the Inland Revenue being able to make available the facts in regard to all public utilities as well as others assessed for drainage rates, the difficulty would be removed. This is of considerable concern.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary very fairly said in Committee, the Inland Revenue is under pressure. I made it clear on Second Reading, as the Association has to the Government, that there was no intention of asking the Inland Revenue to initiate this exercise. What is wanted is that if drainage boards approach the Inland Revenue, the facts and advice can be given on an informal basis. I do not think that there is any need to provide for that in the Bill, but we should like an assurance that in cases like this, where public utilities and others are affected, the facts can be given when they are known.
  The Bill also deals with drainage charges. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and the Parliamentary Secretary for recognising that I was among the few who foresaw that the general charge would probably not operate. I have been checking the facts and, as far as I can see, one of the river boards affecting my constituency levies a general
  594
  charge and another does not, but none of them has levied a special charge. There is now a desire for the special charge to be used. It may interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that in its latest report, for 1966–67, the Nene and Welland River Board says:
  "There have been representations and pressure that drainage improvements should be carried out on some of the lesser streams outside the internal drainage districts, and the matter "—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty associating what the hon. Gentleman is saying with the contents of the Bill. As he will appreciate, we can discuss only what is in the Bill. Perhaps he will help me.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I well remember a former Member of the House, the late Sir Ernest Shepperson, one of the greatest experts on drainage, telling me that as a young politician I would be well advised by an old one if I had nothing whatever to do with land drainage, because nobody would ever understand me. I appreciate that this is an immensely complicated matter, but I am now dealing with the special charge, which is definitely covered by the Bill and which is now to be increased to 2s. I was saying that the Nene and Welland Board says that it would be untimely to make this sort of charge while we are amending the principal Act by the Bill. As the Bill passes to another place, I hope that their Lordships will exercise expedition to enable the river board which concerns my constituency to get on with its work, as it is ready to do.
  I am certain that it is wise, as the Bill does, to make the schemes under the special charges a practical and viable possibility, which they were not before, which is why the boards have not used them. I am convinced that the Bill will enable them to get on with their work and I and the associations concerned are very grateful. I should be even more grateful if before we part with the Bill we can have the assurance for which I asked about public utilities.
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: The Bill contains a number of useful measures, such as those dealing with the welfare of animals, grants to drainage authorities and so on. Those dealing with the wel-

  595
  fare of animals are very welcome. Farmers generally are lovers of animals and like to treat them well, but in recent years modern farming has changed the situation considerably. Keeping animals, whose natural instinct is to forage on a free range, closely confined is cruel, and I hope that the Bill will put that right.
  A vital principle is involved in Part III, which deals with security of tenure and applies only to Scotland. I want to declare an interest here because I am a tenant farmer with a family. In Committee this Clause was fully debated and a number of hon. Members from south of the Border took part. While one may admire their sincerity and the manner in which they presented and argued their case, it was quite evident to me that they did not appreciate why we in Scotland attach so much importance to security of tenure. One of the reasons is that as a people we have suffered more through lack of security than any other people in any other part of Britain.
  Landlords evicted their tenants by the hundreds from land which they had reclaimed from moor and bog, with much hard labour and without many of today's implements. If tenants showed any resistance, their homes were set on fire over their heads. I mention this in order to let those who are not acquainted with the facts realise why the very term "security of tenure" is so meaningful to the Highland farmer. The N.F.U. of Scotland have been pressing the Government for this legislation since the 1958 Act, notwithstanding the fact that the Landowners' Federation has consistently opposed it. I congratulate the N.F.U. on its successful efforts and assure it that it has earned the heartfelt thanks of a large number of tenant farmers in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State and his hon. Friend who piloted this Clause through Committee have been criticised for introducing the Clause in Committee rather than on First Reading. Why should they be so criticised? The right hon. Gentleman has been pressed by his hon. Friends as well as the Liberal Members for this type of legislation since the Government came into power. I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having the wisdom to bring this Clause into the Bill
  596
  rather than waste precious time by introducing fresh legislation.
  It should be made clear that this is not a Measure to set the heather alight in Scotland. It is a modest Measure, meaning that on the death of a tenant, a near relative, defined as husband or wife, son or daughter, will succeed to the tenancy. This is chiefly applicable to tenant farmers' sons who would wish to carry on in their father's footsteps. Not all sons would wish to do so, and in that case the farm would be available for letting.
  I am amazed at the strange reasoning of the Landowners Federation. It has said:
  "The urgent need for Scottish agriculture today is for a dynamic and efficient industry, able to achieve a continuously higher production of food at lower prices, and at the same time to provide a fair return on the capital employed in the industry."
  Agreed. But surely this cuts both ways. Tenants employ capital in the same way as landowners. Anyone who has experience of farming knows that security of tenure is one of the first essentials if we are to achieve good husbandry. At present, when many tenant farmers have to invest so much capital in farm improvements and mechanisation—and these amounts are increasing every year—it is more essential than ever that they should have reasonable security. It has been argued by some that, although the Government want expansion, this kind of Measure will have the opposite effect, and will lead to mediocre farming.
  This is utter nonsense. The type of tenant who would benefit by this Measure is not in farming to play around, but in order to earn a living. Again, anyone with experience in farming is well aware that the inefficient farmer will not last the pace very long under present-day conditions. It may be that in some of the fat lands in South-East Scotland—where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) farms—the mediocre farmers may last the pace, but those are very exceptional cases. The Landowners Federation appears to be greatly concerned about the number of students training at the colleges with a view to getting farmers. They ask what is to be done for them and where they are to get farms.

  597
  It may be that those modern seats of learning are bursting at the seams with able young men who wish to take up farming, and it is a matter of great regret that there are so few farms available to let, but I very much question the morality of turning out a hard-working and efficient farmer's son, who has worked all his life on a farm, in order to make room for a bright boy from a college. If the Landowner's Federation is so concerned about the availability of farms to let, it has at least part of the remedy in its own hands. I submit that it should consider the large number of farms that are kept in hand on many estates in Scotland today. In order to be consistent it might issue a directive to its own members, requesting them to offer some of those farms to let. I am satisfied that if it did the farms would enjoy a higher standard of husbandry.
  Those who are so vehemently opposed to the Measure are magnifying out of all proportion the problems that may arise. I agree that a sound principle is involved here. Contrary to what the opponents of Clause 18 maintain, I say that the landlord will still have protection against the inefficient tenant under the provissions of the 1949 Act. It is no reflection on the good landlord—of whom there are many—who take pride in having several generations of the same family in their estates.
  I was hoping that some Tories might see some merit in the Clause and support it, but I was disappointed. Tonight we saw history repeating itself. All the Tories went into the landlords' Lobby and all the Liberals into the tenants' Lobby. I support the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party and wish it a speedy journey to the Statute Book.
  11.49 p.m.
  Mr. Hazell: I will not keep the House for more than two or three minutes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this Measure to this stage of its journey. Part I caused considerable public concern prior to the setting up of the Brambell Committee, and the implementation of some of its recommendations in Part I will go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the ability of the farmers and farm workers to look after stock on which their livelihood obviously depends.
  598
  It is a fact that certain sections of the public concerned with the welfare of animals think that perhaps the Bill does not go quite far enough. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend has gone some long way towards meeting the objections there were in the public mind a year or so ago. It is recognised in the industry that if the vast majority of those having responsibility for the care of stock neglected the animals, then necessarily and obviously production would suffer. It came out very clearly in Committee that there is a good deal of considered thought given to the care of animals by those who have charge of them.
  I am glad, however, that my right hon. Friend, under Part I, is to issue codes of recommendation for the welfare of stock, because these, I think, will be most helpful to new entrants to the industry. I think such codes should go a long way towards guiding youngsters taking agriculture as a career in the art which their fathers and forefathers acquired by experience. I am sure the new training boards will welcome these codes of recommendations the Minister will be putting forward as a means of assisting them in their obligations.
  In view of the lateness of the hour, there is only one other matter to which I shall make reference, the new Clause the House so generously accepted relative to additional powers for the county agricultural wages committees. Although those new powers will do nothing about fixing rates of pay or categories of people and their rates, because that is the responsibility of the stautory Agricutlural Wages Board, the powers will enable the county wages committees to sort out difficulties which, during the early stages of the operation of the wages structure will occur between employers and employed where it has not been possible for mutual agreement to be reached without the intervention of the county wages committees. I thank my right hon. Friend for the Clause, and the House for the cordial welcome it gave to it, and I hope that when the wages structure is finally devised for the industry it will offer to the youngsters of the future a career which is lacking in British agriculture at present, when there is only one basic rate and anything above that is due to generosity, or recognition of workers' skill

  599
  and effort, on the part of the best employers in the industry.
  11.53 p.m.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: It is late, and we have had a long discussion, and therefore I shall keep the House only a short time, and follow the example of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), who happens to be my own Member of Parliament. However, because it is late, I shall not follow him in many of his comments.
  I think Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is no misnomer, because today we have perambulated through various provisions ranging from security of tenure in Scotland, through the very happy fields of rose growers and breeders, to the problems of land drainage about which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) spoke. It has been a varied discussion.
  I am very glad my right hon. Friend said a word about the phrase, the very telling phrase, used by the Minister, in a sense, I think, by accident; at least, he did not understand the full implications of it. He said the acreage of tenanted land has fallen. Well, it has. It has fallen in England quite steeply, and my guess is—I would not venture to trespass on the preserves of agriculture in Scotland because I know nothing about them—that when Clause 18 and other provisions of Part III come into operation the acreage of tenant land in Scotland will fall even more steeply. The reason is that if there is over-security of tenure to the tenant, there is a point beyond which the landlord cannot move because he is tied up in so many knots. When a farm comes on hand for any reason, as my right hon. Friend said, the landlord is under almost irresistible pressure either to farm it himself, if he has the capital to do so, or, if he has not, to sell it, and less and less land will become available for letting.
  This is the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) missed. He disclosed that he did not understand the difference between the working capital which a tenant farmer has to find and the capital in respect of fixed equipment which the landlord has to find. I have rarely heard a more confused speech
  600
  about the economics of the landlord and tenant system than that of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: My point was that I know there are so many tenants who provide the equipment which the landlord ought to provide, but they have this agreement, and it has been going on a long time. Many landlords are not anxious to see a change in the tenancy system, because they know that they will have to pay substantial sums. If it is the case that in England the landlord provides all the fixed equipment, it is not so in Scotland.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: As I was saying, if we overdo security of tenure in Scotland, as in England, it means that there will be less and less tenanted lands available to let. There is an argument for saying that this is a good thing. If so, let the right hon. Gentleman say so. It is no good making that sort of statement without realising the consequences.
  I would make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman that between now and the time when the Bill gets to another place he should have one more look—could I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention? I want to make one more plea, either to the Minister of Agriculture—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member asking the Minister to include something in the Bill which is not already in it, because this is out of order on Third Reading?
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No. I am asking one or other of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop talking and listen. I am making a plea, either to the Minister or to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to have one more look at the tax implications both for landlord and tenant in respect of Clause 9. I cannot honestly compliment either of them on the amount of homework that they have done with their own Department and the Treasury. Anybody looking at Clause 9, even on Second Reading, must have seen that there are considerable complications and implications in respect of the various compensations payable by the landlord to the tenant. There were implications about a possible Capital Gains Tax and about a possible development levy.

  601
  When this was raised on Second Reading, neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State for Scotland had the faintest idea what it was about, and they said so. Second Reading was on 9th November. The point was raised again in Committee on 12th December. By that time the right hon. Gentleman had got it right in respect of the Capital Gains Tax, but he still did not know about the development levy. We have now got to Third Reading on 21st February, and the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) concerning the development levy was so confused as to make almost no sense. The details are more suitably raised in another place, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman to try to put this clear between now and then. Otherwise, there will be great confusion and a tremendous amount of litigation, which is unnecessary if he clarifies his own intentions.
  12 m.
  Mr. Stodart: Our discussion on Part I might have taken a good deal longer, but, for reasons which the Minister will appreciate, we got through it fairly well. Complicated as Part II is, we elicited much that is worth while and nearly discovered what a shelter belt is. At least we now know that it is excluded from the increased compensation payments, which is a point which was worrying many people interested in forestry.
  The longer that the break crop grant under Part V is limited to beans, the less value it will have for Scotland. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that no other crops were in mind, but the Under-Secretary said that discussions were taking place. There was slight contradiction, and our attempts to resolve it were unsuccessful. I hope that discussions are going on and that an announcement will be possible in time for whatever break crop is chosen for Scotland to have the full advantage this coming year. This means within the coming seeding time.
  On Part III, I am very sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), with whom I usually agree about. farming, but his doctrine will have exactly the reverse effect to what he wants, and those for whom we would
  602
  like tenanted farms will find it much more difficult to get them.
  I have inquired from what I believe are extremely reliable sources about the Inverness case and I regard it as a misuse of the landlord's right. It should not have happened, but that is not a sound reason for the step which has been taken tonight, because vindictiveness gets one nowhere. That was something which the landlord showed and should not have shown, but the Government have been vindictive in bringing in this Clause and it is the industry which will suffer in the end.
  12.4 a.m.
  Mr. Ross: I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said what he did. I wish that some of his hon. Friends and some of the people in authority in the Landowners' Federation had spoken out earlier, as that might have helped the individual, but it does not remove the power to do it for other individuals.
  I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) savoured of arrogance when he spoke about the hon. Member from the northern county. If the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) did not speak for Cromarty, he certainly spoke for Ross. The hon. Member's speech contained the reason why this means so much more to Scotland. Our land tenure system is different. Our whole history and traditions are different. This kind of thing happening in this kind of place creates the worst possible atmosphere for the sort of cooperation that is essential.
  The hon. Member suggested that to bring that provision into the Bill at this time showed a measure of levity. I assure him that whatever the spirit with which I presented the new Clauses, it was not one of levity. He also said that it was an affront to Parliament. My feeling, I assure him, is that if, having made up my mind and seen my way to get workable Clauses which retained a certain measure of flexibility and balance, I had not taken the first opportunity, that would have been an affront to Parliament when dealing with an important matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty for the

  603
  support he gave me in this matter because he has considerable knowledge as a tenant farmer in Scotland. I value his advice a little more than that of the hon. Member for Windsor in the way he spoke.
  The hon. Member for Windsor and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) spoke tonight about the tax position and seemed to think that there was confusion. They asked whether the position had been made clear. The tax position is that the tenant does not pay tax on Clause 9 payments; he pays neither Capital Gains Tax, betterment levy nor Income Tax. The landlord will be able to set off Clause 9 payments against his liabilities for Capital Gains Tax but will not be able to do so with betterment levy.
  The right hon. Member for Grantham deplored the selection of "actual rent". This has been explained more than once. I remember trying to do it on Second Reading and it was done again in Committee. We could not provide for low rent resulting from, for example, a full repairing lease to be stepped up for the purpose of the new payment without adopting widely different arbitration procedures from those of the Agricultural Holdings Act. The point is that the actual rent is known. It is simple and certain and will make for simple settlements with a minimum of dispute.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) praised us for our reasonable approach in Part I of the Bill. He will find that we have adopted a very sensible approach in using the code of practice and, now, with the affirmative procedure therewith and going on, we hope, as a result of having the advantage of research, to the position of regulation.
  I noticed what my hon. Friend said about the new powers of the agricultural wages boards. As he knows, England and Wales arc a step ahead in having a new structure which, everyone thinks, is desirable. Scotland has not got as far as that. We felt it right to take the enabling powers to enable that to be done, and this has been done with a considerable measure of agreement.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) did not desert his
  604
  drainage interests, and he pursued the matter right to the end. We appreciate that certain anomalies remain. When agricultural land and internal drainage districts are still assessed on the basis of Schedule A values, most of which have remained unaltered since 1935. there is bound to be an element of unreality and roughness about it. The Government accept that revaluation of this land is the only satisfactory solution for the long term. I would hope that circumstances might permit this, perhaps, by the time the next general valuation takes place, but I can give no assurance about that at present.
  The hon. Gentleman taxed me further on what I said about public utilities. I know that he will appreciate the advantage of what we have done in relation to the local valuation office of the Inland Revenue giving informal advice to the internal drainage boards in the apportionment of rateable value other than this. The very real difficulty is that the rateable values of the public utility undertakings are assessed by statutory formulae which are very complicated indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he has ever tried to work them out.
  The difficulty is that these assessments are not made by reference to the value of the individual properties owned by the undertakings but are, generally speaking, based on output. That applies to both water and electricity undertakings, and there are variations even within that range. The information necessary for apportionment relating to output in specific areas is information that the valuation office would not have and does not require for its own purposes.
  Valuation offices have no power to obtain the information, nor have they the staff necessary to collect it and process it. It is with considerable regret that the Inland Revenue is unable to provide help in apportioning the values of these utilities, so the internal drainage boards will have to continue as they have done in the past, and determine these values in consultation with the undertakings concerned.
  The point raised about inspection is dealt with in Clause 35(1,b).
  There has been a fairly general welcome for the Bill, with very considerable

  605
  head-shaking over Part III. I am prepared to take that head shaking for Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with me on this point, he is disagreeing with the organised farmers in Scotland, and if it comes to the point where we as a Government should please the right hon. Gentleman or the Scottish farmers, our choice must be to please the Scottish farmers.
  Let us be aware of the fact that there are people who are critical of this United Kingdom Parliament. They say that we are not adaptable enough to meet the needs and problems of Scotland; that this is, as they call it, a "London-based Government". Yet here we are, within the United Kingdom Parliament, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the support generally of the House of Commons, addressing himself to what has been a problem for Scottish farmers since 1958, and meeting it successfully. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not join in it with us.
  This awful question of the adoption of middle-aged men has been referred to at an earlier stage, and was discussed on an Amendment that has now been made to the Clause concerned. Adoption can be done only under the procedure laid down in the Adoption Act, 1958. Those adopted cannot be middle-aged men—they must be under the age of 21—and the suggestion of bribery, of money passing that has been suggested, is also ruled out by that Act. I told hon. Members that I would look at that point, I have done so, and I will look at it again.
  On the whole, the Bill is worthy of the support and attention that has been rightly given to it by the House.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed

SCHOOL MEALS SERVICE (SELECTIVITY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride]
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Selectivity is the new vogue word of British politics. Inside and outside Parliament, and on both sides of the political fence, more and more people are urging a change towards increasing selectivity in the social services. By this they mean that help from public funds should be given only to those whose need can be proved. And they strongly condemn the award of social benefits to anyone else.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been especially strident in their condemnation of the universal principle of social security for all, irrespective of means. They argue that universality is out-dated and that help must be concentrated on those whose needs are greatest. The right hon. Members for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have emerged as two of the leading Parliamentary advocates of selectivity. Indeed, they appear to hate the universal principle. For them, selectivity is a bright new concept and they see themselves as modernisers who could save a great deal of public money by restricting help to cases of proven need.
But, of course, selectivity is anything but a new idea and the two right hon. Members cannot be allowed to masquerade as modernisers. We already have selectivity in many different fields, and it is the present working of selectivity in the school meals service that I wish to consider tonight. We have had selectivity in the school meals service for many years. The parents who can afford to do so are required to pay for their children's meals, while the children of widows and of parents who are sick, disabled or who, for other reasons, are living on very low incomes are entitled to free school meals.
It is estimated that last year 660,000 children were thus entitled to free school meals. But well over 300,000 of these children refused to take free meals. They

607
refused, according to press reports of inquiries undertaken by chief education welfare officers, because their parents were sensitive about "taking charity". I understand that one chief education welfare officer even encountered parents who said that, because they were already receiving free clothing, they felt that they had to "draw the line" at free meals. Words such as "stigma" are said to have been used by parents, and one eminent journalist, commenting on these enquiries in The Times of 25th July, 1967, reported my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science as being
"strongly opposed to any system that enables the paying children to poke a finger of scorn at the others".
My right hon. Friend does well to see that it is not only the parents who feel sensitive about existing arrangements for free school meals. I am glad he recognises that some of the children who can pay their way in schools sometimes take pride in comparing themselves with the children from poorer families who cannot do so. My right hon. Friend is much more in touch with the real world than the municipal official who said recently:
"Those who pay, pay, and that is all there is to it. I think adults pay far more attention to this sort of discrimination than the children. In our experience, the children take little or no notice of it."
Against this assessment, I quote from the published account of how an adolescent girl, Janice, who is now in receipt of free school meals, sees the present system:
"We had this teacher once, and always on a Monday she would say ' And where's your dinner money? ' and they'd all laugh and she knew I had free dinners. She knew. They think if you're poor, you don't care. What do they think you are? You're human. You've got feelings, same as they have, haven't you? All you're thinking is that you mustn't cry, else they'll laugh and all you want to do is run and run and run and never come back. One day, I'll laugh at them. I'll work in Woolworths and never have kids. It's no fun being a kid".
Janice is 14. With the torments which at least some of the children like her have to face, is it any wonder that there are other families on the poverty line who will gladly go without anything rather than send their children for free
608
school meals. Or that the writer who published Janice's comment should have considered that
"the advantages which our philanthropic, enlightened Welfare State have given here are destroying her. They have left marks on her which will be with her for the rest of her life."
This is a subject of the highest social and human importance. The family circumstances of the adolescent girl to whom I have referred entitle her to free school meals. But she is humiliated by selectivity. And there are hundreds of thousands of very poor children who prefer to go without, or whose parents prefer them to go without, rather than have their names on a different page of the school meals register.
In a document which is to be presented by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party for discussion at the 7th annual conference of the Young Socialists, to be held on 13th-15th April, 1968, it is stated:
"Where tests of means are involved, those in greatest need often fail to apply, either through ignorance of their rights. dislike of the means-testing procedure, or the difficulty found by the less educated and articulate in coming forward to establish their entitlement."
The effect of these factors has been clearly shown by Hilary Land in her study of families with five or more children in London, which stated that only 4 per cent. of those children under five who were entitled to free welfare foods actually received them. Slick proposals for additional selective benefits forget that many of our social services protect the unprotected, look after and rehabilitate the mentally sick, and compensate for what Professor R. M. Titmuss has described as society's "disservices" to the individual. These include the war disabled, those with infectious diseases, the chronic bronchitis sufferer from the mines and other industries, the industrially injured, the unemployed and the victims of road accidents.
And it is with the children of those who have suffered some of society's worst "disservices" that we are concerned in this debate. We are concerned also with tens of thousands of children whose fathers are not lay-abouts or even out of work. Many of the children who do not take the free school meals to which they are entitled have fathers who are in full-time employment. They are in

609
the wage-stop families, who fight a hopeless battle to make ends meet on a very low wage.
Of the three reasons advanced by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party for the failure of those in greatest need to apply for selective benefits, it may be thought that ignorance of rights is the most important. Indeed, I understand that the Department of Education and Science has recently spent about £20,000 on sending out a circular which is meant to
"reduce the risks that parents qualified to get free school meals for their children ill fail to apply for them through ignorance".
As I have tried to show, there are factors very much more important than parental ignorance with which we shall have to deal if we are to humanise the school meals service from the standpoint of the deprived family. Indeed there are some well-informed people who doubt whether parental ignorance is really an important factor at all. A spokeswoman for the Manchester school meals service was quoted in the Wythenshawe Express on 1st February as saying that she did not think that
"there is any likelihood of people not knowing that free dinners were available".
And it is estimated that about 16,000 children and their families in Manchester today are living in poverty. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), both of whom have taken a close personal interest in this debate, will confirm that this is a very serious problem in the great urban area which we represent.
The situation nationally was well described in a letter which I received on 31st January from Professor John Yudkin of the Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, University of London. He powerfully criticised
"the complacent attitude of those who assume that malnutrition cannot exist in our present affluent society"
and he told me of a study which he was making into the health prospects of the children of families whose income was inadequate to ensure that they were properly nourished. He was concerned, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, not only with schools meals but also with school milk.
610
One of the preliminary findings of his study is that even children in an area which is by no means poor often go for as long as 16 or 18 hours without nutritious food. Another finding, of particular interest at this time, is that secondary school children taking school milk had better teeth, and were less frequently absent from school, than children who did not.
There will be those who will dismiss as unimportant not only parental ignorance but also other factors which I have mentioned for refusing school meals. They will regard what is said by low-income parents and their children alike as expressions of false pride. But the fact is that hundreds of thousands of children whom everyone agreed should be given free school meals preferred to go without. This is happening now and it is for the advocates of selectivity to show how their system can work without humiliating those, including children, whom selectivity is said to be intended to help. The selectivists must also explain why we should now be asked to extend a system which has been found so badly wanting in a service as vitally important as the school meals service.
I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to the social and human problems which arise from the failure of selectivity in this service. At the very least I hope he will announce his intention to try to devise a system by which the child receiving free school meals cannot be distinguished from the child who pays. This may well prove impossible, but I know that my hon. Friend is as well equipped as anyone can be to address himself to this task. His background is similar to mine. We both know from our upbringing the realities of life in a working-class neighbourhood and we are both case-hardened to the real meaning of the bright new concepts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know that he will want to reply as positively and as sympathetically as possible to this debate.
12.30 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for the compassionate manner, in keeping with his

611
normal practice, in which he has introduced this debate on the working of selectivity and trying to ensure that selectivity in school meals attains its proper objectives. I personally appreciate his kind references to me and to the similarities of our upbringing. Both he and I had free school meals when at school because of family circumstances and the difficulties of those days, and I was able personally to appreciate the main burden of his speech.
Before I deal with the sensitivity questions, to which I can assure my hon. Friend the Government attach the greatest importance, I will relate what has been happening in the last year. School meals have been priced at ls. since 1957 and will be going up to ls. 6d. this spring. Even at that figure they still represent a subsidy to the parent of 1s. 1d. per meal. When the Government decided to raise the price because the taxpayer's bill was increasing phenomenally, they associated that increase, properly in my view, with the desire to do something about the wide area of family and hidden poverty, particularly in large families. In short, they tried to discover how many children were entitled to free meals, how many were actually having them and then to set about putting the situation right realistically.
We were all shattered by a survey of the Ministry of Social Security published in the summer of last year entitled "Circumstances of Families". This showed that there were 500,000 children belonging to families whose incomes were below the normal initial requirements. Of that number, only 250,000 were taking the free school meals to which they were entitled. It was from that point that the Government began their operations. Children of parents who are unemployed or sick almost invariably get free meals, because there is a good link between the Ministry of Social Security and the local education authorities.
We judge that this is almost wholly a problem of the low wage-earners and their children. The very fact of the announcement by the Ministry, coupled with debates in the Press—and I pay tribute to what the Press has done in focussing attention on this—had a profound effect. In the autumn term, 1966.
612
on a given day there were 330,000 children having free school meals. One year later, in Autumn, 1967, the figure had risen to 404,000, an increase of 80,000, something near 20 per cent.
The discussion in the House and outside had focussed attention on the problem and brought nearly a 20 per cent. increase in the take-up of free school meals. The House will agree that this is a not insignificant figure. However, the Secretary of State and the Department were not satisfied and did not rest on their laurels. We felt that we had to get through directly to every parent to let them know of their entitlement. We thought about this and decided not to do it in a manner in which Governments normally approach the problem. by advertising on television, or in the Press. We thought that the proper way was to send a letter from the Secretary of State. bearing his signature, to every parent. That mammoth task, with the co-operation of local education authorities, schools and teachers was embarked upon at the end of last year. and I am glad to say has now been completed. It was a simple letter, its language designed to be clearly understood by every parent who received it. It set out clearly how they could judge their entitlement to free school meals if they thought their children should have them. It was sent on a prepaid basis, so that all the parent had to do was to sign his or her name to say whether he or she wanted the school welfare officer to call or wanted an appointment at the office of the school welfare officer, fold it over and pop it into a pillar box.
I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend and the House that there has been a tremendous response to that approach, which the Government thought extremely satisfactory. I have had specially obtained for this Adjournment debate the first few early returns from four county councils, 24 county boroughs and two London boroughs. These show a percentage increase in the take-up of free school meals. directly following upon the campaign of the Government. In the case of nine authorities there was an increase of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., in nine, between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., in seven between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent., in two

613
between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent., and in three between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.—very striking figures.
We estimate, therefore, that if the rest of the country—and there are 162 education authorities altogether—follow this pattern, as one would think, it will show an average increase of about 30 per cent. in the take-up. which would give us an additional 80,000 cases. If we add the 80,000 to the 80,000 already uncovered in recent years as a result of publicity alone, it means that we shall have found, by this campaign and these methods, at least 160,000 children who are now having free school meals which they would not have been having otherwise, which is a considerable measure of progress towards the 250,000 which the Ministry of Social Security survey uncovered for us. I know that my hon. Friend wit think that this operation has been worth every penny of the £20,000 which this has cost the Government.
The figures for two authorities, Nottingham and Liverpool, surprised us, because they showed an increase of only 5 per cent. Both these education authorities told us before we started our campaign that they were confident that in their areas they had already taken this matter so seriously that almost every case which was entitled to free school meals was getting them. It is a great tribute to both Nottingham and Liverpool that their contention was borne out by the fact that, although the average increase was 30 per cent., in their case a 5 per cent. increase was all that was necessary to meet the circumstances.
We have had one or two critics of the leaflet. I do not want to spend much time on them, except to say that people who criticise us, on political or psychological grounds, for sending out this leaflet, are saying that it should be no concern of the country if children of families living in poverty are not receiving free meals. I can only hope that on reflection and in the light of the figures I have given they will take a rather more charitable view of the true purpose of such surveys as this.
I now turn to the other extremely important question to which my hon. Friend addressed himself, namely, why do a large number of children who are entitled to free school meals not take them up? First, we do not know the
614
answers to all these questions, but we have commissioned a piece of research in which the London School of Economics, under the leadership of Professor Titmuss—the eminent sociologist who was mentioned by my hon. Friend—is looking at great depth at a number of sample areas, to advise us why people do not take up their entitlement.
We shall pay particular attention to what the research shows, but we wanted to act before the results were known, since it will take a year or two. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science sent out a circular in November last year—No. 12/67—in which he asked all local authorities to review their arrangements for the collection of school meals money. This was to deal with the selectivity problem particularly, to which we pay attention—what my hon. Friend, in the graphic case he outlined, described as the humiliation of selectivity.
We asked authorities, first, to review their arrangements, and secondly, to let us know of any good schemes they have by which it is impossible for any child in a school to know which other children are getting school meals free. We have now, therefore, a large number of good schemes available for local authorities, if they want them, and which we know work. As a result of this exercise, I can quite categorically say that there is no excuse at all for any school or local education authority in this country to operate a school meals system in which it is possible to distinguish who are the children getting school meals free from those who pay for their meals. It is a prime aim of the Government's policy to eliminate this sort of distinction, and we shall certainly keep it under very close watch indeed.
I am happy to assure the House that the sending out of the leaflet in November has already proved to be extremely worth while. There is a good deal of evidence that local authorities have had another look at their systems. In most cases the way to do this, we find, is to take the collection of school meals money right out of the classroom and give to the clerical staff in the school the responsibility for this operation, but, as I say, it is only one of many methods by which the objective can be achieved.

615
We are extremely happy at the response we have had. It is right that I should pay tribute to the local authorities who have co-operated extremely well with us, and particularly to the teachers and the teachers' organisations I personally consulted at an early stage of this operation.
The Government are determined to attack family poverty. The largest area of poverty is in large families. One other thing I ought to tell the House. From April of this year we are making available free school meals for the fourth and every subsequent child in every large
616
family without any means test whatever, since we are clear that this is the largest area of poverty still remaining in this country.
I hope the House will be satisfied that these measures, taken together, are a very vigorous and energetic campaign indeed, and are beginning to pay off in achieving the objectives which are not only those of this House but which are desirable and also necessary in any civilised community.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned acordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock

TRANSPORT
  Road Accident Deaths
  Road Accident Deaths
  Departmental Circulars
  Departmental Circulars
  Freight Costs (Northern Ireland)
  Freight Costs (Northern Ireland)
  Windscreen Washers
  Windscreen Washers
  Quantity Licensing
  Quantity Licensing
  Vehicle Noise
  Vehicle Noise
  Exhaust Fumes
  Exhaust Fumes
  National Freight Corporation (Headquarters)
  National Freight Corporation (Headquarters)
  Disc Parking
  Disc Parking
  Vehicle Testing Scheme
  Vehicle Testing Scheme
  Motor Horn (Investigation)
  Motor Horn (Investigation)
  Heavy Goods (Vehicle-testing)
  Heavy Goods (Vehicle-testing)
  Municipal Bus Drivers (Working Hours)
  Municipal Bus Drivers (Working Hours)
  Lighterage Companies (Grants)
  Lighterage Companies (Grants)
  R.A.F. Establishment, Farnborough (Non-Classified Research)
  R.A.F. Establishment, Farnborough (Non-Classified Research)
  Public Service Drivers (Medical Checks)
  Public Service Drivers (Medical Checks)
  Schools (Parking)
  Schools (Parking)
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  London Transport (Country Service)
  London Transport (Country Service)
  Transport Costs
  Transport Costs
  Stranraer-Larne Ferry
  Stranraer-Larne Ferry
RAILWAYS
  Deficit
  Deficit
  Catering and Hotels (Capital Return)
  Catering and Hotels (Capital Return)
  Track Maintenance
  Track Maintenance
  Alton-Winchester Line (Closure)
  Alton-Winchester Line (Closure)
  Derailments
  Derailments
  Southern Region (Accidents)
  Southern Region (Accidents)
  Fleet Line
  Fleet Line
  Crossing Accident (Hixon)
  Crossing Accident (Hixon)
  Freight Containers
  Freight Containers
  Closure Proposals (Policy)
  Closure Proposals (Policy)
  Abnormal Loads Levy
  Abnormal Loads Levy
  Nottingham-Rugby Line
  Nottingham-Rugby Line
  Operational Safety
  Operational Safety
ROADS
  Motorways (Construction)
  Motorways (Construction)
  Road Programme (Expenditure)
  Road Programme (Expenditure)
  Motorways (Safety Fences)
  Motorways (Safety Fences)
  Zebra Crossings
  Zebra Crossings
  Motorways (Mileage)
  Motorways (Mileage)
  M4 (Slough By-Pass)
  M4 (Slough By-Pass)
  Trans-Pennine Routes
  Trans-Pennine Routes
  Pedestrian Crossings (X-Ways)
  Pedestrian Crossings (X-Ways)
  M4 (Berkshire)
  M4 (Berkshire)
  Morecambe Road, Lancaster
  Morecambe Road, Lancaster
  A4 (Hogarth Roundabout)
  A4 (Hogarth Roundabout)
  M4 (Winnersh-Holyport)
  M4 (Winnersh-Holyport)
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish Marketing
  Fish Marketing
  Fish Imports (Devaluation)
  Fish Imports (Devaluation)
  Bulls (Single Suckler Herds)
  Bulls (Single Suckler Herds)
  Fishing Trawler "Kirk Ella"
  Fishing Trawler "Kirk Ella"
  Food Prices (Relative Levels)
  Food Prices (Relative Levels)
  Feedingstuffs (Additives)
  Feedingstuffs (Additives)
  Livestock Exports
  Livestock Exports
SCOTLAND
  Private Builders' Land
  Private Builders' Land
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Breathalyser Tests
  Breathalyser Tests
  Moray House Demonstration School
  Moray House Demonstration School
  Farm Equipment (Capital Investment)
  Farm Equipment (Capital Investment)
  Toll Bridge (Ballachulish)
  Toll Bridge (Ballachulish)
  Civil Defence Corps and Auxiliary Fire Service
  Civil Defence Corps and Auxiliary Fire Service
  Shops and Small Businesses
  Shops and Small Businesses
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Educational Building
  Educational Building
  Security of Tenure (Capital Investment)
  Security of Tenure (Capital Investment)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Turnhouse Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
  Canned Meat (Imports)
  Canned Meat (Imports)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Devaluation (Exports and Imports)
  Devaluation (Exports and Imports)
  Toothbrushes (Resale Prices)
  Toothbrushes (Resale Prices)
  Industrial Development Certificates (North Warwickshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (North Warwickshire)
  Car Component Industry (Rationalisation)
  Car Component Industry (Rationalisation)
  Machine Tool Industry (Grants)
  Machine Tool Industry (Grants)
  Vidor-Burndept Factory, South Shields
  Vidor-Burndept Factory, South Shields
  Banks and Discount Houses (Accounting Exemptions)
  Banks and Discount Houses (Accounting Exemptions)
  Tear Gas and Gas Masks (South Africa)
  Tear Gas and Gas Masks (South Africa)
  Clearing Banks (Mergers)
  Clearing Banks (Mergers)
  Nylon Filament (Prices)
  Nylon Filament (Prices)
  Scottish Development Area
  Scottish Development Area
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Low-flying Aircraft ntral London)
  Low-flying Aircraft ntral London)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Polaris Missile (Test)
  Polaris Missile (Test)
  Ocean Science
  Ocean Science
  Research Establishments (Post-Graduate Studies)
  Research Establishments (Post-Graduate Studies)
  Underwater Research Establishment (La Spezia)
  Underwater Research Establishment (La Spezia)
  Admiralty Research Laboratories
  Admiralty Research Laboratories
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  Service Pensions (Commutation)
  Service Pensions (Commutation)
  Naval Contracts (Northern Ireland)
  Naval Contracts (Northern Ireland)
  H.M.S. "Ark Royal"
  H.M.S. "Ark Royal"
  N.A.T.O. Officers (Queen's Regulations)
  N.A.T.O. Officers (Queen's Regulations)
  Non-Craft Chargemen
  Non-Craft Chargemen
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Asthma (Drug Risks)
  Asthma (Drug Risks)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
  Nurses' Training (European Convention)
  Nurses' Training (European Convention)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Manpower Research Unit
  Manpower Research Unit
  Unemployment (Percentage Figures)
  Unemployment (Percentage Figures)
  Vacancies (Greater London and Woolwich)
  Vacancies (Greater London and Woolwich)
  Unemployed and Vacancies (Gateshead)
  Unemployed and Vacancies (Gateshead)
  Employment (Local Authorities)
  Employment (Local Authorities)
  Unemployment (Fife)
  Unemployment (Fife)
  Car Body Factory, Oxford (Wages)
  Car Body Factory, Oxford (Wages)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Desmond Francis (Arrest)
  Mr. Desmond Francis (Arrest)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Stayers (Northamptonshire)
  School Stayers (Northamptonshire)
  Educational Building
  Educational Building
  Dental Students (Scottish Universities)
  Dental Students (Scottish Universities)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Departmental Journals
  Departmental Journals
  Road Fund Licences (Evasion)
  Road Fund Licences (Evasion)
  Parliamentary Delegations (Subsistence Allowances)
  Parliamentary Delegations (Subsistence Allowances)
  Wages (Cardiganshire)
  Wages (Cardiganshire)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Government Contracts (Cancellation Charges)
  Government Contracts (Cancellation Charges)
  MR. ANTHONY GREY
  MR. ANTHONY GREY
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (OFFSET AGREEMENT)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (OFFSET AGREEMENT)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Maud Report (Implementation)
  Maud Report (Implementation)
  Land Commission (Report)
  Land Commission (Report)
  Radioactive Effluent
  Radioactive Effluent
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Didcot Power Station
  Didcot Power Station
  Littlebrook D Power Station (Deferred Project)
  Littlebrook D Power Station (Deferred Project)
  Nuclear Power Stations, (Breakdowns)
  Nuclear Power Stations, (Breakdowns)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Pension Books
  Pension Books
TECHNOLOGY
  Classified Defence Contracts
  Classified Defence Contracts
  Machine Tool Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Machine Tool Industry (Financial Assistance)
  Davy-Ashmore and Loewy Robertson Merger
  Davy-Ashmore and Loewy Robertson Merger

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

LORD HARTWELL
William Michael Berry, Esquire, M.B.E., commonly called the Honourable William Michael Berry, having been created Baron Hartwell, of Peterborough Court in the City of London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Drogheda and the Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
LORD TREVELYAN
Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, G.C.M.G., C.I.E., O.B.E, having been created Baron Trevelyan, of Saint Veep in the County of Cornwall, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Sherfield and the Lord Caccia.

HOVERCRAFT: DISMISSAL OF DESIGN WORKERS
2.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 consider the decision by the British Hovercraft Corporation to dismiss part of their design team on Hovercraft development is really in the national interest; and whether they were consulted beforehand.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the British Hovercraft Corporation's decision to dismiss a number of men arises from their need to make some economies following the cuts in defence programmes. The Corporation plans to concentrate its design facilities at Cowes and to close
386
the design office at Itchen, which formally belonged to Vickers, now a partner in the Corporation. The Minister of Technology was not consulted beforehand. He hopes that arrangements can be made to employ some of the dismissed staff in the new younger firms entering the hovercraft industry.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that in an age when the Government are exhorting us to sell British technology abroad it seems somewhat contrary to that idea when one of the highest projects of the British aircraft industry is curtailing its design team through lack of development contracts? Can the noble Lord advise us what market studies the Government have assisted in with regard to British hovercraft?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there are several firms in this industry, and the fact that one of them—the first and the biggest—reduces its design team does not necessarily mean that there is any loss in the total design potential of the industry. The studies which are going forward into various hovercraft projects are rather numerous, and if the noble Lord agrees I will let him know about that later.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the BH 7 project is in any way in danger of delay as a result of these dismissals?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, originally an order was placed for studies into two types of BH 7 hovercraft. One figured as a Naval patrol craft and the other as an Army craft. The Ministry of Defence have recently let it be known that there is no need for the Army version because of our early withdrawal from Asia, but the Naval version will go forward.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in view of the wide applications of air cushion vehicles, tracked and otherwise, and of the strong competition existing now in France, particularly from the Bertin organisation, would the noble Lord not agree that it is essential that our design and research teams should not be diminished in any way whatsoever; particularly, too, in the field of

387
hovertrain development and also in the field of industrial handling equipment—in other words, hover-pallets—on account of their very high export potential to this country?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is all a question of trading off possibilities against wise and desirable investment in development research. One of the wheeled cushioncraft projects which was originally conceived turned out to have such high development costs that the Ministry and the industry are looking at another way of going about it.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned "wheeled" hovercraft. It has no wheels. I am referring to the hovertrain development. The French have a lead, and it is important that we should catch up and pass them. As the noble Lord will be aware, when the French aerotrain, or hovertrain, was initially run at Gometz-le-Chatel, South of Paris, it attracted quite a number of interested parties from America and Japan.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he was referring to the wheeled vehicle which is under discussion. The hover-train is a separate question from the Question originally put, and I should be glad to have notice of the question.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks that this is really the right way to treat such a highly successful design team in the aircraft industry: either partly to disband it or hand it to the United States on a plate? And will he ask his right honourable friend the Minister of Technology to look into this again very carefully, and perhaps make representations to Westland Aircraft, who I think are the controlling company, to see whether the team can be kept together for future projects?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology has disbanded nothing. If one firm finds that it has to stand down a certain number of research and development people, that is the firm's decision. There is no question of handing anything to anybody on a plate, and there is no particular reason to suppose that any
388
of these men will be lost to the British hovercraft industry.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that in this development the manufacturing methods match up to the technological innovation?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that also is a rather different question and I should like notice of it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, sharing the concern expressed around the House, I would ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us, in advance of the imminent Defence White Paper, that the feasibility study for a large ocean-going hovercraft with a very important potential military application is going forward?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot anticipate the Defence White Paper, but the hovership study, if that is the one to which the noble Lord is referring, is not being pursued, mainly because of cuts in the defence expenditure. I should, of course, point out to the House that there are various kinds of hoverships, and the fact that one concept is not to be pursued does not mean that others are not to be.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we shall of course await what is said in the Defence White Paper, but I hope the noble Lord will recognise that what he has just said is a matter of very deep concern to those of us interested in our maritime defence capabilities.

GALLANTRY AWARDS AND ANNUITIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recipients of the Victoria Cross, the Albert Medal and the George Medal receive tax-free annuities, and, if so, of what amounts.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, recipients of the Victoria Cross receive a tax-free annuity of £100. Holders of the Albert Medal and the George Medal do not receive annuities.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend for an explanation why there is this discrimination against the holders of the George Medal and Albert Medal, having regard to the fact that they are cases where gallantry has been recognised? Why not fully recognise it in the same way as the Victoria Cross recipients?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, it has been a very long established principle that monetary payments should not be made in respect of civilian awards for gallantry. The exception for the George Cross was strictly on the understanding that the George Cross is the civilian counterpart of the Victoria Cross and equal to it in every way. Though the Albert Medal and the George Medal are both awards indicating a quite exceptional degree of gallantry, it would be wrong to bracket either of them, as the George Cross is properly bracketed, with the Victoria Cross.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, may I ask this further question? In view of the fact that the Albert Medal is held by those who have been responsible for exceptional gallantry, why not give them the same treatment as the holders of the Victoria Cross?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this seems to be exactly the same question that my noble friend asked before. The only exception so far as civilian gallantry is concerned is the annuity paid to George Cross holders, and this was made quite clear at the time it was inaugurated.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say how many living recipients there are of the Victoria Cross annuity?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I cannot say that without notice, but I could give figures for the other medal holders.

AIRWAYS RADIO BEACONS
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 have any plans to replace the obsolete Non Directional Beacons in the British airways system with the more modern VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) type of beacon, bearing in mind particularly those beacons at Epsom and Mayfield.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range Beacons are replacing Non-Directional Beacons as the main navigational aid in the United Kingdom airways system. A programme for 32 such installations is well advanced, with 24 already in operation. Four more will begin operation in 1968 and the remaining four in 1969. Certain NDB's in the airways will be retained to mark points of change of flight procedure. It is intended to replace the Epsom NDB as soon as a site for a VOR can be obtained; the present NDB site is not technically suitable. The need to replace the Mayfield NDB depends upon the likely development of traffic patterns and flying procedures in that area, aid this is still being studied.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I wonder whether he realises that in the case of the Mayfield Beacon, which is the one of particular concern because of its limited range, aircraft carrying out holding pattern, waiting to use instrument landing procedure at Gatwick, frequently find themselves on the outbound leg of the pattern quite out of range of the beacon, and this is particularly so in the winter months when interference from Continental stations and, on occasions, icing on the transmitting aerials of the beacon reduce the range of the beacon below the promulgated figure at present in use.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know there are difficulties with the Mayfield beacon, but, as I said, there are other more basic considerations now being studied, and it would be unwise to make any change there until the other problem is settled.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while accepting that point, may I ask whether it would not be possible, while this investigation is going on, to increase the power of the Mayfield beacon so that this problem, which is particularly acute with modern high-speed aircraft and will become perhaps even dangerous with supersonic aircraft, will not arise?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will certainly see if that is technically feasible.

AIRPORT LANDING FEES
2.38 p.m.
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 they will refer the increase in landing fees to take effect at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports on April 1 next to the Prices and Incomes Board.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, landing fees at Gatwick airport are not being increased and it is not proposed to refer the increased charges on international flights landing at Heathrow to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply also. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that landing fees in the United Kingdom, which broadly follow the same pattern whether they are at Airports Authority or other airfields, are without exception the highest in the world, except I believe for Greenland, and whether therefore increases at this time are not altogether inappropriate? And is it true that the Airports Authority are proposing to reduce landing fees for cargo aircraft quite substantially?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as far as the first point is concerned, I am not aware of the allegation made by the noble Lord. I am aware that there is a good deal of unfounded criticism of the charges levied. The fact of the matter is that the charges of the British airports, those under the British Airports Authority and the Board of Trade airport, are total charges covering all services, whereas at most other airfields overseas there is a
392
separate charge for each service provided and the total is in most cases higher than the airport charges in this country. So far as the latter part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, if there is a proposed decrease in the case of the cargo aircraft I am sure both he and I will be pleased.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the suggestion that the total landing charge at overseas airports equals that at British airports by virtue of the extras that perhaps are charged is a common misconception? If he lands at foreign airports he will find he pays far less than at British airports.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if, for example, I tried to land a Comet at Heathrow I should find that the total cost, including navigational costs, passage service and the increase to which the noble Lord has referred, would come to £143 2s. 6d. If I tried to land the same aircraft at Paris the landing fee would be only £48 18s.; but the other charges, including passenger service charge and the lighting charge, would bring the total up to £167 18s. This, I should have thought, was not a misconception.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is no doubt true. But the ancillary charges that he suggests, so far as I am aware—and it may be his experience also—are purely optional extras. For instance, the lighting charge—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? If he wishes to ask a Question, he can, but he ought not to debate the reply of my noble friend.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I stand corrected.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in view of the length of the list of speakers—I believe there are 33 noble Lords who propose to speak to the Motion on the Order Paper to-day—there are some problems created for those who serve us. It is proposed, therefore, to adjourn the House for half an hour at a convenient moment at about 8 o'clock. Dinner will be served between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
SAINT JAMES, SAINT MARGARET AND SAINT PAUL, PLUMSTEAD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT MARY, SUMMERSTOWN BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a and referred to the Examiners.

YOUTH AND THE NATION
2.42 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE rose to call attention to the need for a more comprehensive policy towards the youth of the nation, and to the desirability of creating further opportunities for young people to play a full part in every aspect of our national life; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this particular question three years ago. We discussed it in terms of a Motion put forward by myself, and I am bound to say that the terms of that Motion were quite similar to the one which is before your Lordships to-day. Why is this? I can give only this reason: that for me this is an immensely important question. I feel that the future of our country depends more than anything else upon the future of our youth, and it seemed to me that it was time your Lordships should look at this matter again, and, incidentally, have a look to see what the Government have been doing about it in the meantime.
I should like to make two short preliminary remarks. The first is that I have prepared my Motion in consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is according to the tradition of this House that a Motion should appear over the name of one Peer only; but I think that your Lordship should know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is indeed my partner. One effect of that will be that if either of us has to go out for a short time, the other will still be here to take a note. The other thing I would say is that it is most flattering to me that so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak on a subject in which they are evidently as interested as I am. It presents a slight problem. Let me put it in this way: that I shall do my best to be brief.
My Lords, a fortnight ago we had a debate on sport. I think it a good thing that these two debates come close together, because they are allied subjects. During the debate on sport the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that some of the remarks made by Lord Willis were not directed to the Government but were directed to the community at large, and that it is one of the roles that our debates fulfil. I propose to direct my remarks to-day to the Government, and I am going to ask one or two questions, some of which may appear to be a little "loaded". But I hope that those who speak for the Government will know that I put my questions objectively, and that if my criticism is wrong I stand to be corrected.
I do not address my remarks to the community at large. A chief reason for that is that I have no homily to preach to the young people of our time. It is true that some of them sometimes behave quite tiresomely. But they are not alone in that among the young people of the world. During the debate a fortnight ago one noble Lord said, speaking of a certain form of hooliganism, that the police and magistrates should take a tougher line and that stiffer punishments should be imposed. I should think that is right; indeed, when I talk to young people I get the same opinion from them. But my own experience, which is not limited to young people of any particular class, is that when I talk to them and our conversation comes to an end I find myself, as I say "goodbye", most grateful to them for taking so much trouble and for being, apparently at all events, so interested in the few opinions that I have offered them. Moreover, I have found their own contributions most intelligent. So perhaps it is the fact that the young people of today will answer to the right approach.
I would ask your Lordships, in this connection, to bear in mind the picture of the answer they gave, of their reaction to Sir Malcolm Sargent's baton. That is a picture that sticks in my mind, and will always do so. I have nothing to say in the way of a homily to youth, and I have nothing in the way of a homily to say to old people, people of my generation and of the fairly many generations in between. In the Reith Lectures, the Provost of King's College, Cambridge, has given

395
us his views on family life, on the attitude of the older generations and various other aspects of the matter. If any of your Lordships are burning to know my views on these subjects, you can take it that they are the direct opposite of those of the learned don—not that that will worry him much.
When we discussed this question three years ago we were somewhat inhibited by the fact that we knew that a Review Committee, under Lady Albemarle, was about to report on the first five years' working of the Albemarle Plan. We have never heard anything more of that Report. I am bound to say that we were not promised that it would be published; but it is clearly a most important matter, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to give us a little information about it this afternoon. I think that Parliament is entitled to hear the Committee's main findings. In parenthesis, may I say that I am very pleased that the noble and learned Lord is to reply to my Motion, because he is one who in the past has taken so much interest in this matter of youth, and, as we all know, he is also a most wise man.
The impression has gained ground (that is a journalist's way of saying "I think) that the original flurry engendered by the Albemarle Report has waned considerably. One thing which is certain is that the Government's contributions to the Youth Service's building projects have certainly waned. In the programme for 1962–63 £3 million was allotted. After that the figure went up a little. It never came within miles of what was asked for and needed, but that was not to be expected. However, it did mount a little. Then, in 1965, the Government deferred the start of all approved Youth Service projects. Without my going into too many details, it meant that the allocations for 1965–66 and 1966–67 were cut in half. The Minister has told us recently in another place that the allocation for 1968–69 is to be £3·8 million, instead of £4·8 million. In other words, it has been found to be a sitting target for the present economies. During the years about which I have been talking building costs have gone up.
Another event that has happened is that the Government have said that
396
sports projects should be counted in with the Youth Service projects. So, one way or another, it is fair to say that we are back where we were, and indeed are worse off than before Albemarle reported. To be frank, as I read through the Hansard report of the debate a fortnight ago I felt a little jealous of the generosity of the Government and of the Minister towards sport in comparison with their niggardly attitude towards the Youth Service. It is not only I who think this. May I repeat to your Lordships what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said a fortnight ago in this House. I do not think he is here to-day, but I am sure he will not mind my quoting him. He said:
…the Youth Service is still the Cinderella of the services, and its resources and staffing are hopelessly and totally inadequate.…I am beginning to wonder whether there is anything that can be said in this House or anywhere else that will stir the conscience of our legislators."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/2/68; col. 1145.]
My Lords, I could not have said it better myself. The noble Lord at that time was talking particularly of young people of school-leaving age. Certainly they need special consideration at this time when the raising of the school-leaving age has unfortunately been deferred. In that connection I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is speaking in this debate, and I shall be interested to hear him—I am sorry, I gather that he is not in fact speaking in the debate, but he is present.
My next point concerns the provision of youth leaders. This is a matter upon which great stress was laid in the Albemarle Report, and it is an extremely important facet of the problem. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us a little information on what success has been achieved in the recruitment of youth leaders. I am particularly interested in a suggestion which was made in the Albemarle Report that there should be periods of youth leadership in the courses which are held for social workers. I feel that this is very important, since it is from such a source that one hopes to get people to do the important research work which is so badly needed in the field of youth.
Then the Albemarle Report recommended one-year or two-year courses for mature students. The Minister was asked in the Albemarle Report to make

397
grants for this purpose. The only information I have on this matter is that there are courses in youth leadership at three of our universities. There is the National College at Leicester, and there are two colleges set up by voluntary organisations, one by the Y.M.C.A. and the other by the National Association of Boys' Clubs. This may sound quite a long list, but in fact the supply is very inadequate. That is certainly true of women, a number of whom are required in the Youth Service. As for grants, the Minister finances the College at Leicester, but the voluntary organisations have been told to apply to the local authorities for their grants. Frankly, they have had very indifferent luck with their applications.
I come now to deal with the matter which we discussed three years ago and which features as the most prominent point in my Motion to-day; I consider that it is a matter of paramount importance. It is the question of the promotion of opportunity for youth to give service to the community. When young people are given a responsible, constructive job to do, a job which they can see has some point and some challenge in it and a job which they feel is worth while, then invariably their response is immense. Incidentally, they then show less disposition to rebel against an adult society which seems to them to have no interest in them and to hold no interest for them. To be fair, since our last debate a good deal has been done. Due to the energies of local authorities and voluntary organisations quite a lot has been achieved. Voluntary Service Overseas was, of course, in existence before our last debate, and that, naturally, has had a special appeal for young people, but that is only one example. After our last debate the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, gave inspiration to a very practical scheme in this country, and I hope that later in the debate she will be telling the House about her experiences in that scheme.
On November 14 last in another place the Minister made a very important statement—which I regret was not repeated in this House—setting out his own scheme, a scheme which, he said, would be backed by an opening subsidy of £100,000. To run the scheme, he
398
appointed a charitable trust with Mr. Douglas Houghton as chairman and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Grimond as vice-chairmen; and a number of other names which inspire confidence were included as members of the trust. I hope that I may be forgiven for making a somewhat frivolous remark at this point. I find it a little strange, even perhaps a little inappropriate, that three political luminaries should have been thought right to head a charitable trust of this sort. I should have thought that perhaps three generals would have been preferable; or, if one wants to spread it out more evenly, an admiral, a field-marshal and an air-marshal. But it is only a small point.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he did not say a moment ago that the Provost of King's College, Cambridge, said that you are finished when you are 55? 1t is 25 years since I was 55, and the noble Lord will remember, I hope, that when we fought together at Alamein I was then 55. I thought we did not do so badly at 55.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I can only reply to the, noble and gallant Field Marshal that I expressed my disagreement with what was said by the Provost of King's College. No doubt he would like to administer a large dose of weed-killer.
To get back to the Minister's scheme, and to speak a little more seriously about it, it got off to a bad start. I do not think that is too much to say. The Times had a leading article on the scheme headed, "Flying Squads of Youth", which was extremely critical, and I myself have heard a lot of criticism of it from members of voluntary organisations. Certainly something seems to have gone wrong, because only 12 days ago it was found necessary to summon a Press conference at which the director of the scheme endeavoured to smooth away the criticisms—indeed, the frank hostility—which had been expressed. It is such a pity, because something needed to be done.
Incidentally, what needed to be done was not the organisation of youth to serve. That is the easiest part of the business.

399
That can really be left, for the most part, to the schools and the voluntary organisations. What needed to be done was the organisation of the opportunities and the gaining of the acceptance of the relevant authorities, so that those services would be freely and gratefully welcomed. Yes, something needed to be done. But did the Minister consult the voluntary organisations? I believe he did. Did he take much notice of what they said? The answer to that is that I really do not know. I just put the position as I see it, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us something about it. I hope he will sweep away the criticisms that have been levelled at this scheme, and will make it abundantly clear that the Government regard the voluntary organisations as an absolutely essential and necessary part of this business.
There is much more that I should like to say, but I promised to be brief. It is easy to make such a promise but not so easy to fulfil it. I should like to know when we are to hear the decision of the Speaker's Conference on the voting age. Your Lordships know my view on that point. Many of you disagree with me, but at least it will be interesting to know what decision has been reached. I should like to hear something of the Government's intentions regarding the cadet units and the young soldier units. Are they also to be victims of the present cuts? I should like to hear anything the Government can tell us about their thoughts on the drug problem, on juvenile delinquency and on many more things. But if I ask too many questions I shall invoke upon myself the rebuke that was tendered to a far younger man than I am by the venerable Father William.
There is one further point that I must make before I sit down. The very variety of the questions that I have mentioned illustrates something which is important. It shows that this question of youth is one that affects many Government Departments, and it is essential that our policy towards youth should be a co-ordinated one. I do not think we shall ever get anywhere until it is co-ordinated. I am not asking for a Minister for Youth. There is one thing about young people which older people often overlook, and which younger people themselves do not
400
believe, but it is true; that is, that younger people very soon become not so young people—and rather quickly. That being so, it is not wise to treat them as if they are a class apart; but when they are young they need special help and they are entitled to it. They are entitled to guidance, they are entitled to example. But we shall never give them what we ought to give them so long as our arrangements are what they are, so long as responsibility for policy is scattered over a dozen or more Government Departments, the chief share of which is in a sub-department buried away in the vast obscurity of the Ministry of Education and Science. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.5 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I know that all of your Lordships are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for giving us another opportunity, three years after the last one, to discuss this subject. We had a most interesting debate on the last occasion, and if he needs any justification for more or less repeating his Motion now it surely lies in the list of speakers who show such an interest in the subject.
In preparing myself for this debate I wondered, first of all, what it was that worried us and what we were trying to do. I start from my own conviction that the younger members of our society are no different from what they have always been. I recall very vividly the brilliant speech of my noble friend Lord Amory in our last debate, in which he quoted a passage from Peter the Monk in 1274, which showed that even in 1274 the older members of the population were saying the same sort of things about the younger members as are still said to-day. I believe that times and social habits change, but that the attitudes of young people and the attitudes of old people within any one society remain much the same. I am sure I need not remind your Lordships that at the time of the world when there were only two young people, Cain and Abel, one of them was a delinquent.
I asked myself at the time of our last debate what it was that distinguished youth, and what particular characteristics we were trying to meet to form a contented society. I found three characteristics which youth by its very nature has. They are, first, that it is active; secondly,

401
that it is impatient; and, thirdly, that it is idealistic. I am not suggesting that most of us in this House are either inactive, patient or pragmatic, but purely that as a matter of degree these are characteristics of young people. What are we doing to meet them? The first characteristic, activity, can be met by opportunities for physical recreation in its widest sense. The second, impatience, demands opportunities for self-expression and the chance to be involved in decisions affecting themselves. The third, idealism, is frustrated unless there are opportunities for young people to give practical expression to their ideals.
The field of activity was the subject of our debate two weeks ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, reminded us. There is no need for me to go into the subject again today, except to stress one point, which is the importance of joint use and joint provision of recreational facilities by the school and the local community—I stressed this in the last debate—where facilities can be jointly provided by the local education authority and the local authority, and can be available for those at school in school hours and for the rest of the community after school hours. I stressed this a fortnight ago from the economic point of view, but I stress it again, equally, from the social point of view because of its benefit of knitting together the younger and older members of one community and for going, I think, a long way to help solve the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, drew our attention—what he called the yawning gulf between the recreational provision at school and after school.
I come to my second need, the need for providing opportunities for self-expression and of giving responsibility to young people to run their own affairs so far as possible. So often we have paid lip service to this ideal, but in practice it is often ignored. Certainly there are some schools where, following the ideas contained in the Newsom Report, work of this sort is going ahead, and schools are experimenting with ideas for giving young people the chance to work on projects chosen by themselves which often take them outside the confines of the school. Certainly there are many youth clubs which encourage their members to serve on committees and to plan
402
their own programmes—and, indeed, this was one of the recommendations of the Albemarle Report. But I believe there is still a great deal more that can be done in this direction. One example which comes to mind very readily is that of student representation. I am certainly not in favour of student representation in all cases on governing bodies—there are obviously grave difficulties, especially as the student population changes rapidly—but I am certainly in favour of proper consultative machinery where that is possible, so that young people may air their grievances and have collective access to authority.
That brings me to the third characteristic: the idealism of young people and the need to satisfy it in practical terms by enabling them to give service to others. This is the field where we have probably made least progress, yet it has always existed in the programmes of voluntary bodies. Your Lordships will all recall, for example, the Boy Scouts, where the practice of doing a good turn has always been part of the programme; although now, in these inflationary days, it has become "Bob-a-job", and when decimal coinage comes in it will probably be something different. Certainly in the organisation that I know best, the Y.M.C.A., there are many examples of community service up and down the country in different localities certainly, also, in the St. John Ambulance and Nursing Cadet movement. That is almost of itself a community service, and there are many instances within it where excellent work is being done.
Perhaps the most striking advance came with the foundation of Voluntary Service Overseas in 1953 by Mr. Alec Dickson. I expect a great many of your Lordships know of young men and young women who have been on schemes sponsored by Voluntary Service Overseas, where not only have they performed a useful service but also the performance of that service has done them a great deal of good. It was only natural that the success of Voluntary Service Overseas should lead to consideration of a similar form of community service at home. International Voluntary Service has been in existence since it was formed in 1923; and in 1962, Mr. Alec Dickson, having laid the foundations of Voluntary

403
Service Overseas, formed Community Service Volunteers—and he has had considerable success. When my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was at the Home Office, he was among the first to encourage Community Service Volunteers in the field of approved schools and borstals.
Those were early days, but nowadays it is not rare to find, for example, a girl volunteer working in a boys' approved school and making a very significant impact in an otherwise male situation. Police cadets, also, are working in approved schools with positive benefit, not only to those in the schools but also to themselves. On the reverse side of the coin, there are young people from approved schools—and in Scotland even from borstals—working as Community Service Volunteers; and I am sure your Lordships will readily appreciate what a tremendous effect it can have on a young person from an approved school to be brought into contact with people who need his or her help.
Then, to complete the picture, in 1964 Task Force was formed by Mr. Anthony Steen. Here there is a challenging field of endeavour with young people. The Youth Service Development Council recognised it, and set up a committee, chaired by Mr. Bessey, to consider the need for co-ordination of the community services. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was a member of that committee and, as one might have expected from a committee of which he was a member, it produced a first-class report. I cannot do justice to it in a few words, but it pointed to the paramount need for local coordination and local clearing houses with a national council to promote the development of social training through service to the community, though this national council was not to engage directly in the organisation of schemes of service. The Bessey Report pointed the way to develop and co-ordinate community service by building on existing organisations.
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said: that what happened next was an unhappy story. The Government announced their new Young Volunteer Force Foundation;
404
they announced the appointment of Mr. Anthony Steen, who was the Managing Director of Task Force, one of the interested organisations, as its Director; and they allocated £100,000 to it over three years. Now a Government initiative in the field of community service was in my opinion wholly good, and £100,000 was a generous gift; but unfortunately it made a lamentable start and antagonised all the other voluntary organisations working in this field with the exception of Task Force, whose leader was selected to head the new Young Volunteer Force. My Lords, I would stress that this is not a matter of personal jealousy. Nobody wishes to decry the work of Task Force, or the drive and energy of Mr. Steen, but there is a feeling of genuine grievance among the other voluntary societies at the lack of proper consultation. At no time were the interested bodies brought round a table. There was the utmost secrecy until the Government scheme was announced. No wonder there is resentment.
Yet there is an example of co-operation to be found in the overseas service field which could surely have been followed. The organisations working in Voluntary Service Overseas—they are the Catholic Institute for International Relations, International Voluntary Service, the National Union of Students, the United Nations Association and Voluntary Service Overseas—are all co-ordinated within what is called the British Volunteer Programme, which works very harmoniously with an independent chairman. Surely this excellent example could have been followed in the case of community service in this country. We all support the development of community service. It satisfies the idealism of the young in practical and often exciting ways; it performs useful social tasks; it knits together in one community those who give and those who receive service. What a tragedy that it has got off to so controversial a start!
Like the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, I hope that we can all use our best endeavours to prevent this controversy from going any further, and to make a sensible start on this new project. I have hope for two reasons. The first is that the trustees of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation are an eminent body of people who are, as I believe, anxious only to further the

405
cause of community service and in no way to encroach on the work already being done by other organisations. The second reason is that I hope that these trustees will appoint an advisory council fully representative of the other voluntary organisations which are working in the field, so that it is apparent as well as implicit that no action will be taken that might damage their interests. It is so essential to get rid of the controversy that has dogged this project up to now and to direct all our energies to building up an effective structure of community service.
I would make just one other point on this particular matter. It was announced at the time of the setting up of the Y.V.F.F. that a circular would be sent out to all local authorities commending the new foundation to their attention. That circular is, no doubt, being prepared and will go out as a Government circular—not coming from the trust but from the Government—with the full weight of the Government backed by six Ministries. I would ask only this. Is it right to commend one organisation in this way? Is it fair to the other voluntary organisations working in this field? Will it not influence the local authorities, and, indeed, national trusts, to channel their money into this new set-up at the expense of the present well-established and highly experienced voluntary societies? I must say that I am very alarmed and I know that many other voluntary bodies are alarmed. It surely is unprecedented for the Government to issue a circular to the local authorities commending one particular charitable trust. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or someone from the Government Benches can help us about this circular. I am anxious to be sure that it is absolutely fair to the other charitable organisations and does not too much commend just this new one.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, made a plea for brevity and I wish to be very brief. There are other things that I intended to say but I wish to say only one other thing. I know the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is interested in this field and he has been kind enough to let me know what he wishes to propose. I greatly respect his efforts in getting something moving, but I have doubts about the practicability of his particular scheme.
406
I know, as he does, that it is fraught with difficulties; but it seems to me to cut too sharply across established practice in industry, in social services and in trade unions. If he were to suggest some form of compulsory scheme of national social service, I should oppose it root and branch. I cannot believe that any compulsory scheme would satisfy the object of giving free rein to the idealism of the young. If it is a voluntary scheme, then I prefer the initiatives which are already being taken. I welcome Lord Robertson's Motion for a more comprehensive policy towards the youth of the nation. I do not, as I have said, believe in any form of compulsory national service, but I believe that what is required is greater co-ordination and co-operation between the voluntary societies themselves and between them and their partners in the Youth Service.
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for putting down this Motion to-day. It is in very wide terms. I am not complaining of that, but it would cover everybody from the cradle to the age of 21—at home, during the whole of education, in sport and so forth. My difficulty is to marry the width of the Motion with the other very proper injunction of the noble Lord that we should all be brief, particularly as I am one of the only two Government speakers out of 32. But I propose to confine myself in the main to those between school-leaving age and 21, with particular reference, of course, to the Youth Service. The more fortunate 5 per cent. who go to universities go to places where it is axiomatic that they provide not merely lessons and examinations, but also playing fields, coaches, places where the young people can meet, dance, have coffee, debate, and have every sort club or society. The intention originally of the Youth Service was that, so far as possible, it should provide for those who had left school at school-leaving age what the universities provide automatically for the luckier 5 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is right in saying that I have for some time been interested in the subject. In 1959, I found myself chairman of the Labour Party Youth Commission; and when we

407
looked at the Youth Service it seemed to be dying on its feet very largely because for some years it had been quite deliberately starved—and I mean starved financially. Not long before, a Select Committee of another place had looked at it, and the principal official of the Ministry of Education, giving evidence before them, said:
"It has been definite policy for some time now not to advance the Youth Service."
I rather like "not to advance". We thought, therefore, that, first of all, there should be a permanent advisory committee on youth; and secondly, that the Government ought to call on the local authorities to get out a five-year programme—for one of the extraordinary things we found was that nobody really knew what the local authorities were doing in this field, not even the Ministry of Education, because they had never asked them. Thirdly, we thought that when the new secondary schools were built there should be annexes for the Youth Service and that there was an immediate need for recruitment and training of whole-time leaders.
Naturally enough, one does not expect the Government to pay much attention to a report by a commission or committee of the Opposition. But then we had a stroke of luck, because only five months later the Albemarle Committee reported and attention had to be paid to that. The noble Lord seemed doubtful whether all interest has not waned since Albemarle. I think that is not so, either under this Government or, it is fair to say, their predecessors. Because what Albemarle said was very much the same as we had said. They said that, first, there should be a Youth Service Development Council. That was set up; and under successive Governments it has always had a Minister as chairman. Of the Youth Service as a whole, they had said that the county colleges looked as far off as ever. The Jackson Committee and the Fletcher Committee produced Reports on the training and conditions of service of professional youth leaders. Neither was put into effect. The flow of recruits shrank, the number of full-time leaders fell away and the university and other full-time courses closed down one by one until only three survive to-day.
With the Ministry unable to give the signal to advance, certain authorities
408
lost heart. Public interest flagged too. And, not surprisingly, voluntary bodies felt the same effect. In the eight years it has been formed as a result of Albemarle, the Youth Service Development Council has tendered valuable advice about the improvement of the Youth Service and published a number of reports to which I will refer. The second thing they recommended—and the noble Lord asked about this—was an emergency scheme for boosting the number of trained youth leaders from 700, the then figure, to 1,300 by the end of 1966. This was done by the setting up at Leicester of a national college to give a one-year course of intensive training of youth leaders. The result is that the target was reached before the new date and the total has now passed 1,500.
Then they recommended that machinery be set up for negotiating salaries and conditions. This was done; and we now have the Joint Negotiating Committee for Youth Leaders and Community Centre Wardens, representative of the employers and the staff. Fourthly, they recommended that the building programme for the Youth Service should be considerably stepped up. A programme of £3 million was announced for the period 1960 to 1962 and further programmes totalling about £25 million have been authorised in the subsequent six years to 1967–68. It is true that as a result of the recent economies there will be a slower increase this year. Since Albemarle, local authorities have increased their expenditure on the Youth Service about 300 per cent. and the Central Government about 500 per cent. Then they recommended that grants towards headquarters expenditure of national voluntary youth organisations should be stepped up. These were at £114,000. They went up to £214,000 in 1960–61, and in the current year total £316,000.
The noble Lord asked about the Review Committee. As I have said, the Youth Service Development Council was set up in consequence of the Albemarle Committee's Report, and since then has tendered valuable advice to Ministers and Secretaries of State of successive Governments. Some of their advice has been in published form. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has already referred to the Bessey Report, and I

409
should like to refer to the Report of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to consider the very important question of young immigrants and the way in which the Youth Service could help them to take their equal place in our society. Other work has been of a more internal nature, and this applies to the Review Committee. In fact, under arrangements for the reconstitution of the Youth Service Development Council, announced on December 8, 1966, the Review Committee, as such, ceased to exist, and the Council itself took over the Committee's function of reviewing the long-term aspects of the Youth Service; and the work, which I understand was considerable, already accomplished by the Review Committee entered into the body of knowledge and experience of the parent organisation.
My Lords, the Youth Service Development Council has itself been re-examining the role of the Youth Service afresh. If any noble Lords are disposed to criticise the Youth Service they will not be any more searching in their criticisms than those who are themselves closely concerned with that Service; and in the van of this healthy spirit of reassessment and self-examination is the Youth Service Development Council itself. Lady Albemarle, whose Committee's Report had such an effect on putting the Youth Service back on the map, herself played a large part in this continuing process as a member of the Council and as Chairman of its Review Committee, until she retired a few months ago under the Council's arrangements for rotation of membership.
As part of its process of re-examination, the Council has appointed two Committees to look at two specific aspects of the Youth Service, and I find that the terms of reference alone cast a revealing light on our present debate, as they suggest a polarisation of the Service rather than an attempt to lump all young people—in this case those of 14 to 20—together. One Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. A. N. Fairbairn, is considering the relationship of the Youth Service with the schools and further education. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, has been insistent on tying in the Youth Service with the schools, and that would be the specific task of that Com
410
mittee. The other Committee, under the Chairmanship of Dr. F. W. Milson, is considering its relationship with the, adult community. These Committees are expected to report to the Youth Service Development Council this summer. Their reports will be to the Council, but when the Council has received and considered them, it will be expected to tender a consolidated body of advice to the Secretary of State.
At this point, my Lords, I should perhaps make a further reservation about definitions. Reference to the Youth Service does not lead me, and should not lead anyone else, to equate it with the whole of the youth of this country. I am only too conscious that the Service touches only part. Guidance on this, and indeed on the whole concept of the Youth Service and the provision needed for young people, may be expected from the research project just announced by the Department of Education and Science. This is to be carried out at the University of Keele, and will consist of a study of Youth Service and youth work in England and Wales. It will examine the structure and function of formal and informal work with youth and will contrast the perceptions of attached and unattached young people, professional youth workers, teachers, administrators, parents and employers.
My Lords, I am afraid that this recital of all the rethinking that is going on centrally, healthy and stimulating as I hope that noble Lords will find it to be, may obscure one vital point. The Youth Service in this country, like so much of the Education Service of which it forms part, is essentially a local service, locally administered to fit local needs and circumstances.
It would be unfortunate if our deliberations to-day were to be concentrated (I am sure that they will not be) exclusively on what is being provided for young people, whether by central or local government or by voluntary agencies. We should be guided also by that part of the wording of the Motion which refers to the creation of opportunities—a theme which was given admirable expression in the speech of the noble Lord who introduces the debate and by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Most young people are not by nature passive, and it is not enough simply to provide facilities to fill their

411
leisure time. They possess a fund of energy and good will—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in thinking that they possess ideals, too—with which to respond to the challenge of rendering voluntary service to the community, if only the opportunities are presented to them.
My Lords, it was with this in mind that the Government announced last November their intention to set up an advisory unit to help in making these opportunities for voluntary service more widely available. I should like to emphasise the word "advisory". Some of the criticisms one has heard may be based on a failure to appreciate that we are not setting up a new voluntary youth organisation: to suppose that is a complete misapprenhension. Nor is it intended to supplant the work done by the many voluntary bodies already in the field. It is a small unit, staffed by young people, available to offer expert advice and help in the setting up of new local schemes or the strengthening of existing ones. They will never move into any area except on invitation, and it will be a cardinal principle that they will work with and through existing agencies, whether statutory or voluntary. I cannot help feeling, from a number of the comments I have read (whether the presentation might have been better or not, I cannot say) that on this aspect there has been a great deal of misunderstanding.
The other feature I would stress is the independence of this new unit. It is to be administered by a charitable trust, and, apart from the injection of Exchequer funds amounting to £100,000 for an initial period of three years, it will be entirely independent of the Government. I suspect that here, too, some of the criticism one has heard arises from this fact, because the Minister responsible for the Youth Service, Mr. Denis Howell, was at pains, in the course of the extensive consultations he had when the scheme was being prepared, to avoid setting down a blueprint to which the future body would be tied. His purpose was to provide a viable framework within which the independent body would have ample scope to make a distinctive and constructive contribution.
My Lords, I suppose it was inevitable that, as he went all round consulting
412
everybody, each of the existing voluntary bodies thought, "If you want any sort of national body, our body is the body which does this the right way, and therefore all you have to do is inject a lot of money into us and make us into a national body." What really counts is the way in which the new unit sets about its task, and the House will be glad to know that the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, as the governing body is known, have been very active, in the few months of their existence, in planning their future operations in the closest consultation with voluntary bodies, and they will be appointing an advisory body of practitioners on whose expert knowledge they will be able to draw.
Meanwhile, the Ministers and Departments concerned are planning to issue the joint circular to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred. I am sure that, before they do so, they will pay the closest attention to what the noble Lord has said, but I should hope that, in the light of the promising and business like start they have made, the message that might go out from this House to-day is one of encouragement. For by indicating confidence in the scheme your Lordships will be indicating your confidence also in the young people of this country who will be its mainstay and driving force.
My Lords, there are many examples of this. The new scheme I have just described owes its origin to a surge of interest by young people all over the country to do something constructive for their community and for those in it. The old, the sick and the underprivileged all want help. Noble Lords are as familiar as I am, if not more familiar, with the many organisations that exist already: Voluntary Service Overseas, the two organisations, Shelter (the National Campaign for the Homeless) and Task Force, which not only are run by young people but were founded by young men in their twenties. I ask myself whether there was anything on such a scale thirty or forty years ago.
I could multiply the examples. For instance, recent issues of Youth Service, a journal produced by the Department of Education and Science and the Central Office of Information, which now has an enviable circulation of 26,000, contained a description of a scheme at Southport to raise funds for a kidney machine;

413
and another about a scheme in the West Riding called TORCH (Teenage Organised Children's Holidays) for giving children holidays. In this month's issue there is an account of how members of a youth club for motor-cyclists, the Double Zero Club in Birmingham, perform a number of services for the sick and the aged, including the taping of their own regular musical programme for broadcast to hospitals and a despatch rider service to carry blood and drugs between hospitals. I wish that examples like these—and they could be multiplied a hundred times over—were as widely known as the antics of the wilder elements at the fringes of young society. Then perhaps we might get a more balanced view.
I see one or two noble Lords from Scotland in the House, so I shall get into trouble if I do not say something about the position in Scotland. Substantially the same developments have been taking place there, and time alone prevents me from going into them in detail. The Standing Consultative Council corresponds broadly to the Youth Service Development Council. Most of its work has been carried on through standing committees and ad hoc working parties. There is a Board for information and national tests in the youth and community services, and for the past two years a Scottish body, Enterprise Youth, has been co-ordinating the activities of the various organisations concerned with voluntary service by young people and has been promoting voluntary service generally. These include Community Service Volunteers, International Voluntary Service and Inter-Scot.
I do not think I can embark on the questions of drugs and juvenile delinquency. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, asked about the voting age. I understand that the Speaker's Conference have either reported or are about to report. It seems better, on the whole, to consider their Report with the Latey recommendations. I am not in a position to-day to announce the Government's recommendations on either of these, but I hope to be able to do so in the very near future.
Speaking of Latey brings me back to what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said: that this generation is no different from previous generations. I express
414
only a personal opinion. I do not think that that is so. I think, first, that the Latey Committee were right in saying that this generation is the best generation of young people we have ever had. It is extraordinary how unanimous the evidence given to the Latey Committee has been. Everybody who deals with young people, from the Justices Clerks' Society (who see some of the worst of our young people) and the clergy to such bodies as the British Medical Association and the Municipal Corporations' Council have said this. The teachers are emphatic that the boys and girls now leaving secondary schools are much the best lot that have ever left secondary schools. I am sure that it is true to say to-day that our present standard of education is far higher than it has ever been before. Business people and hire-purchase people say that the youth are much more reliable than their fathers. They do not enter into contracts without thinking first of how they can carry them out. This was the whole body of evidence given before that Committee.
The proportion of juvenile delinquents, though larger than we should like it to be, is relatively minute when we are talking about 5 million young people. I agree with the Latey Committee that our young people have been very much misrepresented by the Press. In saying that, I am not criticising the Press, because the plain fact is that if 4,900,000 and more are either working hard at their examinations and passing them or working on the land, in business or in the Services and doing well, that is not news; but if 40 or 50 "rockers" at Brighton fight one another, then that is news.
Secondly, there is this difference. This is something that has never happened before and I do not want to exaggerate it, because it relates to a fairly small group, but the modern influence of university students is something new. I doubt whether we should ever have got rid of Sukarno without the Indonesian students. When they lay down in thousands in Tokyo to try to stop the Prime Minister from going to Vietnam, there were photographs of the police with their batons drawn, and you see the same photographs taken on the campus at American universities or on the squares of Washington, showing the police with

415
their truncheons and tear gas when the students are demonstrating about Vietnam. Indeed, one has to look at the photographs carefully to see where it is happening. The last lot I saw turned out to be of Berlin. This happens, not only in regard to Vietnam, as those more directly in touch with young people than I am, like the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, know better than I do. With television, what is going on in the world cannot be concealed, and we have perhaps fewer violent students than most countries.
The point is not that Hanoi and the Americans are doing to other human beings the things which are being done in Vietnam; it is also the feeling that young people have to-day that they will not live to 50. That, I suggest, is not unreasonable at all, when you are 20 and think that the probability is that within the next 30 years there will be a major nuclear war. It affects some differently from others. The university students are, after all, the best educated youth in any country, and they know a good deal more about science than their fathers knew, though people do not have to be so very highly educated to know that if there is a major nuclear war, over a large part of the world at all events, it will be the end of civilisation as we know it.
We never answer that, do we? We say that Cuba showed that the mutual deterrent pays, because nothing happened. And Mr. Khrushchev, when asked afterwards who had won, said, "I say, mankind won." We also point to the Test Ban Treaty and what I hope will be a non-proliferation agreement. There have been 357 meetings of the Disarmament Conference. We all support disarmament conferences. I have never known one arrive at disarmament, but we must hope. There is a prospect of world government. Russia, we all know, is not the same country as when NATO started, when there was a real risk of a Russian nuclear attack on the West. Can we now fairly say that the prospect in the immediate future of a Russian nuclear attack on the West is about the same as the prospect of meeting the Loch Ness Monster coming down Bond Street? Of course, mistakes cannot be ruled out. We have had two or three already. There are always American and Russian planes
416
in the sky carrying nuclear bombs. The American planes could be alerted by Strategic Command to bomb Moscow. There was the unfortunate case of swans flying South from Canada who were mistaken for missiles, and the later occasion when the United States' own signals, reflecting from the moon, were mistaken.
There was the instance which Sir Bernard Lovell disclosed in the newspapers the day before yesterday, when debris from a Russian rocket was temporarily mistaken for missiles. But fortunately, again, the computers found the answer. It used to be said in past days, when it was a matter of human agency and human error, that we could have mistakes, but now it is done by computers, and computers cannot make mistakes! That is not a proposition that I should like to answer. But, as Sir Bernard Lovell said, the potentiality for mistaken identification is there. If the Viet Cong captured Saigon the temptation would be for the Americans to use, not fully developed nuclear weapons, but only tactical ones—tiny nuclear bombs which devastate a square mile at a time. If those were used successfully, the temptation to Moscow to supply Hanoi with rather larger nuclear bombs would be very great. Perhaps older people feel that they do not need to face this in their lifetime; that it will come after their time. But I see little signs of any rational assessment of what the prospects are.
Apart from demonstrators, there is another group, though a small group, in this country: the "hippies" and the "flower children" and those on "pot". They have withdrawn. They think it is hopeless. They say: "What do the university students do? What good is it getting your head cracked open by a police baton? It does not get you anywhere. All these demonstrations in the developed countries get nowhere. There is nothing we can do. It is no good spending time trying to make the world a better place to live in when we shall not be there." And they have withdrawn. But these two groups are, after all, a small minority. Most young people, with considerable courage and good sense have set about cultivating their gardens. They realise that with modern Governments you cannot do anything. And that is so. The people of America or Russia might. Hardly any other country

417
can in practice do anything. But life has to be lived, and they go on living it.
But this is a restraint, a strain which I think all young people are under, even if they never mention it and do nothing peculiar at all: they are living under a threat of world destruction which has never faced the world before. Therefore, when we are considering young people this is a factor which has to be borne in mind. Considering the difficulties of their position, and without saying anything about the young people of any other country, I think our young people are the best that we have ever had, and I am sure that we owe a lot to their optimism, which, as well as their idealism, has always been one of the good qualities of youth; and we should help them to help the community, as I know they are all anxious to do, and provide them with the facilities to do so. I hope that your Lordships would wish, to quote Sir John Wolfenden:
"To see them grow up in such a way that they go out into society fitted and inspired to change it for the better. The restlessness of the young is, in fact, the only hope for all of us: the only hope we can have that when we become too weary or discouraged or disillusioned they with their vigour and uninhibited optimism will change things for the better."
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is suggesting that the West German students are right in protesting against the American effort in Vietnam? Does he seriously think that the same students would be happy under a Communist régime?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think students are entitled to say exactly what they think. Whether they are right is a matter of opinion.
3.54 p.m.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I have no reason to differ from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his diagnosis of the younger generation as I see them, living among them, and therefore I should not like to add to anything that he has said in that direction. Nor should I like to give the impression that I want to generalise about the young, as nothing is more infuriating to them to do that—not that I believe a single one of them
418
will read a single word of what I say in your Lordships' House. I am not pessimistic about the younger generation; I am not optimistic. But I recently gave an interview to the Christian Science Monitor, which has cost me a lot of letters from America, in which I came to the general conclusion that there are fewer opportunities now for young people than there ought to be for direct service overseas, and less adventure, either at home or abroad, than our young people who have made up the greatness of our country have been used to in past generations. Therefore, if I intervene now in your Lordships' debate for a few moments, it will be to try to find important and more exciting avenues for occupying the interest and energies of the young.
While I am not pessimistic, there is certainly a small amount of cause for anxiety. This is a matter stretching far beyond our shores. At least fifteen months ago Mr. McNamara, the United States Defence Secretary, suggested that every young American should be asked to give two years in some form of voluntary work at home or abroad—and I shall have something more to say about the efforts of the United States. In Israel, the youth do a variety of services in a most striking manner, as was proved in the recent emergency when their troops were at the front and youth kept up many of the services at home. America has the Peace Corps and the Vista organisation. There are problems of youth to face in Australia, Germany, France, Amsterdam in particular, and in Czechoslovakia. In each case youth has its own particular name: Trogs, Surfies, Hippies, Blousons noirs. They all have their problems in these countries. In each country there is a problem of division between the older and younger generations. In Britain many of us have devoted our public life to trying to eliminate the class war. What I should like to see arising out of this debate is that we do not substitute the age war between the younger and older generations; and that may easily be done by sermonising from the old and misunderstanding front the young.
I said that there were certain causes for anxiety. There is, of course, the problem of drugs, which we meet where I live, although the problem is not very

419
great. There is a certain degree of juvenile crime—which I tried to deal with as Home Secretary—and juvenile delinquency. But what distresses me most among the young I meet—I think these other matters can be kept in hand—is the degree of disillusionment about public affairs and those who direct them. That is not healthy, and it may be the fault of the older generation. I should like to give your Lordships a small quotation from Lewis Mumford, a sociologist and expert in America, who wrote about his own young people before America came into the last war, in his book Faith for Living. He wrote thus:
"Meanwhile, our young people are starving for lack of real tasks and vital opportunities. Many of them live like sleepwalkers, apparently in contact with their environment, but actually dead to everything but the print of the newspapers, the blare of the radio, or the flickering shadows on the screen. Work alone is no answer to this frustration… Why should young people not have their first experience of public service on work that serves for local improvement? They should help clear the slums as well as study housing: they should help plant the forests as well as study conservation: it is our school children, it is our youngsters…who should be toughened off in lumber camps, on fishing boats, behind the hay-wagon and the threshing machine, on the road gang and in the quarry."
He concludes:
"It should not need another war to effect this purposeful mobilisation of our youth."
Your Lordships will notice, before I conclude, that I have no intention whatever of proposing a compulsory mobilisation of our youth, or any compulsory plan whatever. I do not believe that would work and I will come to that in a few minutes.
Before I do, however, I want to say just a word about the school-leaving age. This affects the younger generation very strongly. I did not take part in your Lordships' debate on the economic situation, and I can express what I feel in a few sentences. I think this is a great mistake of Government policy, and I propose to cite only two very great Englishmen, probably our greatest, in my support. One is Winston Churchill and the other is William Temple.
When I went to visit Winston Churchill in March, 1943, to help him prepare his broadcast on social reform in the midst
420
of the war, he absolutely insisted on putting into that broadcast, in 1943, that the school-leaving age should be raised to sixteen. I had the greatest difficulty in stopping him. We had not yet raised it to fifteen. It was done a little later, directly after I left the Ministry, by Ellen Wilkinson. We had not the teachers to raise it to sixteen immediately, before we had raised it to fifteen. But this illustrates the vision of a man who foresaw the importance of this move to the country. Secondly, I would quote what is said in Iremonger's William Temple, His Life and Letters:
"Our Lord would really prefer to see the raising of the school-leaving age to the introduction of the agreed syllabus of religious instruction."
That sounds a very downright statement, but it was what William Temple felt. I knew him intimately. He helped me to introduce the Education Act, and he always said that the raising of the school age was about the most important thing we could do for the younger generation. I will leave the testimony to these two great figures.
I believe that a reason why the young feel more cooped up in the immediate future arises from the Government decision to withdraw Britain even further from world affairs. Your Lordships will remember that Dean Acheson said that we had "lost an Empire but not found a role". Now we have added to this dismemberment of Empire the renunciation of overseas duties with our allies. This is not the place to discuss the merits or demerits of such a policy. I am thinking simply of the effect of this policy on youth. Our country has a long, an age-long, tradition of service overseas. We have only to live in a village, or in a small community in a town, to know that in the local public-house the people who make the talking are those who have served overseas, in India, Egypt, Africa, or other places, and to see how they influence the young idea. And up to recently the young idea has been going abroad itself. But overseas adventure will from a few years' hence be very much reduced, and I claim that hitherto the Government initiative to meet this situation has not been enough.
I was very glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about the Youth Service, and I was

421
interested in Lord Aberdare's criticisms of the Young Volunteers' Force Foundation. If, as the noble and learned Lord says, this is really an advisory body, and if this circular which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, fears is not going to do any harm, then it will be a small move in the right direction. But I must honestly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that it has not made a good start; and I do not believe that it has given sufficient impression, together with the comparatively small scope of the Youth Service, despite the Lord Chancellor's efforts to show it in the best light. I do not think this is enough. We need to go further, and we need to extend our voluntary service at home and abroad.
Let me take abroad first. I think the most excellent initiative abroad, as has been pointed out in the debate, took place in 1958 with the foundation of Voluntary Service Overseas. I understand that in a recent talk with the B.B.C., on "The World at One", I gave the impression that V.S.O. was founded after the Peace Corps. That is not so; V.S.O. was founded before the Peace Corps, and was a very fine initiative. The U.S. Peace Corps has itself now turned over more to graduates than young people. I personally think that the late President Kennedy, with whom I discussed it, was put off by remarks about draft shirkers, about kiddie-corps, and about under-developed boys going to under-developed countries; and the Peace Corps made a mistake in going over too much to graduates and not sticking with young people.
Similarly, I believe that V.S.O. could do more with young people than necessarily with graduates. I only wish that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, could take part in this debate, with his wide experience and his wisdom. If we cannot turn the clock back from graduates, I think that we ought to invent new methods of voluntary service overseas to meet changing circumstances. The main changed circumstance is that overseas countries want to encourage their own local youth to take part in social activities; and that is a big factor we have to take account of in the future of V.S.O.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, as a member of the Council of V.S.O.? V.S.O. was built entirely around non-graduates
422
and young people, and the graduate development in V.S.O. came later. I am surprised that the noble Lord is not aware of that.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear to noble Lords present that I was quite aware of that. In fact I said—I have my note here—that V.S.O., when it started, really enlisted young people. That is what I know and believe, because members of my own family have been abroad as young people under V.S.O., so I have not only official experience but personal experience of the excellence of V.S.O. What I am suggesting is that it should now extend under changing circumstances, and one of the changing circumstances, as I have said, is that in countries like Africa local youth themselves want to take part. It is so in Africa, in the East, and everywhere else. I think it may very well be necessary for V.S.O. volunteers to go in teams, because this may help some of these schoolboys or young people to develop in the company of others. A further idea for developing V.S.O. would be to make overseas service a reward for service given at home. That might make it more of a reward and more of an opportunity. What I am keen to make plain is that there could not be a more excellent initiative than Voluntary Service Overseas, but that I do not believe it now covers enough people; and I should like to see it enlarged, because I am quite certain that, with the restriction of overseas development recommended in recent policies, we must find adventure for our young people overseas.
I now come to the home service. The Community Service Volunteers have been referred to, and Mr. Alec Dixon, who founded V.S.O., is now the excellent secretary of this organisation. They have given an example of what can be done at home, in hospitals, in backward schools, in the slums, in the Highlands and Islands, and anywhere where there are openings for young people. But this may need a great deal of working out if we are to pursue it further. It may need, for example, some considerable reconstruction of the social services—I mean in our hospital life and in our school life. It will mean considerable anxiety about how these young people are to fit

423
into either a statutory body or another formal body. It will mean problems over pay; it will mean contact with the unions to get their co-operation.
When I am asked whether this organisation should be compulsory or voluntary, I say without hesitation that it should be voluntary. I read an interesting speech of Mr. Davies, the Chairman of the Association of Child Care Officers, in which he sets out, perhaps more persuasively than I have read it elsewhere, the whole problem of youth. But he comes down in favour of a compulsory scheme. I do not think that as yet the opportunities for a compulsory scheme have been fully worked out. I think they ought to be worked out by the Government and local authorities.
But there is, I am sure, a great vocation there for young people, and I would ask the Government whether they will consider a further inquiry, either under their own auspices or by a general inquiry, through a Commission or any other way, to help work out broader opportunities for social service at home. I am convinced that, either in that way or through the Government's own initiative, an effort should be made to collate the experiences of such schemes as the Outward Bound Schools, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, the Ocean Youth Club, the Winston Churchill Foundation, the N.U.S. Overseas Volunteers and the Community Service Volunteers, not to speak of the Boy Scouts, the Y.M.C.A. and other bodies working in this sphere. I also believe that such an inquiry should range over what the Peace Corps is now doing and the vista of America.
I am convinced that there is much hard work to do, and after listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I feel certain that we in this country have not yet gone far enough to find the adventure and interest necessary for our young people. Youth is our one asset. It was called by Newsom our "future half", and really it is our future whole. We are an island, as Nye Bevan used to remind us, without raw materials, and he used to say, in his dramatic way, with only the fish swimming round our shores and a little coal in the middle. Our main credit and our main riches are our young people and our skill. If we are to preserve the greatness of Britain
424
I feel sure that we should all work harder to find these opportunities for adventure and experience for our young people.
4.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am greatly heartened, as I am sure all of us have been, by the stimulating words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he said that we have the finest generation in our midst at this moment. As one who has been Bishop to the Forces for eight years and has had a great deal to do with young people in the Midlands since then, I believe with all my heart that he was right. I think we hear far too much these days, said mainly by older people, about the problems of youth. I do not believe they are any greater or any less than they have been in the past.
Furthermore, I think we often tend to look at these problems through rather jaundiced eyes. It is worth noting that if, for instance, there is a certain amount of expression of youthful energies in universities or in public schools, such things are talked about as "rags", but if the same thing happens at a football match it is reported as "hooliganism". The problems of young people are no more and no less than they have been in the past. Some of them are due to contemporary features: on the one hand (and we must face it) as a result of the inadequate housing in which they are brought up, and on the other hand their affluence and the kind of way in which mass media and advertisements play on the extra money that, thank God! some of the younger people have to-day. But other problems are concerned with the age-old difficulty of growing up from childhood into the adult world.
I submit that one of the greatest problems confronting the 1970s is that which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden; namely, the problem of the difference in outlook between the older and the younger people. I myself feel that there is a greater separation between age and youth to-day than there has been for a long time past. This is due to a number of things. It is due first to the fact that the parents of to-day were brought up at a time of considerable restrictions. They suffered and were deprived in various ways—through evacuation, spasmodic schooling, and

425
particularly the girls at that time suffered from a deprivation of material things brought about by the necessity for coupons. Since the end of the war the aim of this country has been—quite probably rightly—to "have it better every year". Inevitably, there is a danger of something approaching jealously in the minds of the older people as they look at younger people, with all the opportunities that they never had themselves.
Furthermore, we must face the fact that the educational gulf between adults and adolescents is more marked to-day, and becomes increasingly marked as the years go by. Whatever the pundits may say, the average secondary modern school boy or girl is better educated than his or her predecessors, and there are more boys and girls in sixth forms to-day, and there are far more universities. All this is making, for the first time, a wide gulf between the older and the younger generations. In addition—and I must dare to say this—adults are perhaps more Party politically minded than the younger people to-day. I am not saying they are right; I am merely pointing to a fact of my own experience as I have talked with youngsters.
What can be done to bridge this rather dangerous gulf between age and youth—a gulf that is, I believe, deliberately being fostered by those who want to make money out of young people? If you can produce in the young the sense that they are different, a race apart, urging them to buy this and that, and make them realise their youth, you can make money out of them. But you are playing on the wrong instincts, and I should like to suggest a number of things which can be done to bridge this gulf. First—and this has been touched on before in this debate—there is an urgent need for greater involvement. Up to the age of 16 young people have, on the whole, a deep desire to be involved. That is why so many voluntary projects have been remarkably well supported. Not enough is made of this kind of involvement, and not enough time and money given for its expansion. I was heartened by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said was being done by the Government. I only wish that could be communicated, because I find, as I go around, that there are still a large number of youth leaders who feel that Albemarle and Newsom
426
have not yet been adequately fulfilled, and not enough money is being spent on young people today, and on their needs. I can only say that that is widely felt.
The second need is for us to have a serious look at the age of majority. There is a ridiculous number of anomalies here. At 18 a boy or girl can drive a fast E-type Jaguar, can be conscripted into the Forces to fight for his or her country, but is not allowed to contract in money affairs, and not allowed to marry without his or her parents' consent. It might be a good thing to make the age of majority 18 years and not 21 as it is now. From my own experience I do not believe that this would make them dangerous to the community. On the contrary, it would help them to realise their responsibilities and to become more involved in the life around them.
Thirdly, I believe that there needs to be far greater preparation given in the last years of school for entrance into the world. School-leaving conferences ought to be made compulsory. That is the only kind of compulsion I personally favour. If the vote is given to young men and women at 18 years this, I believe, should be for local government. They can then graduate to full voting power for Parliament at 21, after three years of valuable experience. If young people voted in local government elections it would immediately involve them in local affairs. In many ways this would be highly desirable. It would help them to have a hand in the administration of their own affairs, and in addition there is no doubt that this move would bring fresh life into the town halls of this country—places which, one is bound to admit, are sometimes rather dull, because the younger section of the community is not sufficiently represented.
Fourthly, we need far greater attention from the Government to be given to the youth problem. I have been greatly encouraged by the appointment of the Minister for Sport. That has caused a great deal of appreciation. It is true that a large amount of his attention is given to youth, yet I believe that what is really needed still is a Minister for Youth. In this sphere the whole problem of youth could be dealt with. Under his leadership the country could be divided into zones where young people could see something of the administration without

427
having to look for it somewhere "out there", in Westminster. They need to be far more involved in local politics.
I would make two final points, touching on something which I have already mentioned. First, not enough has been done to bridge the gap between school and work. For many young people the transition is a traumatic experience as they move from childhood to adulthood. School, with its set pattern and standards and rather sheltered environment, contrasts all too markedly with the work situation, which presents far less real security. Secondly, I realise only too clearly that much of what I have said, and of what has been said in this debate, is applicable to and will be taken up by the more splendid young people, who desire to be involved in voluntary organisations, voluntary service and voluntary training. We must never rest content with this. I hasten to add that, like others who have spoken, I am not a supporter of compulsory social service, yet the trouble is that any voluntary system will not bring in the unclubbable or unattached young person, just because the idea of volunteering suggests that you have something to offer, and the whole educational structure experienced by the young people in mind militates against the idea of their having anything to offer. It is fear of inadequacy and fear of not being accepted or not measuring up to the need which is very prevalent and accounts for a great deal in national life to-day that is ugly.
What is needed is something so adventurous that even the unclubbable and unattached will want to take part in it, and that is why, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, some of these unattached and unclubbable are to be seen in campaigns such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which was at its peak some years ago or, to give a more modern illustration, the Campaign against the War in Vietnam. While I do not hold any brief for these campaigns, I give them as illustrations of something that catches the imagination of even the most unclubbable and unattached.
The point I am making is that we must never be satisfied merely with involving the comparatively few of the more splendid youngsters into voluntary
428
organisations and voluntary service. Rather must we ever seek to devise something creative and worth while and, at the same time, so imaginative and adventurous that even "flower people" will be caught up into it. I believe with all my heart that the vast majority of young people to-day are sound and serious and seeking for reality, and I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge who has called attention to the need for a more comprehensive policy towards the youth of this country, and I hope that as a result of this debate this will come about.
4.24 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge has put down this Motion, if only because I listened as a somewhat frustrated visitor in this House in 1965, as I did in 1959. The terms of the Motion, as Lord Robertson has pointed out, are so closely similar to those of last time that I must admit I wondered what further wisdom could be added to that which your Lordships displayed then. Now we have the answer in the long list of speakers this afternoon; a positive avalanche of wisdom is going to descend on the unsuspecting head of the Minister of Education and others.
I wondered what new events had occurred in the last three years about which we might speak to-day. We have "flower power". We have the paying proposition that the whole of London is "swinging", and a great deal of publicity has been given to those two transient phenomena by focusing attention on Soho and the King's Road, and possibly by the peregrinations of a few neolithic "pop" groups and others beyond these shores. No doubt there will be other novelties to follow, but I hope we shall not put a magnifying glass on these things or the people who indulge in them.
I hasten to say I have nothing whatever against the people who enjoy these things, any more than, so far as I know, they have against us, the "greys". They are a remarkably tolerant lot. But they do not merit so much publicity, any more than your Lordships do. I am certainly worried at the harm that I believe publicity has done by turning too much attention on these passing fads and fashions abroad. Only last summer

429
my wife and I made a tour in the Commonwealth to see what provision was being made for young people in other countries, and at almost every stop we were asked, "What is wrong with young Britain?" The impression created by our Press, by our radio, and, let us face it, by a few itinerant hoodlums was of an effete and irresponsible and scrounging young generation.
I was at pains to explain that this is totally untypical of young Britain. For every "hippy", "beat", "flower creature" or juvenile tramp I could point to a hundred other young people, active in their work and leisure, enjoying life and just being ordinary. Very little attention is paid to them, and, thank goodness, most of them would not wish it anyway; but I am simply delighted that since our trip two young ambassadors have been travelling round the Commonwealth as guests of the Evening News, doing their best to correct this unfortunate impression, and I am thankful they have not joined the brain or talent drain.
I believe the value of our discussions to-day to be precisely because, following so closely on those of three years ago, they will express our concern that not enough is being done quickly enough to enable the full energies and enthusiasms of these ordinary youngsters to be developed, including those about whom Sir John Newsom wrote his report, Half our Future, five years ago. I regard it as highly significant that Sir Alec Clegg, the distinguished Chief Education Officer of the West Riding and a member of the Crowther Committee, speaking at the North of England Education Conference only last November, made a plea for a change of heart in our education system in favour of these Newsom children. It is five years since Newsom appeared and, quite clearly, a very eminent educationist did not think progress was quick enough.
We all know that the challenge of this Motion cannot be met by tackling it in any one situation—for instance, in the education situation—in isolation from the other situations in which young people are to be found. I submit that the crucial years are those covered by the latter part of secondary education and the early years of training in employment, 14 to 21. In those the secondary school, the
430
youth services and industry should form a tripod for action, and we should look at them all together.
I propose to concentrate on those ordinary youngsters who still, to the tune of something like 70 per cent., leave school at around 15, and most of whom have no further education; and I think it is relevant to ask what are their attitudes as they go out into the adult world. Only the other day I was re-reading a report prepared by the Westhill Training College in Birmingham, which had studied the attitudes of school leavers, and they had compared a sample of school leavers in Birmingham with their peers in Berlin. As we know, comparisons can be odious. My only reason for drawing attention to this one is to reveal the appalling ignorance of problems and events displayed by these Birmingham youngsters compared with the boys and girls in Berlin, and, most important of all, following what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry said, the lack of a sense of involvement in what they were going to join.
I am not singling out German education for special praise, because these youngsters could be examples of those in other countries as well, just as the Birmingham boys and girls could be examples from other towns in our country. It does not mean that many of them would not wish to be informed and involved; in fact, quite the contrary is the case, and the Westhill Report went on to make that point. That report was written before Newsom. I understand that an inquiry undertaken by the Government Social Survey was put in hand last year into the attitudes of school leavers, among others, and that it is likely to appear in the next month or two, and I shall certainly look out for it with the greatest of interest.
I do not question that there has been some progress since 1963 in making more room in the curriculum for a more adequate social education. I know the Schools Council has been busy with studies of curriculum development, that teachers' curriculum development groups have come into being, that Newsom's "extended day" is being experimented and that his proposals for boarding school provision are being studied.
I know, too, that there has been a heartening development in extra-curricula

431
activity, particularly in local community service. Leisure time activities are beginning to have the effect of bringing more adults from outside into contact with children and the young people in the schools. All this is good, and all of it in the right direction. But there is a long way to go. So far as I know no survey has been made of progress since Newsom, but I should guess that no more than about 30 per cent. of our secondary schools can be said to be developing along Newsom lines. These pacemakers are, as one might expect, patchily distributed, and it can only mean that the majority of our young people are not being prepared adequately for citizenship. They are simply not having a fair chance.
I should like to put forward a four-point programme in training for citizenship in the final year, crystallising some of the recommendations of Newsom which could be adopted in every secondary school in the next five years. It would not require more teachers; it could be introduced immediately by in-service teacher courses, and in the long term in colleges of education. Its basis would be a deliberate outgoing programme linking the pupils with the layman, and it would be followed, if I had my way, by every young person in his last year at school.
The first ingredient would be a period of communal living away from the school and the home environment. This could take many forms. It could be a course, it could be a camp, or it could be a journey. The second point would be opportunities to pursue a wide variety of leisure activities. I think I would include a "pop" culture in this, but also training in a voluntary community service. The third ingredient would be a course of study in relation to local and national problems, the organisation of local and national government, and the organisation of industry. The fourth point would be discussions on the ideals and implications of democracy, on the achievements of Britain and, if I may ride a hobby-horse for a moment, on the inevitable evolution towards world government.
This would constitute a social study course, and could become a social diploma course, but I would sooner it was a non-examination kind of course. If it were made an examination course, it could be
432
a subject of the C.S.E. Its particular characteristic would be the practical nature of the tasks, which could bring in even those for whom a C.S.E. is too difficult.
My Lords, I am sure I shall be told that this is a counsel of perfection. Some will say that. Others will say that it simply cannot be done under our present tradition and system of education; and there will be some who would question the diagnosis and the cure. But I say that one must find a way to speed up the process of giving an equal opportunity to all our young people to develop their talents and to use them at a time when they are so badly needed and so sadly lacking. We hear a lot of talk about lack of adequate leadership to-day, but we tend to neglect the old adage that the quality of leadership depends upon the vigour of those who are led. We need to inculcate the qualities of leadership all the way down the line.
What about democracy? Who can say that we are making it work when we hear of elections to executive office in the local branches of trade unions being decided on a vote of well under 10 per cent.? This is a recipe for adult responsibility, not for conformity. Its purpose is to help young people to make up their minds what society they want. This slant in the curriculum should have as its main purpose the granting of the vote at 18. I would say "18" without equivocation, and not 20. This was one of the main recommendations of the Labour Party Youth Commission. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave as one of the reasons why we have not got it that it is felt that young people are not ready for it at 18. I maintain that they would be if we were to make adequate preparation for it at school.
So, if I may sum up on the school situation as I see it, I would make three points: first of all, to underline the error that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has pointed out, which I believe the Government have made in postponing the raising of the school-leaving age. This has undermined the will towards the economic and other kinds of recovery which conditions everything else, and it hits at and offends against those who need the opportunity most. My second point is that because of this error I would urge

433
the Government to do everything possible to encourage the present trend towards young people staying longer at school than they do at present. The national figures at the moment are 29 per cent. staying on until 16, and 15 per cent. staying on until 17 years of age. That is by no means universal. It is certainly not the case in the development areas which need it most.
My third point is to ask the Government to consider issuing a circular on the subject of what I have called a "social study course" or a "social diploma course", and urging its adoption by local education authorities and examining bodies. My fourth point is to express the hope that the Royal Commission on Local Government will have something to say about bringing the local education authorities into a regional setup. This will help to reduce the serious disparity of opportunity which exists at the moment.
The second prop in the scheme that I have put to your Lordships is of course the Youth Service. Many of your Lordships have been speaking about this, and no doubt others will. I propose to say but little, because my loyalties to my former colleagues on the Youth Service Development Council are still closely engaged. I know that the future of the Service is under urgent examination by the Council, and I venture to hope that a sense of urgency will continue to prevail over any obsession to indulge in further time-consuming surveys. What we need is widespread action, not endless surveys which are pigeonholed, or even guinea-pig experiments. I will limit myself to one point. It is obvious that the statutory part of the Service must be preparing now for necessary adjustment when the school-leaving age is eventually raised.
In my view, the adjustment needs to be three-fold in its character and content, in the age range catered for, and in the priorities to be given. I believe that at present the Youth Service is catering for 20 per cent. or less of those within the age range—much less than was estimated by Lady Albemarle's Committee. One reason given for this is the association of its provision with school. I believe this will diminish as the central position of the school in the whole neighbourhood becomes more firmly estab
434
fished and as the curriculum develops along Newsom lines. But I also believe that the statutory Youth Service should present a more adult image; it must be seen as beyond school. I think the name may have to be changed and that the age bracket should be shifted upwards from fifteen to twenty-five. It should be presented as an agency for young adults and as a link with adult society. Without in any way discouraging the present policies and coverages of voluntary youth organisations, I hope that special encouragement is given to that part of their programmes, and indeed to the whole organisation which caters for the young adult. I would mention here, because they have not received a favour-able mention so far among others that have, the Federation of 18-plus Groups.
I believe that the Government have to be clear as to whether the Youth Service is mainly a "rescue service" far the social misfit, or a logical follow-on for the purposeful young products of Newsom. When resources are so limited and restricted, it is obvious that there will have to be priorities, and I have no doubt at all that priority should lie with the latter. The French philosopher, La Rochefoucauld, one pointed out that
"Old men like to give good precepts to console themselves for no longer being able to set bad examples".
I think it is as well that we remember that—in fact, this has been said in so many words already. I think we are much too apt to preach to the young. We want to remember what La Rochefoucauld said. I am certain that a great deal of the trouble lies in this particular point rather than in Government action at any level. The point has been sufficiently made by other people.
The third prop in my scheme was industry, and this needs to be firmly linked with the other props. In a speech on May 3 last year I suggested a number of points which might be borne in mind by industry to help young people feel that they have an effective part to play in their firms as partners in the firms. I will not weary your Lordships with those points now, but I hope that they will be borne in mind in the current inquiry into the provision for young people.
I have said nothing about how this great task should be grasped and handled

435
at the level of central Government. Indeed, knowing the recent preoccupations of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in this problem, I am particularly sorry that he is not speaking in this debate today, because I particularly want to know his solution to it. I have not suggested a solution myself, and I endorse entirely what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others about the need for a completely comprehensive grasp of the whole problem by the Government. Among the many great tasks which face the Government and the country, I believe that there is no bigger one than that of inspiring and releasing the energy, enthusiasm and idealism of our young people. I believe that the Government still have a chance, and still have time, to make a great and lasting contribution to the future of our country if they will reaffirm their belief in our young people and demonstrate that faith in these and other practical ways.
4.42 p.m.
LORD PILKINGTON: My Lords, I rise with some misgivings to address your Lordships for the first time, and I crave your indulgence should I unwittingly transgress the customs of this House. I had thought that the subject of youth and service was one on which it would be difficult to be controversial, but I have learned that even on this subject there are some aspects which it would be best to avoid in a maiden speech. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, is indeed a broad one, and I will confine myself to some general considerations relevant to any youth policy.
The first consideration concerns the definition of youth, or young people. There are many here who are living proof of the truism that neither old age nor youth is judged solely by years, but is judged by a state of mind. Youth, too, is a question not merely of physical vigour—even though that is more conspicuous at an early age—but also of a state of mind: an ambitious, critical state of mind, not content with idleness nor with the ready acceptance of opinions which seem self-evident to many of their elders, and not absolutely typical in very much else, since the youth of the nation inevitably includes so many different individual types. For certain statutory purposes, of course, the Youth Service
436
(to which I will return later) must be defined as having a precise age span—an age span which itself should change from time to time and certainly should start earlier now than would have been deemed right a generation ago, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has suggested, it should probably go on later.
One of the startling facts of to-day is the gulf, and even the conflict, between the generations. Any more comprehensive policy towards youth should take account of the tremendous gains to be made for us all if this gap can be reduced. The rebellion of youth, whether as shown in its more extreme forms at universities or in the less organised areas of the "hippies" or the football crowds, is largely based on the failure of parents and children to bridge this gap—a gap born of an adolescence spent by parents in an age of unemployment and hardship between the wars and by to-day's youth in an age of nuclear fear and of full employment—facts which inevitably give a quite different starting point from which most people look at problems. Although I cannot suggest how this bridge can effectively be built, I am sure it becomes more difficult if man's seven ages, or any two of them, are kept rigidly in watertight compartments.
One factor that must be allowed for and compensated is the changed attitude towards discipline and authority. It is probably hard for most of my generation not to feel that the old-fashioned discipline of the strict father and the Sunday school, of respect, and a bit of fear, as well as mutual affection, was the natural order of things. I am not sure about this; but whether it was natural or not, that particular form of discipline has vanished and will not return. This has often led, too, to unhappiness at home. Therefore, it is for those who are interested in youth to see that, somehow, a start is made in constructively filling this gap; that somehow the more youthful seizure of freedom and rejection of imposed authority are replaced by self-discipline from an earlier age. Here we are not yet, I think, convincingly successful. Self-discipline, taking the harder of two choices more often than not, pays enormous dividends later on. The question must be: how can this habit be induced to many more people much earlier?

437
My Lords, I have said that youth rebels more than it used to do against parental or other imposed authority. But there is one form against which, on the whole, it does not rebel. This is partly due to the power of the mass media which have introduced a passion for fashion. Fashion is infectious, whether it be in escapism or in involvement, in shirking or in working. The discipline of conformity to modernity is powerful, and it is a weapon which those of us who have to lead youth along any path should not disregard. Examples set by a good leader will be followed. Most young people really want to get on; they want to do good, and they know right from wrong. The infectiousness of neighbourhood public opinion and of the current fashion can be an ally, and if we make greater use of this the tide can be turned in the right direction.
I should like to put forward another consideration. The education and training of young people for life, even for earning their living, in a modern, technical society is a lengthy process and an expensive one—longer by far than it used to be, though not so long as we hope it soon will be—and inevitably it is more costly, in terms of tools, equipment and buildings. It is largely a community charge, one borne by the community as a whole. At the other end of life the youth of to-day will have to support a lengthening period of retirement of their elders, as people live longer and as that increased old age, on the whole, is not likely to be devoted to gainful activity. In a Welfare State such as I hope will develop more calls will be made by the young and by the old, as well as by the sick and infirm. But a Welfare State has to be sustained from the community, too, and largely by those who are between 18 and 65. It seems to me of quite paramount importance that youth should become accustomed very early, and to an extent that does not now apply, to the notion that its own standard of living, and that of those who depend upon it in later years, will depend on what it itself collectively does in its prime; in other words, that welfare has as many responsibilities as it has rights.
Responsibilities first entail work, productive work. Nothing else can ensure a high standard of living as well as can a high level of productivity and of pro
438
duction; but the responsibilities also entail more service and voluntary service. It is not to everyone's taste, but far more young people even than now would be willing to give their time and talents in the interests of others, if we knew how to capture and harness their interest and how to fit them to the appropriate tasks. Round holes are bad enough at work if the pegs are square, but efforts are made to fit the worker to the job. But in the various types of service by youth (and I have been very interested to note how almost everybody has talked to-day more of service by youth than of service for youth) it is too readily assumed that, because service itself is by definition a good thing, there is no need to have regard to individual leanings as to the type of service.
Young people are offering in increasing numbers to help those who are in need, but they are doing it with no trace of condescension. The spirit, is there, and even if only a quite small percentage of youth has that spirit the effect is out of all proportion to the numbers. They give service of many kinds entirely free, but they need guidance both as to what to do and, broadly, as to how to do it; and they need the tools for the job. Usually the money for the tools will also be given voluntarily, as a result of e Torts and campaigns to raise it. But the community as a whole get incalculable value from the work that their young people do, and it seems to me that local authorities should be encouraged—indeed, urged—to help to sustain this Youth Service by seeing that the tools are there, and by ensuring that provision for finding or for training leaders is there, too.
May I make a plea for the emphasis to be on local enterprise and on individual initiative? The spirit that we all seek does not flourish at a distance, and it does not easily travel very far. It is sometimes not even local; it is almost parochial. It is the neighbourhood interpretation of needs that is most genuine and most infectious. So that the more freedom local authorities have in the methods they use to encourage youth to serve, as well as to work, the greater will be the contribution that voluntary service by youth can make to the welfare of themselves and of the whole community, and particularly their own community

439
surrounding them. There are always pockets of people in need who, for one reason or another seem to be beyond the range of existing welfare services. It is the local small group on the alert that will identify these needs and these pockets, and that will experiment, usually on a small scale, with ways of meeting the needs.
All this is not a matter of great sums. I know a little of the work of some of the youth volunteer groups up in Lancashire. A few pounds are often enough to provide a group of volunteers with the materials to redecorate a house; but without those few pounds the voluntary spirit may wither simply because it does not have enough to do. I actually know of two groups, involving nearly 200 volunteers, which would have had to close down a short time ago but for an effort that was undertaken to raise money to give them just the tools for their own particular jobs. Youth clubs—some hundreds of them—had grants three or four years ago from the Carnegie Trustees, of whom I am one, to refurbish the clubs. Those grants averaged about £200, but I believe that without that quite small amount of help, half of those clubs would not by now be in existence. Help given through local authorities, or in any other way, to good voluntary effort must be a good investment and must have lasting benefits to all.
In brief, my Lords, the nation's youth needs help to acquire a sense of purpose, an understanding of the obligations with which it is going to be faced, a reduced awareness of its rights, a habit of self-discipline, or self-confidence and of faith, and a belief in a Welfare State that it will itself help to provide through work and through service. I believe that those mental attributes, even more than the physical ones of fitness and health, are essential if young people and their families are to be happy and useful and harmonious. And it seems to me that in framing any comprehensive policy towards youth both the Government and voluntary bodies should keep those aims, as well as many others, well in mind.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, it is a very pleasant task to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on having chosen this debate
440
to make his maiden speech. It so happens that I have been connected for a good number of years with a works not all that far from the glassworks at St. Helens. Therefore, I know from personal experience the very great respect and affection in which, like all of his family, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is held both as an industrialist of the first rank and also as one who has very close to his heart the welfare of his employees and those connected with them. So I hope, and I feel confident, that we shall hear the noble Lord very often in this House, not only on to-day's subject, but on the many other subjects to which he can make a valuable contribution.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to excuse me if I do not follow him in the remarks he made because, like other speakers, he has given us a general view of the youth problems and has helped to take this debate, which after all is about a comprehensive policy, right across the board as it should go. I am going to do the opposite, because a whole has many parts, and I do not think that a debate of this sort would be complete without some mention of the pre-Service organisations. I hope very much that some of my scouting friends will do the same for their movement before the day is done.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, touched on the matter very lightly. I am going to touch on it rather harder, not because I feel any anxiety at the present time, as I shall he showing in a moment, but because I think it is as well to remind those who are considering the general problem that the pre-Service organisations are part of the youth movement. Their contribution to the work in approved schools and borstals, which has been going on since 1942, is probably not generally known except by the people who take a hand in the problems affecting institutions of that sort. The Army Cadet Force and the Sea Cadet Corps are members of the Standing Conference of Youth Organisations. The A.T.C. is not, but I think there are special reasons for that. Therefore, they are not working apart, but are working in the general body of youth organisations recognised by the Ministry of Education and Science—a fact which we owe to my noble friend Lord Soulbury and the late Lord Lloyd. They are ready to be co-ordinated, as

441
suggested by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and they are ready to co-operate, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare likewise hoped.
I think it is worth while asking this afternoon how the cuts which have taken place over the last two years in Her Majesty's Forces, Regular and part-time, have affected the pre-Service movements. It might have been thought that the effect would have been adverse, but, contrary to that, the numbers have if anything slightly increased. So has the quality; and if anybody wants to see a type of British youth alternative to the "flower people", they are welcome to go to any pre-Service athletic meeting, or any other of their events.
My own impression is that the increase in numbers in the pre-Service organisations could have been considerably greater but for the fact that they suffer from the difficulty from which all youth movements suffer; namely, the difficulty of getting the right number of grown-ups with the right kind of dedication and the right mentality to run the work. To my knowledge, there never has been any limit to the numbers that you could handle in the pre-Service organisations—nor, I think, in any other of the organisations of the same sort, like the Scouts and the Brigades—except the difficulty of getting adult leaders. This, I think, would provide a reason, if there were not many others, against attempting any form of compulsion; because we must not forget that if we compel the young people we have equally to compel the grown-ups to look after them or make it a paid employment, and not a vocation. If there had been a case for compulsion, it surely would have come in the middle of the Second World War when, by a fusion of thinking on the part of Sir Winston Churchill and the late Ernest Bevin, the youth movements, the whole lot of them, were expanded, with Government encouragement. No compulsion was necessary then: the leaders were found. To my mind, no compulsion is either necessary or desirable at the present time.
While we are still talking of reductions in the Forces, there is, of course, another aspect of the pre-Service organisations and that is that the fewer grown-up soldiers there are the more the Services rely, for people to sec the Queen's uniform, on the pre-Service organisations.
442
That is a rather separate aspect, and one which I am not going to pursue this afternoon because it might come better in the Defence debate in a fortnight's time. But it is important in this way, that it represents a form of involvement in national affairs. The word "involvement" has been quite fashionable this afternoon, and it can equally well be used of those who join a pre-Service organisation with a sense of duty and a knowledge of the task for which they are training. Therefore, like everyone else, the pre-Service organisations will need to plan for the future, because like every other youth movement the circumstances under which they are working are constantly changing.
If one goes back for one moment to the 1880s, and to Miss Octavia Hill, who founded the first unit of what is row the Army Cadet Force, one will find that the reason which compelled her to do that was to get the ragged boys off the street and give them something to do which was not only good for themselves but useful to society. One cannot labour that point too much. In one sense, of course, one could say that that need is diminishing, now that the Welfare State has come. One could say with some accuracy that the street urchin has gone, or that if he has not gone he has very nearly gone. But that does not dispose of the problem.
This afternoon, several noble Lords have mentioned the rise in the school-leaving age. Everybody, I think, on this side of the House, and some others, deplores the postponement of the raising of the school-leaving age, but the situation is rather like the inscription on the tombstone—"Not lost, but gone before". It is going to happen; and in forward-thinking for the youth movement the difference of a year or two does nix seem to me to matter very much. When the leaving age does go up to 16, then the conditions under which the voluntary organisations are working will undergo quite a marked change. One usually considers 14 to 18 as the effective age for the ordinary youth movement. If that age bracket is chosen, about half the members of the youth movements would be of school age, 14 to 16. In practice, many more than half will be that, because in all the movements the weight of membership is in the lower

443
ages rather than the upper, for a number of reasons.
So more and more the pre-Service organisations—and, indeed, other organisations of the same kind—will need to see to it that if they do not have links with schools already (as many of them have, being sensible) they start to forge them; not as closed units like the Combined Cadet Force, but with activities associated with a particular school, and welcomed and sponsored by the governors and staff of those schools. This, I think, is important. We should know where we are going and we should plan for it, because neither the development of the Welfare State nor the raising of the school-leaving age in particular will by itself deal with the problem of leisure—and this problem is still very far from being solved. This problem always strikes me as being particularly bad on the big housing estates, where there are so few public buildings—though as the school authorities begin to be more co-operative in allowing the use of school buildings that problem is being overcome. But in that sense, in a good many parts of modern Britain I fancy that the scene is just as dreary and life is just as empty under the surface as ever it was in Bermondsey in the 1880s.
Now that void can be filled only by a youth service pattern of some sort or other. In this country so far, at least for the last thirty years, the pattern is the one set by the White Paper at the beginning of the Second World War. I think it was called The Service of Youth. That set the pattern of co-operation between the local authorities' youth service and the voluntary youth movements—a pattern which I am sure was right; was most timely, arriving as it did just at the beginning of the Second World War; and provided something which I am sure is very important, that is, a choice of activities of different kinds open to the young people of this country.
As I said earlier, this debate has gone right across the board. The variety of youth organisations from which young people have to choose at the present time goes right across the board as well. I am sure that that is right. I am sure also that young people will thus be able to combine the need to choose for them
444
selves the activities they want to pursue with the choice of a sufficient variety of service to others. When I say "others", I mean not only other individuals but the community and the State in all its aspects. So, my Lords, I have tried to put before you the problems of one set of organisations and much of what I have said applies to others. But if we follow the present pattern of youth organisation in this country, the whole will be made up of many parts; and it is important that each part should be in working order.
5.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM:My Lords, the number of speakers down for this debate is convincing evidence both of the intrinsic importance of the subject and of our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and also, as he himself mentioned, to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. While I am in this area of felicitations may I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on a speech which, if I may say so, I found full of understanding and experience, critical and careful in its analysis of the past, and frank and thorough in facing the problems of to-day. What I hope to do now in my own speech is, in the phrase of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, to move across the board and to share with your Lordships some general reflections on points which I think must be kept in mind as we revise present schemes or contemplate further schemes for youth.
I readily acknowledge at the outset that these reflections are based on no sociological inquiry. I do not profess to have done already the work of the Keele investigation to whose results we all eagerly look forward. My remarks are admittedly impressionistic, arising from no more than my own experience, from talking with other people and so on. But I believe that they are not altogether unreliable. At any rate, I am risking these generalisations which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, eschewed, though I hope that I am not sermonising either.
I think we shall all agree that youth comes of age earlier than ever before, to find itself in a world of political uncertainty and insecurity, a world in which there have been revolutionary changes in moral and social attitudes and behaviour, a world in which all beliefs

445
and presuppositions are, and rightly, subjected to the arc-light of debate, cynicism and satire, and in which, for the most part, an earlier generation of teachers and leaders shares with youth very little indeed beyond its own uncertainties and bewilderments. Against that general background, I see the youth of our land falling broadly into two groups. The boundaries of these groups are neither social nor intellectual; they cut right across all our hierarchies.
It is nothing short of remarkable that the first of these two groups exists at all; it is nothing short of remarkable—and here I agree with the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—that despite being subjected to so many political, moral, social and intellectual pressures, so many of our youth work harder and are more involved in the problems and opportunities of the world than any earlier generation. For those in a job, a full day's work is often followed by night lectures at a technical college, or by a visit to a youth centre, or by taking part in or planning services, to which again the noble and learned Lord has referred. For those at school, a day's work is followed by "prep" whose relevance to examinations makes its pressure all the greater. And to this is added an entirely magnificent range of out-of-school activities—not least foreign tours; and always there is the need for the senior boy or girl to develop a proper sense of responsibility. He, too, is engaged in voluntary services to which I have referred.
What is my conclusion there? It is this. That, plainly, for this group, already totally involved, if not over-involved, little more, if anything, need be or should be done. Already their readiness to work, their good will and humane, sensitive, social consciences and their critical dissatisfactions are all being put already to the best possible use; and we have the youth services of the country to thank for this. The term "youth services", of course, includes both those responsible for employment, at one end of the spectrum, and those responsible for education in the schools, at the other.
Besides this first group of the heavily involved, there is a second group; and here its members are, for good reasons or bad, not at all fully stretched. Society offers to them no stirring challenge. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, remarked,
446
to them, leaders seem altogether confused and short-sighted, when they are not downright disingenuous or superficial. So far, the second group is homogeneous. Let us now notice that within this group there are two kinds of persons very different indeed in outlook. Some in this second group are bored and apathetic, and apparently neither wish to make nor are capable of making any great effort. If they are in employment they move with the tide and seem tragically destined to become the flotsam and jetsam of a later day. Some, I fear, are already unemployed, are already cast up on the beach. When they fail to go for interviews arranged by the local youth employment officer, they may well answer as they have done, "Well I just could not be bothered." Do not mistake me, my Lords: I do not think we rightly deplore that kind of remark. To me it is rather sadly symptomatic. But I will come back to that point presently.
Quite different from these, although still in the second group, are those who, in a mood of deep dissatisfaction with society, with no little intelligence and, sometimes, high sensitivity, rebel. They seek a satisfaction which society fails to provide; and among these, of course, are those who become drug-dependent. I was talking recently with some pharmacologists, and some of those responsible for university health services. In this discussion it seemed to me to be quite clear that many of those young people, whether in university or elsewhere, who "take a trip" with drugs, seriously misguided though they be, often do this as a means of self-discovery, endeavouring to make possible a personal exploration in a world where contemplation and privacy are all at a discount. Or it is done in a search for identity in a world of stereotypes. Or again they see in drugs a means which they believe, in a world of shibboleths, may give them new insight into themselves, their relations with other members of society and the world in general. They may be—I think they are—utterly misguided; but the significance of their actions should not be lost on us, for the tragedy is that there should exist in society these youthful yearnings which at the moment fail to be harnessed to, and fail to provide the stimulus for, any major constructive task.

447
This I see, of course, as the conviction behind the Motion of the noble Lord. Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and no doubt it is the conviction which has motivated so many of us to-day: that here are youthful yearnings which could well be put to a better purpose when they could enjoy proving themselves. Here is certainly a permanent challenge to those who organise work for youth, and, if I may say so, it is a standing rebuke to the Ministry of the Church. It is these two very different needs within the second group, it seems to me, that any development of youth service and any new and wider policies must satisfy.
First, what can be done for those young folk who may otherwise in due course become the tragic flotsam and jetsam of society; and especially those (of whom we have many in the North-East) who are already unemployed and who feel unwanted? Secondly, what can be done for those very different people, though still in the second group, who have these deep unsatisfied yearnings but whom so far we have failed to involve constructively in society? Those, it seems to me, are the two questions around which the whole of a debate like this revolves, and we shall all agree that it would be foolish to presume any easy answers. But I think that some negatives are clear, and they are negatives which the Church as a whole has learned, and is learning only in a very hard way and at a very great cost. I think that if this could be shared with others it is perhaps worth sharing.
Paternalism, my Lords, would be useless. Nor will the problems be met by a "do-gooding" which occurs because it suits the doer rather than the needs of those who are only too often regarded as the object—and the word "object" is significant—of the exercise. Nor will any imposed policy, still less an imposed central policy, succeed in winning the involvement and spontaneous response of youth. Whatever is done must have another sort of authority altogether, one which is self-authenticating, an authority which wins assent by the intrinsic imaginative character of what is proposed; and it must arise in, and out of, a context of acknowledged needs, and in circumstances where there is the potential ability to meet those needs.
448
How can we discover at ground level—not 500 miles away—what are the real needs of youth and what would be constructively satisfying? That is the basic question, and it is as difficult as it is crucial. Let me, simply to underline the problem, give an example of what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would, I think, call a "pocket experiment". One of my clergy, in consultation with the local youth employment officer, tried recently to meet the needs of the unemployed young folk from 15 to 18 years of age by starting a club for them, which would not only provide recreational activities virtually at any time of day or night but service some needs of the local community. Some 30 people from some five neighbouring communities were visited. The parents, to a man and a woman, were enthusiastic. The young people displayed a varied set of initial responses, from great interest to apathy. But, of the 30 or so people visited, only one boy turned up at the first meeting; and, despite continued publicity, nobody else ever came along.
One of those who never came commented, "It is a good idea, but it is a long way off." In fact, the meeting place was a mile from his home. He later added, "Nobody does anything for us when we are out of work". My Lords, is that not odd? It is no good saying that he was just being inconsistent; that would be a highly academic comment. We have to ask ourselves, "What does a boy who says this sort of thing want? What would have satisfied him? Where do we best begin?" This is not meant as a story to give any answer, but merely to point the problem. I need hardly say that I have not said all this by way of superior criticism: the position of these young folk is far too tragic for superficial platitudes or superior comment. I have given that example simply to show the kind of deep-seated difficulties and questions with which anyone concerned for young people must grapple, and how much needs to be done by way of preliminary exploration of the actual position.
I think there is no doubt that a policy for youth must be far more comprehensive than it has been; but if my reflections and cautions are borne in mind, I think they suggest that such a policy should be founded explicitly on what we

449
can discover from youth about the needs of youth. To this there is no a priori road. In practice, I think that whatever be the scheme, or broader policy, in detail, it will emerge only from some gathering of those agencies now engaged in youth work—the kind of coming together, perhaps, which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, had in mind. At least I think it accords with his principle, and perhaps it is something which could be the concern of this youth volunteer scheme as I have heard it elucidated today.
At any rate, my Lords, the terms of reference of such a coming-together could be twofold. First, to see just how in fact the scheme could be comprehensive. And here, taking up points about voluntary organisations which many noble Lords have made, I think that its first task would be to see how present existing voluntary services can best be supplemented, harmonised, co-ordinated and developed, while nevertheless preserving their variety and autonomy. Secondly, it would try to see how such a policy for youth could benefit from, and arise out of, the practical experience of what is the situation, so that the policy emerged alongside the needs and concerns of youth itself—youth which, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack commented, is full of ideas, energy and good will. In any event, if we are to help youth—or anyone else for that matter—to realise its full potentiality, we must have that radical change of attitude which my remarks have, I hope, already implied.
We must be, in the sense indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, in a good way parochial. We must begin our thinking and planning, no matter how wide they become in the end, with the young as they are. We must take the young for what they are, which means that we must discover what they are, and where they are; and then, in that situation, meeting acknowledged needs, we may be able to communicate to them our hopes and concerns in a way which wins rather than affronts their personal involvement. This is an attitude which, as I have said earlier, is always hard to learn by any institution, whether Church or State, for it demands a refined kind of self-reticence. Yet I believe that it is only this kind of self-discipline on the part of planners and
450
administrators, as they try to plan a comprehensive policy for youth, that will give us a comprehensive scheme which can provide a ransom for many and lead youth and ourselves together to a richer fulfilment for all of us.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, first, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. Youth is an explosive subject and nowadays, as the right reverend Prelate has just pointed out, perhaps even mere than usual. The strength of the views held by your Lordships is to be seen in the length of the batting list to-day. I am glad to be higher on the list than I have a right to be, because I have a concrete proposal to lay before the House, and I hope that some at least of the later speakers may care to express their views upon it. Put briefly and simply, the idea is to reintroduce a year's National Service of a non-military kind for both sexes, either voluntary or compulsory, the purpose being to serve one's country and humanity, not by force of arms but by doing the things of which we as a nation stand so greatly in need. I think in particular of such concrete, specific things as the building of hospitals and the destruction of slums, physical things which will have to be done one day but need to be done now. How splendid to be able to say, "I built that hospital" or, "I pulled down that slum". Surely those who built the Yugoslav road must he proud indeed.
Perhaps here I may be allowed to quote the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in a recent debate in your Lordships' House. He said:
"I do not suppose there is any place in Europe where there is so much derelict land as there is in the North-West. It is a disgrace; it makes one ashamed to travel through the area. And I refer not only to pitheaps but to all kinds and types of derelict land: little pieces, middle pieces, vast areas. Here is a task which this country should long ago have begun to tackle, but has anyone really set his mind to the problem? Here is an opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 154, 14/2/68.]
Here, surely, is an opportunity. I believe myself that there is a vast untapped streak of good will among young people and that it is still in search of an outlet. I am cynical enough to doubt whether human nature really changes over the ages. We are all, I fear, still

451
basically selfish at heart, and though we may love our neighbours we love ourselves still better. Without being in any way sentimental, I cannot but detect definite stirrings among the British youth, which as always is outstanding, towards a greater understanding of the troubles of others and a genuine desire to help. I believe quite simply that our children are nicer than we were, and other noble Lords may feel the same. I detect this desire not only among those already converted, those who go out of their way to find an opportunity to serve, but also among those in whom one might least expect to find it. I do not, for example, pretend to be a great expert on the so-called "hippies"—how they hate that name, and how they deserve it!—but I know just a few, and those I do know I find very decent people. Moreover, some of them surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, have strong religious convictions and even the most violent agnostic among them will admit that surely it is good to believe in something, be it only in human dignity.
If your Lordships agree with me this far, perhaps you will follow me yet a little farther, though I warn your Lordships that we shall now be travelling in uncharted seas with rocks and whirlpools ever around us. The first obstacle which faces us is this simple question: what is the need for such a scheme? Do we not have a hundred voluntary organisations which cater for the young who wish to serve? What about the great scouting organisations and such massive bodies as OXFAM, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., Voluntary Service Overseas and the Community Service Volunteers at one end, and the groups of small youth centres up and down the country at the other? What about the Government's own scheme, launched last November by Mr. Denis Howell and referred to by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, launched with a subsidy of £100,000 over three years for such excellent purposes as visiting the old and the sick and the lonely, and helping the mentally handicapped, even though I understand that the scheme is already running into difficulties with the local authorities?
Are not these schemes and organisations sufficient? Are they not more than
452
enough to absorb the good will where it exists? I would say, no, most definitely no. While I bow before the noble work of these long-established and indeed world famous organisations, I would wonder whether they fully cover the national needs of to-day. Each has its own tasks, its own grand purposes, and it fulfils them. But are we not looking now at a broader canvas? Would not such a scheme as is envisaged in no way supplant but rather supplement the good things we already have? I hope that this is the way in which the leaders of youth movements will look at this scheme.
But this is only the first of the rocks and reefs on which we could be wrecked. For the rest—and I must mention them briefly one by one—we come next to the schools and universities. Is this scheme likely to interfere with the educational upbringing of young people? With the emphasis so rightly focused to-day on education, we must look askance at anything which could interrupt the process of learning. We know the many handicaps which national military service imposed on our young people after the war, from which many have never fully recovered, largely because they did not have enough to do. Here again is a real danger, a real obstacle, and at present all I can suggest is that the proposed one year's National Service should follow immediately from leaving school, at whatever age that may be. A year or two between leaving school and National Service would bring a taste of freedom and indiscipline which would make service thereafter irksome. The purpose of this scheme in fact would be to make that service the climax of the educational process, the fulfilment, as it were, of the years of learning—if you like, a repayment of what the State has done for them.
Next, perhaps the thorniest nettle or sharpest rock of all is the effect upon a man or woman's career and prospects, upon apprenticeships and upon the reaction of the trade unions to what is proposed. I deeply regret that no trade union spokesman or leader is to speak to us this afternoon. This may be a deliberate abstention, I do not know, but I prefer to regard no news as good news. And I take comfort in the fact that, as perhaps I should have mentioned in the beginning, the scheme is not mine.

453
I am merely its somewhat inarticulate mouthpiece. It was conceived by Mr. Richard Briginshaw, the Joint General Secretary of the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, as good a union man as he is a patriot. Whether the T.U.C. will give the scheme its blessing, I do not know. Certainly we cannot do without it. We shall see.
There are many other encumbrances ahead. Where should this labour corps be housed? What should the pay be? Who should pay it? Would it help or hinder unemployment? Above all, should it be on a voluntary or compulsory basis? As a good Liberal, I would naturally prefer it to be voluntary. I would not rule out a compulsory basis, though, of course, it would increase the difficulties tenfold. The result would be that you would get goats among the sheep; you would get grumbling and discontent. But you would also get more work done, and at the same time you would bring discipline to those who need discipline. Speaking for myself, I can only say that it would have done me a power of good if I had been forced to do some useful work at a time when I was interested only in enjoying myself.
My Lords, I believe that it is not only the duty but the right of every young Englishman and Englishwoman to serve his or her country at some stage; and the earlier in life, the better. But these are only some of the many questions to which I do not know the answers. I doubt whether anyone does—indeed, there may be none. All I have done in this, for me, long speech is to outline a scheme, a grand concept, if you will (I can say this because it is not my own brainchild), and to ask for your Lordships' views.
You can kill the idea, if you will; the Government can kill it or damn it with faint praise; the Opposition can kill it, too; the trade unions can kill it; and the existing voluntary organisations can kill it. We can go on as we are, getting not very far not very fast. We can go on touching the fringe only, or perhaps we can look at this a little further. It is, if you like, pie-in-the-sky. But I persist in believing that there is a germ, and more than a germ, in the idea. And should I, by any chance, secure the approval in principle of some of your Lord
454
ships, I can think of one Peer, at least, who would be willing to introduce a Private Members' Bill—a Bill the less offensive to all Parties because the responsibility would be entirely his own and that of his supporters. Perhaps some of the rest of your Lordships who are to speak will at least do me the favour of saying to me yea or nay.
5.42 p.m.
LORD FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I must join with the speakers who have gone before me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for instigating this debate. Undoubtedly the Motion under discussion is an important one, and it is gratifying to see the importance which your Lordships attach to it reflected in the long list of speakers down for this afternoon and this evening. I shall have to leave before the end of the debate, and I shall be sad to do so. Unfortunately, I have to attend a funeral early to-morrow morning in Yorkshire, and I have to drive there this evening. I shall follow very carefully in tomorrow's Hansard whatever I may miss.
I am concerned primarily with a universal look at youth and young people, their place in society and the duty of other members of that society towards them. In a debate of this nature it is so easy to single out particular ventures or services and to harp on them, either with praise or with disgust, but without stepping back to take in the broad picture. I am as full of praise as other men for the individual contributions in youth work, but I am concerned that so many of these contributions are made without roots in what this Motion terms a comprehensive policy towards youth, without a decision as to any long-term goal of achievement. My Lords, every adult is a trustee of society. It is his, or her, duty of trusteeship to mould, mend, preserve and prune society to present a worthwhile environment for his heirs. On the board of every trust you find some who are better than others at dissolving the natural suspicion which exists between a beneficiary of that trust and his trustees: a suspicion which needs to be waylaid by understanding and foresight, by reasoning which can encourage a code of ethics to support some future life. This country is negotiating a difficult period in its history. The world

455
has entered an exciting but frightening age—the nuclear age. In last November's debate on the Latey Report I said I believed that:
"Youth maintains its level of responsibility to meet the demands of the age it lives in. Victorian youth was equipped to meet the demands made upon it by the Victorian age. Nuclear youth puts up a creditable performance in meeting the demands of a nuclear age but it has become a struggle."
The reform of society has been quick to advance, but not half so quick to advance as science and technology. The progress of civilisation is in danger of losing its balance. Our time is spent in studying with horror the rising financial cost of any progress whatsoever. We have been driven into a corner where we must pay untold sums of money to develop machines which will earn us enough cash so that we can afford to pay attention to the human element in society. I am afraid that before long a young lad will emerge from his training to find that he has been trained for nothing but to provide cannon fodder or some kind of technological armageddon.
The days of confirmed bachelordom and eccentricity are past. Nowadays it is a case of homosexuality and fringe insanity. Trial by family is finished. The trial is public, with newspaper evidence. The ordeal is dissection on the couch by psychoanalysis. We have become public property—and that may be a good thing: I cannot judge. As a young man I find myself to be public property, and I must assume that it is for the better. In a young man there can be no feeling that it is for the worse because he has become public property under the trusteeship of that wise old bird, his father. I have grown up in a permissive age. Had I been born a Victorian, my moral life and my future career would have been rigidly controlled. At all stages I should have held a shrewd idea of where I was going. I might not have enjoyed the outlook much, but at least there would have been a goal to aim at. To-day one is allowed to do what one wants, although there exists a sort of fertive social bribery to try to egg one on up certain paths.
As a Victorian youth I should have been "brainwashed" into the knowledge that I was British, and that Britain was something. To-day I am vaguely aware
456
of being a Yorkshireman, but I have not a clue what Britain is or where it is going, if it has not gone already. I know that it must be kept tidy, and it is whispered that I must back it. I presume that I must back it to win—but to win what? What lies beyond exporting more merchandise and earning more money? I know that I must have more money in order to fill my belly, to raise a mortgage and pay my stamps. Meanwhile, there is a temptation to sing and dance and dress in rainbow pantaloons, to meditate, copulate and gargle with LSD. It would pass the time—until the trustees came up with something to get us out of this grotesque hang-up.
I hasten to add, my Lords, that it is a compliment to the trustees to see only a tiny minority of their charges succumbing to that temptation. I would warn that the numbers of the fallen are increasing, but I believe that we can thank such outposts of good trusteeship as the Church and the family for keeping them a minority. We cannot thank some nuclear-age newspapers for leading us to believe that they form a majority.
To grow up in the nuclear age is to discover a wonderful freedom of thought and action available for use, only to want for a direction in which to proceed, some area in which we are satisfied that our liberty can be constructive. There is confusion and doubt, and a fear that inextricably we are committed to follow a trail to disaster. From time to time there is a feeble protest. The night before last a card was delivered to my house: "XYZ", it said, "is one of the candidates at your by-election. He is not an 'Independent'—he depends on the voters. He says abolish the Party Whip system in Parliament through electoral reform; abolish legal privilege for public corporations, et cetera; renounce the H-bomb; stop aircraft noise; abolish censorship and reduce the birth rate"—a ragbag of ideological reforms delivered by young people protesting that all is not well, conscious that the system of government in their country is unable to produce what they are looking for. They are unable to say what it is that they need. Desperately they are seeking a new leader and a new religion. It is no surprise to discover a desire to "live now and pay later", when, above all, there is the knowledge that eventually we

457
are going to have to pay for that hoary old pal, the hydrogen bomb.
That is what it is like to be a child of the nuclear age. I am not an expert on Boy Scouts, and I have left it to the experts to tell us what it is like to be a nuclear Boy Scout. I have talked only of what I have experienced and what I have seen. I am at the stage where my feet are being shoehorned rather unwillingly into the shoes of trusteeship. I have to try to foresee some worthwhile aim for society. I am conscious of a failure to produce anything revolutionary or even very satisfactory. I can seek only for ways to improve what is becoming an intolerable limbo, void of any purpose that I can believe in.
Education seems to provide the most obvious field for improvement. It is a field which has seen progress and it must see more progress. It must provide young people with a feeling that they have a place in society as well as a certificate of their brightness to do sums. Before they leave school, young people must know more about government, both local and central. At least they must be allowed an attempt to understand the democracy of which they are the children. They must have more chances to appreciate that there are other things in life apart from qualification, specialisation and a resulting increase in salary. Schooling must be comprehensive and preferably co-educational. As a young man I am content to see military expenditure cut. I should be overjoyed to wave good-bye to the H-bomb. I find it tragic that the opportunity to stay at school for an extra year should be put off by even one month.
Once a young person has left school there is much more that we could do for him or her—this is something which has been stressed already by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This quotation should be of interest to your Lordships. It comes from a Report. sponsored by the Yorkshire Council of Social Services, called The Arts in Yorkshire. I quote:
"The paradox is that for some purposes the necessity of art is recognised and for others not. Our whole system of education is based on this belief. According to Sir William Emrys Williams, of £1,200 millions spent annually on education, a quarter is spent on training children to like and understand the arts, and six times more is spent on public libraries than all the arts. In the
458
schools it is considered vital to inculcate a feeling for music, dancing, drawing and drama. In the sacred name of education, hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on children, but when they leave school the tap is turned off almost completely".
Later on the Report says:
"A policy which says, in effect, We will spend money in abundance to instil a taste and appreciation of the arts while you are at school and university, and then after that you are on your own to make the best use of the education you have', is not in itself unreasonable. Unfortunately, it clearly has not worked. To experiment with some organisation which would ensure, as far as possible, that all the acquired taste and interest in the arts should not run to waste seems to us at least to be worth trying".
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that similar sentiments were expressed in this House during the recent debate on Sport. Surely here is another yawning gulf for the noble Lord, Willis, to groan at. It is just such yawning gulfs which must be bridged to promote closer contact between the generations.
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said. Not long ago we were trying to keep up with the noble Earl in his forceful thirties. Now that he is in his exuberant twenties the pace is quickening. What a "rave-up" we are going to haw when he hits his teens! A national scheme of encouragement to young people to undertake a period of social work should produce just the right kind of confidence in "playing a part in society". Encouragement on a national scale seems the most sensible course of action. I think teat any sort of conscription would prove impractical and even harmful. This is yet another bright wheeze brought to light by the noble Earl. I hope that it will be investigated.
Finally, surely some further unification of the youth movements should be carried out. This seems to be essential in any comprehensive policy towards youth and young people, but there is a danger of strangulation by bureaucracy here. If only we could increase the cohesion between Girl Guides and Outward Bounders, for instance, without any strangulation, then we should be making round. I am sorry to have spoken for so long. I hope that your Lordships do not feel that I have been talking outside the bounds of the Motion. In the first part of my speech I tried to interpret the reasons

459
why I feel out of touch with an older generation—indeed, I fear, with some of your Lordships. However, on this afternoon's form I have been pleasantly surprised to find much understanding of my plight. I came to look for understanding and to a certain extent I seem to have received it already. But in the broad sense I have not received an answer to my problem. I suppose that it is something, at least, to have had the problem understood.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he mind my asking a question? He has said that he has to go before the end of the debate, and I should not be able to refer to him when I am speaking then. So I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the proposer of this Motion, at all events, very much appreciated his speech?
LORD FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, very much indeed.
5.56 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those of others for the initiation of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, as also for the content of many of the propositions which have been advanced and for the advice which has been given, much of which seems to me to be admirable and will, I hope, be effective. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, how much I enjoyed his maiden speech, and I am glad of the opportunity it now gives me of repaying a debt of long standing. When I was a student I had the opportunity of going over one of his factories in St. Helens when I was on an evangelistic campaign, and I have been in continuous debt ever since for a number of sermons the illustrations of which have come directly out of that experience. I hope we shall hear the noble Lord many times in the future.
I approach this debate, this discussion, with a certain amount of diffidence, not lessened by listening to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. It was of course extravagant, much of it was preposterous, and all of it rather splendid. I, for one, feel the more diffident because I am aware of the gap in age that separates me from him. We
460
have been talking a great deal this afternoon about what we think we ought to do and others ought to do for youth. I wish we had more evidence from those nearer youth than I am as to what they themselves want. If they are a little inarticulate, as I think the noble Lord was at the beginning of his speech—which he might have modified had he been appreciative of all the points made by previous speakers—I am sure that in principle we have to listen much more to what youth is saying. I have tried that experiment. It is perhaps not the most suitable addiction of a preacher, but I was much gratified to find, when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made his peroration, how accurately, for me, he described some of the aspects of youth to which I was going to advert myself. I thought it was a most closely reasoned and an intimate expression of some of the characteristics of youth which need to be emphasised and to be borne in mind when we are presuming to think we have a duty to them and a responsibility for organising their lives, or at any rate setting their lives on a course suitable for their ultimate development.
I would select one thing the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said and add one of my own not adverted to yet, and speak briefly to both. I am quite sure there is a large, yawning gap of understanding between youth and age, and it probably is the more cavernous and larger to-day than it was in other generations, though this, I think, would be difficult to prove. There are, of course, natural and inevitable barriers between youth and age. Youth is not a homogeneous union, and it is as preposterous to try to speak of youth in terms of the "flower children" as in terms of the Empire Loyalists, with whom I was arguing on Tower Hill a few hours ago. They represent ends of the anode and cathode, perhaps, and between them is a vast array of youth, of heterogeneous impressions and attitudes, and to speak of youth as a whole is, I think, an impudence.
In youth is an inbuilt inability to understand age, as it may be true to say that age cannot understand youth. I remember Mark Twain's immortal comment that when he was a boy of 16 he was appalled at the ignorance of his

461
father, and at 25 he was amazed at how much the old man had picked up in the meantime. That is a very sapient comment, and I am quite sure that to try to persuade youth to understand age or authority or the powers-that-be is in many cases a waste of time.
But when these caveats have been entered, two impressions that are strongly in my own mind about contemporary youth emerge. One is that the permissive society, of which they claim to be members and which they energise, has within in an ambivalence: it has both a good and a bad quality. The bad quality, I suppose, is in the irresponsibility that attaches to much that we call sexual prudence or responsibility, and the other is the reaction referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the reaction to the predominant kind of sanction that is apparent in the authoritarian society which they reject, repudiate and are up in arms against. Some become anarchists; some become "flower children"; others say, "Let us love and not go to war". And all of them have this hearty dislike of, and deeper resentment against, the amount and the prevalence of violence which has now been introduced into their drawing rooms and is always there on television, against which they react most violently, and which they feel is an affront to them.
I think this is a characteristic of modern youth; and I make no bones about it. So far as I am concerned I think they are justified in looking out with the jaundiced view which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, hoping that they will live to the age of 50 but wondering whether this is a feasible proposition.
The other aspect of modern youth to which nobody has referred as yet, though to me it seems to be sticking out a mile, is the much-increased secularisation of youth to-day. I will not go into a long and dismal tale about the failure of the churches, but it is true that most youth to-day does not even know the name of the church it stays away from. In past generations people at least—and particularly in the North of England made periodic visits to places which they did not normally attend for worship. There are no nostalgias of religious memories, no hymns learnt at the mother's knee, no passages from the Bible learnt by heart,
462
no attendance at Sunday school, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made reference. None of that is in the vocabulary or experience of a great deal of what we call "modern youth". Consequently—and to me this is inevitable—there is the decay and disappearance either of the authority or of the taboo of religious moral teaching; and, as I see it, practically nothing has taken its place.
I would heartily agree that modern youth is no worse—and probably no better—than the youth of other generations. We never have enough assessable information to come to a conclusion about this. I have no part whatsoever in the attitude of people to-day that youth is going to the bad, but I rejoice in the evidences of idealism and enterprise which are to be found everywhere. These are two characteristics of the contemporary youth situation, and I want to refer to both of them, and, in the case of the first, in the light of the proposition that has been put to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I agree with him. I do not believe we have stressed sufficiently the sense of community for youth, and I think we are overanxious to preserve what, after all, is an academic proposition which we call "liberty". I see no reason why there should not be, in the interests of youth, and particularly in the interests of group A of division 2 in the right reverend Prelate's observations about the categories of youth, a compulsory service enjoined upon youth as a continuation of that compulsory education to which it is already committed. Children are compulsorily sent to school. I wonder how many of your Lordships would have gone to school voluntarily if there had been any choice in the matter? I doubt whether I should have gone.
I seen no final retribution in personal character and no final diminution in personal spirit which has come about as a result of children being sent to school. If they are sent to school up to the age of 14, 15 or 16; and if indeed it is 16, why not send them for another year to that extra-mural school where the) will learn just as much outside the desk, and probably more in civics than they have learned by the "three Rs" in their more sedentary occupations up to that time. A fig for this idea that we

463
are destroying some inalienable liberty of youth when we compel young people to fit themselves, at a time when they are not so disposed to do it, for the freedom that later in their lives they will exercise only if that discipline has been imposed upon them!
Secondly, I have heard certain noble Lords express their fears that if we compel youth to accept service for the community, the building of roads and that sort of community work, we shall destroy their initiative. This seems to me to be grotesque. By that token it would mean the destruction of the initiative of the soldier who was conscripted. This was the prime argument of those who were opposed to Communism. They said that those who were directed into the various activities of the Communist régime would become Volga boatmen, and as lazy and useless. I remember when the Dynamo football team visited these shores, and we said with alacrity and conviction that they would be no good against our teams, and would speedily be beaten by the virile Arsenal team. They played against Arsenal, and they lost; they went up North and they did not do any better. They went up and played against Glasgow Rangers, who took the precaution of bringing in three other internationals to swell their ranks, with the same result. We said, "This is a proletarian activity; they will be no good at the more refined sports." They came the next year to Henley, and they went back with the Grand Challenge Cup.
I see nothing wrong in the virility and enthusiasm which can be promoted among youth by the kind of community direction to which the noble Lord referred, although it will need careful treatment on two grounds. I am a pacifist and should have no use whatsoever for conscription for war; and I should have no use for that kind of conscription for the community which might be misdirected in a time of war and might be the pre-condition of an armed body which would be ready and waiting. That would not suit me a bit. But in principle I do not believe we shall recover a great deal of the youthful enthusiasm which is now latent and dormant unless we administer the kind of educational system which includes, not only for the first year of a boy
464
or girl's life, the secondary occupation of schooling, but goes on to that equally important aspect of education, the formation of those attitudes and the sense of responsibility for the civic community in which that child will grow up and live.
I want to say one other thing. There has lately been criticism in the Press that when parsons talk about contemporary matters they do not mention religion. I may be very inept in what I am going to say, but at least I shall not be accused of that omission. One of the ways in which the community can be served is that part of the public life of this country is still the Christian Church, and if we are ranging over a wide area in this debate, as we are, it seems ridiculous to exclude the ready-to-hand opportunities for community service which still exist within the Church. It seems to me that those of us who believe in the Church, and those who are members of it (and in your Lordships' House there are many such; and many fervent believers), whatever the denomination, would be failing in our responsibility if we did not recognise that the gulf between this secular youth and organised Christianity or religion in general, ought to be bridged. I do not think that we parsons will bridge it, particularly the older ones of us, by stringing guitars around our necks, wearing our hair long, holding a pot of beer in our hand and trying to get "with it". We are without it, and we shall never get it. I see no point in this at all; in fact, it rather disgusts me. I think there is a recognisable bridge which has already been referred to in this debate. Let me briefly rehearse it.
I took part some months ago in an OXFAM demonstration in Trafalgar Square. I was the only cleric among a number of obviously very secular people, and one of the speakers was a young gentleman I had never met before, called Michael Same. He sings or twitches, or does something, and is very popular; and when he got up to speak he said, "I haven't the slightest idea what I am going to say about OXFAM; I have not thought about it yet"—incidentally, I should have been more impressed by that remark if I had not seen his notes, but I was impressed by what he said after his introductory comment. It was this: that he believed in the feeding of

465
the hungry; that youth ought to be contributing to the peace of the world. He said that, as I have done, he has sat down and stood up and walked around for C.N.D. In fact, had he been applying for candidature as a preacher in the local Methodist church I would have enrolled him at once. But he said that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the organised Church, no use for religion at all and no use for organised religion.
Alongside the metaphysical refusal to accept the principles of organised Christianity I believe there is a wider acceptance of the moral principles of the Sermon on the Mount than in any previous age I have come across in my reading and in the historical records available to us. When we think of C.N.D. and OXFAM, and that magnificent piece of social work, Voluntary Service Overseas, and when I recollect, as a working parson, how the opportunities within the Church multiply, the pioneer work, the particular work with which I am engaged among alcoholics and the response made by youth to the needs of these miserable people, here is the rehabilitation of the true essence of Christianity, here is the opportunity to turn the Church into a workshop of a better community which we should prefer to call the Kingdom of God.
Therefore, alongside the other things to be taken into account, the raising of the school age, all these magnificent voluntary suggestions, I would support the investigation of the possibility of extending the compulsory discipline of education to another year outside the mural requirements implied in what we call school. Above all, in this secular age those who have lost touch with the Church have not lost touch with those ideals to which the Church is consecrated, and, if we are prepared to recognise it, here is a splendid opportunity of mobilising these young people. Let us not be afraid if their theology does not subscribe to our meticulous standards. Let us thank God and press on.
6.12 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we are in the middle of one of the most interesting debates in your Lordships' House, and I have listened with the greatest interest to all the speeches made so far. We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Robert
466
son of Oakridge, for inaugurating the debate. I think he must be glad that he did so, since so many people with so many points of view have taken part. I would say one word of congratulation to my colleague Lord Pilkington. He and I have been members, and still are, of the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, which is one that has done quite a lot of work for youth, and I would say how glad I was to hear him at this time on this subject and to congratulate him. I know how enthusiastic he is on this and many other subjects and I am sure we shall hear him often.
I listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Feversham. This seemed to me to be a completely unique contribution to your Lordships' debate and one which I am sure we all value very much indeed. His description of the technological Armageddon was a very terrifying one. I tried to see whether in my own experience with young people I had ever met it in that way. Perhaps I am not fitted to meet it in the way he has described, but I found it difficult to follow him very far. I have a great number of close friends and relations of his and younger ages, and I do not think I have ever found myself in the position he described. I may be lucky, and he may represent the majority of people; I do not know. However, whatever he said I shall read with great interest, and I am also very interested that he should have had the courage to get up and say what he said in the way he said it in your Lordships' House. This of all the Parliamentary institutions is the one in which we feel we can say most freely what we think, and I believe Lord Feversham certainly did so this afternoon.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has asked for comments on his scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, made some comment on it, and made some other comments towards the end of his speech with which I agree. I must say at once that I am—I was going to say "passionately"; perhaps that is too strong a word—opposed to any form of compulsory service in the way in which Lord Arran or Lord Soper described it. I should not be opposed, and was not opposed, to National Service for military purposes. I am not a pacifist, and if that is the way in which our nation has to be served in

467
war time or in pre-war time, that is a genuine, honest to God necessity to which, both for men and women, I should not be opposed. I was not opposed in the war and I should not be opposed if it had to be brought in again. It has not had to be brought in again, and I should be passionately opposed to bringing it in by a subterfuge, as a form of discipline that young people should be subjected to because we do not like what they like after they leave school or university.
I believe strongly that in the Youth Service we are dealing with the free time of young people; we are dealing with time which is their own, in which they can do what they like. That is the essential point, it seems to me, of the Youth Service. It is the leisure time activities of young people, which can be wisely spent and very often is wisely spent, but can also be unwisely spent and wasted; but it is their decision to make. Those activities which I believe to be within the cover, so to speak, of the Youth Service should be on a voluntary basis, and young people should be able and allowed to choose what they want to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, said, there are a great many young people who do not want to join any organisation at all. Why should they? They are free; they can do what they want to do. It depends on one's inclination. There are some people who like joining in community activities, some lone souls who prefer to lead their lives independently. I believe they should be allowed to do so. I am opposed passionately to any kind of compulsion on the leisure time of young people.
What should the Youth Service do? I believe it should offer opportunities on a very wide range of subjects for all young people—on sports, games and outdoor activities, but on all other kinds of activities; on art, skills with the hand, and any interest which young people want. We should be able to provide that within the club or the community centre or the organisation to which the young person may belong. But there should also be—and this must not be left out, in my opinion—opportunity to do very little, or even nothing at all, if that is what young people want to do. Let us not forget that while it is perfectly true that some young people may be still at
468
school and carrying on with further education, we are dealing in the main in the Youth Service with young people who are out at work from 9 to 5.30, involved in industrial training, and they are very often tired; they often attend night schools and technical classes after their working hours. They want not only to take part in a great many activities, but also to have the chance to rest and talk and chat and sit about with their friends, much in the way that many of us do in the more privileged conditions in which we are fortunate to live.
I do not think that the Youth Service should be at all stereotyped or have any pattern laid down. Every generation of young people is different from the other, and each generation has to be looked at with a fresh eye. They come and go very quickly; generations change with great rapidity, and fashions change, too, and it is that, the essence of the change of taste and the change of fashion and variety, that our Youth Service should provide for. It is not a substitute for a formal education, and it could not really be equated with the school curriculum and the compulsory education service, but it should be integrated as far as possible with that service.
What the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about secondary schools and secondary education is, I think, absolutely true. I know of one experiment which is taking place—I think it was Lord Hunt who mentioned Alexander Clegg—in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where a new school is being built on to an existing building but as a separate wing. It is a youth centre which is to be run by the West Riding Youth Club organisations, but in close proximity to and in co-operation with the secondary school. I am sure that this experiment will be a success, and I hope that it may be followed up.
The Albemarle Report is, if I may say so, a landmark in the Youth Service. I am one of the hoary old characters in this work, because I was on the first Youth Service Committee which was ever appointed, way back in 1939. I recognise that what was done by Lady Albemarle and her Committee gave a tremendous impetus to the Youth Service, first of all because she had the ear of the local education authorities. In the days when I started we were only trying to begin to convince them that there was anything

469
that they could do. The amount of money and encouragement which was given as a result of that Report was simply splendid.
Everybody has said something about his own experience. Perhaps I may say a word about an organisation of which I know, and what the Albemarle Report did for that organisation—it is only one of 14 or 15. The one I know best is a club organisation, the National Association of Youth Clubs, whose chairman I was for many years. To-day there are in that organisation 267,000 members and 3,271 clubs. That is an enormous increase: it is 50 per cent. more than it was when I was chairman some 15 years ago. There are 6,000 men and women leaders. They are not professional leaders, but leaders with some training or other, and there are 9,000 voluntary helpers. The impetus which was given by the Albemarle Report went right through all the youth organisations. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would say the same about the Y.M.C.A., in which he has so close an interest.
Now there is a fear that the squeeze in education costs will hit the youth organisations, just at the time when they are providing splendid activities for young people. I have read of the money which the Government are providing for the new Young Volunteer Force Foundation. I was most interested in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us about that foundation, and I am sure we all hope that it will meet with success. But I should like to say one thing; namely, that it will not succeed unless it has the good will of the local authorities and the local youth organisations, because, as I understand it, it is not going to be an organisation starting its own youth movement but is to be one to help those people who want to give voluntary service and those organisations that are already giving it.
I greatly hope that it will realise that unless it is based in localities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, has a real local interest and leaves behind it a real local interest, when the young people who are employed in that organisation go away their work will disappear. It must be done on the basis of the local authorities and also of local interests and local voluntary organisations. I hope it will not mean that those organisa
470
tions which are already doing that kind of work will not be supported in the same way as they have been in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke of the Voluntary Service Overseas Organisation. I agree entirely with what he said. That and services operating here need money. A little money will help them a great deal, and I hope that the new organisation will not supersede, or try to supersede, what they are already doing.
In my opinion, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has done more work than almost anyone, certainly in your Lordships' House, in the provision of new ideas in youth organisation. I believe he is still President of the N.A.Y.C. He led three expeditions of young people, the first, in 1960, to North-East Greenland; then in 1963 to the Pindus Mountains in Greece, and then in 1965 to Czechoslovakia and Poland. These expeditions provided not only tests of endurance and enterprise, but also resulted in community work in villages and elsewhere in the countries that they went to. There are a great many adventure courses in the United Kingdom. There are the great tests and schemes under the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which is proving tremendously successful. I confess to being a little doubtful about it when it started, but I take off my hat to the work that has been done through that organisation. These are all things that prove that we are doing a great deal.
Listening to some of the speeches here to-day, to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and of some other noble Lords, I feel that it is not realised how much is being done at this moment. There is one particular scheme which is being carried out by clubs. It is in the nature of a residential training course for able-bodied young men and women, girls and boys, and also severely handicapped young men and women. These courses were started some years ago by the National Association of Youth Clubs. They are courses, not with the weak helping the strong, or the strong helping the weak, but courses in which these two groups of people learn, on the level together, many of the skills in which they can all share whether or not they are handicapped. So successful are the courses that this year there are no fewer than ten throughout the country. I was interested to learn yesterday that

471
two are to be held, one in Paris and one in Berlin, to demonstrate to young people in those two capitals what can be done in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke of the problems of drug addiction, alcoholism and so on. I can only say about that that I think the Press make the most of it. I believe the publicity given to these matters is most detrimental. In many cases a lot of remarkable rehabilitation work is being done. With the help and co-operation of the education authorities and the voluntary societies, the community and the churches, I believe that, anyway with young people, this may be only a passing phenomenon.
There is, however, a problem about which I should like to hear more from the Government. It is the problem of how to integrate the young immigrants coming into the community. I believe that if we could get some schemes going in relation to the age we are talking about, since there is much less prejudice among young people than there is among older people this would be most valuable. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what has been the outcome of the recommendations of the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which was made only last year? I wonder whether or not it is possible to get small grants, especially in relation to integrating the immigrants into areas where this help is most needed. Here is a way in which the Government can help, having the good will of voluntary organisations.
Then there are problems which we have read about, but which I think are now much better than they were, of hooliganism and of breaking up trains, and so on. It is the rather older age groups who do that. We had the problem of the "Mods" and the "Rockers" of two or three years ago. We do not hear very much about them. One of the reasons is that there have been successful experiments with youth club leaders and helpers going to areas where these disagreeable things are happening and, with the help of the police and the local authorities, providing rough accommodation for sleeping, eating and talking—and it is important to be able to talk people out of their exhibitionist behaviour rather than that they should engage in all this
472
rowdyism—stories which the Press are only too anxious to get hold of.
I should like to put in a word for training of all kinds—holiday camps, summer schools in art, contemporary design, theatre workshop, all the types of training courses which are of interest to the young to-day. The variety of these activities provided by voluntary organisations is tremendous. I hope that they will continue and that the Government will support them with money and with other help.
One of the things which came out of the Albemarle Report was the setting up of the Leicester Training College and the establishment of proper standards for youth leadership training and employment. An excellent job has been done, but it is now more than time that the emergency course established at Leicester was converted into a permanent and approved course. It has been suggested that it should be of two or three years' duration with educational and social science facilities. If there is any further delay in the establishment of this professional course on a permanent basis, it will frustrate recruitment, and furthermore the maintenance of a good staff in the college will be difficult. If it is thought that the training of youth leaders in this year of 1968 is only an emergency and not a permanent professional job, then people will not come into the profession in sufficient numbers and of the right quality so as to expand youth work throughout the country as I should like to see it expanded. One of the successes of the voluntary training courses which have been carried out by many organisations is the fact to-day one finds among the ranks of professional youth leaders many club members who have graduated from their great interest in clubs to the professional training courses. They are now established professional leaders in many areas throughout the country.
To sum up, the Youth Service is a vital part of the education and training of young people, not on a compulsory basis but on a voluntary basis; and with the temporary postponement of the school leaving age it is more important than ever. It is both an effective scheme and an economical one, Such public money as is spent is matched from private resources and it often returns double its value in regard to work and response

473
throughout the organisation. I very much hope—and I urge this upon the Government with all the persuasion I can command—that whatever cuts are borne by the Youth Service such cuts will be minimal, and that the generosity of the private individuals and companies who support this work will continue. The Youth Service has always been of enormous importance, and I feel that to-day it is more important than ever before.
6.34 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to join the other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for initiating this debate. It has served to underline the need for a more comprehensive policy towards the youth of the nation and to show that this need is urgent. I should like also to congratulate a friend of long standing, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for his thoughtful and constructive maiden speech. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, when he says that there is much good will in young people to-day, which is not given proper expression and which is looking for an outlet. This seems to me to sum up the kind of problem which most of the speeches to-day have been attempting to resolve.
Some would agree that there are more outlets for young people than there were. I believe this to be the case, and I believe that the improvements in education over the last twenty years are in large measure responsible for this, as also is the initiative given to this matter by the work which was done in the Albemarle Report. There is a growing variety of opportunities available to young people for their interest and leisure and also to enable them to use their gifts and energies to serve other people at home and overseas. There were, of course, counterparts of this activity in the past, but the form which service by youth takes at present is a relatively new phenomenon. Yet all the evidence goes to show that far more young people would like to take part in these activities if they could be shown where they are needed, and that the giving of service is satisfying to young people themselves and also to those whose needs are being met. This was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
474
Some people wish that National Service could be reintroduced—not for military, but for social and community needs, and that it should be introduced for young people of both sexes. They recall the benefits that National Military service gave. I submit that these benefits were probably greatest for those who were commissioned. They had more responsibility and more to do, and the benefits were widely recognised in the universities in the years immediately after the last war. But, in retrospect, it is easy to idealise the National Service of those days. It is easy to forget the failures—the young men who were frustrated and fed up by being made to endure discipline without being given anything worth while to do and who felt, often justifiably, that they were wasting their time. Any reimposition of a compulsory National Service for all young people, as such, would to my mind be neither palatable nor practicable. But I believe that it is not beyond practical possibilities to provide scope for worthwhile service for all our young people as an essential part of, and built into, their educational up-bringing. The kind of compulsion to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred is, to my mind, utterly different from that of National Military Service. It is rather a matter of extension of educational provision. This can be achieved without involving the odium of compulsion, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, referred.
Before I attempt to develop this theme, let me say that service is precisely what is wanted by young people who are growing to maturity. Naturally and properly they want it, even though they may be somewhat suspicious of the. word "service". This was illustrated by the 14 year old Merseyside boy who, when he was asked to mend an old lady's iron, said, "I don't hold with this service stuff. Just give me a job to do." Young people want to prove their glowing abilities. They need to be needed, to take some constructive share in the life of society, to contribute to it and to be involved. I believe that to have some experience of service at about the time that their schooling finishes—and this will be all the more opportune when the school leaving age is raised to 16—should come to be regarded as an essential ingredient of their education, testing

475
and giving active expression to what they have learnt in school. It is this type of opportunity which again and again can be seen to make the world of difference to a young person. It helps him to see through other people's eyes as well as his own and draws him into a sense of responsibility and of belonging to the community as a whole. As Lear said:
"Expose thyself to feel as others feel".
Although much lip-service is paid to the organisations which are providing opportunities for service by youth—and much credit is due to those efforts—such opportunities are in effect denied to all but a small minority of our young people. I am sure we need to think of this matter on an entirely different scale than has been the case hitherto—in terms not of hundreds of young persons or even of thousands, but of tens of thousands.
The value to the individual and to the receiving end of Voluntary Service Overseas has been amply vindicated, and some reference to this has been made in this debate. Of course, the fact of its being overseas is a great attraction. It is not surprising that far more young people are keen to offer themselves than can be given places. I am thinking here, in particular—and here I agree most wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, said in this respect—of the younger volunteers, the school leavers and apprentices of 17, 18 or 19, rather than the graduate or professionally qualified young adults. It is natural enough that, for the type of remote places in which many V.S.O.s are placed, particular care must be given to selection.
But we should be thinking of the range of tasks which will make service open to any young person without selection. There is one organisation—and to this the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, referred—Community Service Volunteers, founded five years ago by Mr. Alec Dickson, which can be cited to show that such an aim is less fanciful than one might at first suspect. Community Service Volunteers claims never to have turned away any young person who offered his or her service. The staff never ask the question whether a young person can be used. They immediately address themselves to the question: How can this young person be used—and
476
where? It is a matter of allocation, not of selection.
Some of those who enrol are not really volunteers in the strict sense of the term. They may have been sent by a sponsoring body. This I believe is the case, for instance, for a number of police cadets. If as sometimes happens a conscript is not altogether enthusiastically imbued with the idea of spending some months' service, it is unlikely that he will be talked into a more cheerful mood by a member of the staff. But it is the situation which confronts him which can transform his attitude, and sometimes that transformation takes place in a matter of weeks or months, or even days, after starting his assignment. For if a young person comes face to face with looking after thalidomide children without legs or arms, he gets on with the job and it is this that reconciles him to it, and makes him realise that he is on to something that really matters. We need to present a boy or girl with opportunities of urgent significance.
Every volunteer, or indeed young person directed into a job of service, hopes in his heart of hearts for just one thing; namely, that the warden of the old people's home, or the matron of the hospital where he is appointed to serve, or indeed the particular people with whom he is serving, will in some way or another indicate, "You are just the person that we want. Thank God you have come." If there are to be places for tens of thousands, this will require, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, has already suggested, some restructuring of the social services in such a manner as will make use of the contribution which young people can give. I would also most assuredly add, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has suggested, the contribution and the co-operation and the initiative which the churches can give to this.
It seems absurd to close the ward of a hospital because of staff shortage, when there are boys or girls who have it in them to do much of the work that is needed, or some of the work that is needed, provided that they are wisely allocated and provided that they have the guidance of trained staff. This means a reassessment of how you make use of the trained staff. Instead of having a

477
mental ward with two or three orderlies in charge, you could have several youngsters under the care of a trained orderly. And let no one assume that young people cannot undertake work of this kind. Experience shows that some of them certainly can.
The intake of large numbers of young amateurs in a professional service was precisely what happened in 1939, when something like a quarter of a million young men were called up under the Militia Act for military service. What happened, in effect, was that the professionals, the Regulars, became the trainers of the large influx of new recruits. The privates, or many of them, became corporals, the corporals became sergeants, and so on. If professionals feel that they are being diluted by amateurs, not unnaturally their hackles begin to rise. But if, on the other hand, they see themselves with a training responsibility towards the amateurs, their status is enhanced and not diminished.
It is, of course, essential that the intake of young people into various forms of social service should not be considered simply from the point of view of the good that it will do to the young people. It must be real needs that should be met, not artificial projects contrived to keep them busy. If the headmaster of an understaffed secondary modern school in a depressed area were offered 15 sixth formers, it would mean that his trained teachers, saddled with the problem of coping with far too large classes, would have one or two assistants. Leave alone the benefit to young people, I am convinced that the country is losing much by not harnessing the energies of young people where they can be used to real advantage. What is required is constructive new thinking at the receiving end of the social services, and for this to take place Government initiative is required embodying the co-ordination of many Government Departments. New patterns of service by young people could then be developed which would bring help to those in need, relief to hard-pressed existing staffs, invaluable experience to young people themselves, and new insights into what can be achieved through their service in the field of social work.
I am not unaware of the problems which could arise in an operation on this scale, or the delicacy and care with which
478
it would need to be planned and carried out. Of course, any form of service, whether by young or old, involving as it does personal relationships, requires careful planning and careful implementation. It is all the more necessary to make use of the research already undertaken and the experience gained; and a number of organisations have valuable information to offer. But if I may refer once again to Community Service Volunteers, in the five years in which they have experimented in this field they have, so far as I am aware, never antagonised the authorities with which they have negotiated in placing young people for service in new situations; and sometimes in situations which could not before have been envisaged as being possible for young people to help in. Head teachers, trade union officials, borstal governors, matrons of hospitals, local authorities, are some of the authorities in question and chat I believe is no mean achievement. The experience already gained cannot easily be discounted or discarded, for the good will which exists could easily be prejudiced by misguided enthusiasm, unwise allocation of young people, or lack of proper care and planning and of explanation in negotiation.
But if the expansion of service by young people is to be on a national scale, as I contend that it should be, as a passage from school to employment or further education, the tasks would not be limited to the social services as these are at present understood. Thousands of young people would be able and happy to use their hands in constructional tasks which are of positive value to the community. Already some hundreds of local volunteers have been involved in reclamation work in areas of industrial dereliction in the North-East of England and in the Rhondda Valley; and, indeed, in reclaiming the old Kennet and Avon Canal. This type of service could be widely expanded. It can be made exciting and it can create a sense of achievement by, for instance, converting what is tawdry and useless into what is attractive and functionally useful. I do not deny that the financing and organising of such a scale of service by young people would be other than complex and formidable, but I do not believe that it is either impossible or impracticable, and I believe that it is eminently desirable.

479
My contention, briefly, is that part of the normal education for all our young people should in due course of time include a period of service to the community at the end of their schooling. I would not wish to stipulate the length of time which this should cover, but would hope that it would be not less than nine months. Strong arguments can be adduced to claim that the break and delay before entering employment, technical college or university would be more than offset by the benefits gained by the young people during their period of service and by their contribution in later, adult life. The service given could have great intrinsic value to the nation as a whole, as well as providing a vital and therapeutic element in the development of a responsible sense of citizenship among our young people. The first step is to explore and open up a wide range of fields of activity adequate to claim the service of all the young people of the nation, with their varying aptitiudes. This is not a plea for compulsory National Service: it is a plea for a period of service to the community as an essential ingredient in the later stages of the education of all our young people, and I would earnestly ask the Government to give their most serious consideration to such a proposition.
6.53 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I feel rather depressed at getting up to speak to your Lordships because my contribution can only be extremely pedestrian, and after the extraordinarily good speeches we have heard, and the wonderful debate that has taken place, I feel sad that I cannot give more. Like everybody else, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge, for having introduced the subject at all. I am not sure how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for I am sure that his stimulation to thought will keep me awake, and I rather like my sleep. But I hope that what I have to bring to this debate is something practical.
Other people have said in a variety of ways that the youth of the country is ready to serve, but I would go further. I would say from my own experience that more young are ready to serve than have ever served before, and that they are
480
ready to serve in a greater variety of ways. What I am sad about is how little is known of how much is being done, and I wonder how this difficulty could be overcome. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that not enough was being done quickly enough, and I would join with him in this and say that this is really the most serious question at the moment, because the young are impatient, and if not enough is done quickly enough then there may be a loss of a great deal of good will which is very prevalent at the moment.
My experience is that youth likes a challenge; something a bit more than any work which so many of us give them—work for the aged, work for this, that or the other. In declaring my own interests in the W.R.V.S., I would say that we use tens of thousands of young people on Meals-on-Wheels and other very similar projects, and I believe that youth should have something very much more challenging than the repetitive work that that sort of thing engenders. Local organisations and bodies, up and down the country, have done and are doing magnificent work. From Bath to Cumberland, from Cardiff to Aberdeen, and throughout the whole country, whether it be Merseyside or Sheffield, whether it be an outlying London borough or a Scottish small burgh—wherever it may be, I think it would be ungenerous for your Lordships, or indeed for the Government themselves, not to recognise the work of these local groups and what they are doing in the way of work camps or hospital work, work for disabled or special settlement experiments, whether it be for a new idea or for a very old ideal. This is the strength of the youth to-day; this is the strength of their work, and I feel it would be ungracious if we as a body did not recognise this to the full.
I believe that one of the things those of us who are working in the field feel very deeply is that equal opportunity of equal recognition should be given to all, whether it be the youth movements operating in one place or another or the long-established bodies, or the newly established local youth movements which are doing splendid and very outstanding work but so far have been sadly lacking in the way they make their reports. The subject we are discussing to-day is how

481
we can supply the demand for work by youth, and I believe this can be done only through the emergence of local organisations. This emergence should be fostered to the full, and all of us must keep in mind the whole time the fact that local pride must be supported, local enterprise must be assisted and local encouragement to the workers must be stimulated. The fact that an enormous amount of work is done also means an enormous amount of frustration in the preparation for the doing.
After the last debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, I felt very ashamed of myself. I thought I had not been progressive enough in this direction, and so I returned to my own colleagues and tried to get enthusiasm for a project to be given to youth without any of us appearing in it at all. I must say that some of my colleagues were very heavy to move, although they were not the heaviest in weight; and I found exactly the same thing at local level. Eventually we started the building of an indoor, heated swimming pool for one of the big mental hospitals. The job took about eighteen months, and it cost roughly £16,500. It would have cost about £2,500 more if the efforts of youth had not been invoked and used. But we did learn many lessons from it, and that is the only reason I dare interpolate anything of my own experience.
The first lesson we learnt was that it was foolish to try a big experiment as an initial start. This particular experiment needed a great deal of expertise, and therefore it was difficult to co-ordinate either the work or the gangs of youth working. The second thing we learnt was that if a plan is to succeed it must be simple, so that volunteers can do most of it. Otherwise, they get bored and fed up, and in consequence lose interest. The third thing was that the need has to be very obvious and explained to the people participating, and that results must be tangible and visible. The last thing was that youth should have a clear picture of the purpose of the project and for whose benefit they are giving their time, their skill and their energy. In addition to these lessons, we learnt that the person in charge must be young, must be able to call on specialist advisers, must have an understanding of the practical job and, as a
482
foreman, must be on the site the whole time. These lessons are valuable to remember, and although the cost of learning them is heavy, the sharing of any lesson learnt with other people is of extreme importance.
But something which is very seldom remembered and which can wreck the whole of a scheme is the fact that the first approach of the person in charge must be (with knowledge either from experience or advice) to the responsible statutory body. Unless one is en rapport with the statutory body the whole of the scheme can, come to naught. And it is very important subsequently to see those who are in final authority, the medical officer of health or the town clerk or whoever it may be. Not least is the need for encouragement and support which can be supplied by the older age group; if required they can also give advice and help. There will be inevitable breakdowns, and these should be noted so that the machinery which has broken down can be checked with other people and the same trouble avoided another time.
If young people are occasionally unreliable and show lack of continuity, this may happen when they are rather bored with the monotony of the tasks given to them and with the fact that they see no achievement individually and little or no chance of human contact. I cannot believe there is a single one of your Lordships—and I certainly know from my own past that there cannot be anyone—who has not at some time been unreliable or lacking in continuity. I do not feel this is a great sin on the part of the young who work in the way they do to-day. They obviously do not like being tied to repetitive tasks at regular intervals; but in whatever particular work they do they will learn self-discipline and a strength which is valuable to this nation, even though the teaching must be handled delicately and with great discretion.
I think that most young people do their best work as members of a group and working with their contemporaries, working independently of the older rather than as individuals under individual supervision. If possible they like to see a constant result of their own work. I do not think this is a habit

483
only of youth; but it is a very real component in getting work accepted by youth and done by youth. Always, however monotonous the purpose and value of what they have been seeking to do or the challenge given, it must be explained to them.
Much has been said this afternoon about clearing houses, and I would ask your Lordships to consider whether a clearing house mechanism has not a variety of component parts which must be considered. It has a very valuable part to play; but first, and of this I am quite convinced, it must have its various constituent bodies truly trusting it. It must win the confidence of the people or the bodies it is trying to co-ordinate. Such an organisation, wherever it may be or whatever it may not be, cannot successfully be both co-ordinating and also organising. It cannot be operational in the field and at the same time co-ordinating in the office. Co-ordination, as we know, needs delicate and diplomatic steering; while operation needs practical planning, on-the-spot action and expertise in its direction. The superimposing of plans and methods or ideas from outside or from any point of distance are never welcomed at local level. The idea that co-ordination or organisation is being introduced from outside can easily destroy any incipient local project.
A great many who work in the field of voluntary service have for a long time felt that the two, co-ordination and organisation, should never be undertaken by the same body; and I believe that the preoccupation of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in "not enough being done quickly enough" could be helped very much indeed if this basic principle could be considered and accepted. A great number of problems remain, of course, especially in the two-way lack of information between young people anxious to help and the statutory bodies who need help and do not know how to find it.
I cannot understand why everyone seems to reiterate that the local authorities should supply opportunities. In my experience—and I am sure in the experience of all noble Lords—opportunities have to be glimpsed and seized and not staged through a series of local authority committees at a distance of at least a month each, with the result that the
484
opportunity has been lost before it has really been seized. Local authorities and central Government will, to my mind, make a great stride forward if they can find a team of really dedicated, expert people to go out to the local bodies to advise, to help cut red tape and to clear the way. I am not ashamed to say that I am an optimist. I believe in the young people of the country and I pray that this debate may help towards keeping voluntary work as a contribution to the character of the nation.
7.6 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for providing an opportunity for this debate, I want to apologise to him and to others who will be following if I have to leave, as I must, to keep another appointment. We are grateful for this opportunity, and, indeed, as has been emphasised throughout, what we are really discussing to-day is, in fact, the gulf between the two generations. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, pleaded that there should be no war between the two generations; but I can assure your Lordships that we are in a state of armed neutrality. To me this is a matter of much greater concern than the gulf between the two cultures, about which my noble friend Lord Snow had written so eloquently: that is, between those in the humanities who regard scientists as illiterate and the scientists who regard those in the humanities as innumerate.
There is, unquestionably, between the two generations a gulf of perplexity. It is perfectly understandable and very difficult to resolve. I suggest that it is implicit in much of what the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, has said but also in what I make no apology for reiterating, that we are dealing with a unique generation. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, each and every one of them, here and everywhere in the world, has in his or her bones radiostrontium, a man-made by-product of atomic energy which did not exist before July 16, 1945. Medically it may be unimportant, but it would not have been if the bombing tests had gone on. It is minimal but very symbolic. It is the brandmark of a generation who were born into the atomic age, had their birth certificates registered by computer and whose Zodiacal sign was "Sputnik". This is a generation into which three great

485
epochs in a lifetime of 20 to 22 years have been compressed: the atomic age, the cybernetic age and the space age. Every one of them—even the most stupid in some ways—accepts these changes which even the best-informed of their elders are still grappling with in bewilderment. To children playing in their toy space suits "g" became not a rocking horse but the gravitational pull of the earth; and my grandson, at the age of 5, was lisping in "mach numbers".
I doubt whether this generation is unduly impressed by the feats of the astronauts because they have not yet overtaken Dan Dare. None of them is impressed by speeds of 17,500 miles an hour. But we are talking about a generation which recognises what some of us ourselves do not fully recognise: that this is indeed a very small world, a tiny neighbourhood, a world around which, on Sir Bernard Lovell's latest count, 750 man-made satellites are now gyrating 16 times a day, a world in which no place is inaccessible and where "pop" music, whether we like it or not, has produced a strident solidarity of youth everywhere. Do not let us underestimate that.
My Lords, I do not find anything but encouragement in all this for the future, but it does and must produce a discordancy in the present, because the generation which is still running the world is not on the same wavelength Our communications with the younger generation are scrambled; we do not think in the same idiom. I do not mean merely vocabulary, I do not mean "square" and "cool" and "grooved" and "flower power". I mean the semantics of rapid change which they completely accept. I have had a great deal to do with young people all over the world and particularly in this country. I have spoken in my time to tens of thousands. I have marched with them, as has my noble friend Lord Soper, from Aldermaston. I have been inspired by them in the Council for Education in World Citizenship. I have seen them in action as volunteers overseas and in work camps. Without being mawkish, I would say that I sit at the feet of my own children and listen to them with respect when they talk about the problems of their world. I am an upside-down guru who has let his own students teach him.
486
I sympathise with them and I agonise with them. Generalisations are always dangerous, but I would say that the tragedy of the young people in the 1950s was that they did not believe they had a future: the bomb was going to put paid to all that. I want to emphasise what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about that. To-day I hope and believe that they are "over the hump", and they think there is a future. But they do not like the future which they see. They are not cynics, they are frustrated idealists—every one of them. They are confused, but only because their world is confused. They are adventurous, but they want adventure with a purpose. They belong to the age group, let us remember, from which 28 years ago, came "the few "who did so much for so many; but we have not yet offered them a moral alternative to war.
This, my Lords, I insist, is the most maligned generation in history. We put Gestapo-like klieg lights on there; we psycho-analyse them; we Gallup-Poll them and expose them on television. We slander a whole generation by concentrating on the outrageous behaviour of a very small minority. We treat them all as juvenile delinquents. We deplore the freedom which we have given them. We regret our permissiveness, when anyone who has had any experience of them knows that behind the bravado they want understanding and guidance: not leadership, in the old sense of regimenting, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, has just said, the insight and sense to know that they are in fact doing things for themselves.
I speak with a great deal of conviction from my own experience. I have been a professor in a university which recently had world-wide publicity as a place of "pop" and "pills". Nothing could better demonstrate my contentions here. The Rector, or the late Rector, Malcolm Muggeridge, taking advantage of the pulpit of St. Giles, slandered a body of 8,000 students. He melodramatically resigned as Rector on a pretext which, even on the facts he produced, was not justified. I do not want to expand on what is required of a Rector, I would merely say how utterly, utterly, out of touch with his students he was. My experience is entirely contrary to what he professed, and utterly belies his generalisations.

487
My Lords, I am Chairman of the Council of the Edinburgh University Settlement. Your Lordships will be familiar with the settlement principle, which is essentially student involvement in the community life of the town around. Our settlement works with youth groups in the town and with what some would regard as potential delinquents; with patients discharged from mental hospitals; with the down-and-outs and with the aged. I would say that we deal with the "tall-outs" of the Welfare State. In this university settlement at Edinburgh we have on stand-by 500 or 600 students available to go into places where other people will not go, where even tradesmen will not go. They go in and clean out derelict homes and the like, and they work with people with whom others would not be prepared to work, even if we paid them to do so.
In connection with our work in the University we have an International Service Centre. Every day we have students coming there wanting and seeking service overseas. There is nothing wrong with the young generation, and particularly there is nothing wrong with the student generation in the University of Edinburgh. What is lacking is what has been emphasised here so repeatedly to-day. We lack the means by which we can give them the opportunity to do the things they want to do. We lack the opportunity to give them adventure with a purpose.
I agree with the noble Baroness that in fact the jobs we try to impose on them are not necessarily, because of their monotony, what they want. But they are prepared to do a stint if it will lead to something they do want. In the same way it has been said, rather wisely, that perhaps we ought to make voluntary service overseas a reward for the dedicated service they could give in community service here. I believe there is something in that. Meanwhile, for goodness' sake! let us increase the opportunities overseas at the same time as we try to work out in this country some means by which we can direct what I believe to be their absolute, genuine idealism and their determination to be idealistic, until we make them cynics. If we can provide them with the opportunities we shall be doing something, as
488
has been emphasised in this debate, for the country and something which will in fact be our greatest possible asset. This is the biggest investment we are making—our living generation, our new generation, and it is a generation of whom we can without any reservation be quite and unmistakably proud.
I honestly believe that in their inside feeling, and indeed in the expansion of their vision to the world, the youngsters of to-day are a generation more in line, more sympathetic, certainly to the problems of other people, than any generation which has ever existed in history. We must do something about that. I cannot entirely follow the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I do so rather in the spirit of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. This is not a new idea, if I may say so. It is an idea which has been running for a long time, and here I give him his point. Hundreds and hundreds of young people, mostly students, have come to me and said, "Why do we not have a new form of national service?" I am all for a new form of national service. I believe that by what I would call "citizen cadets", we could be preparing people for life. That is indeed an extension of our education. I stop short at conscription, but not because I have profound reservations. I have seen this working in Israel where, beyond the "square bashing", every young person who has been conscripted can opt to do part of that service in other ways. That is how the great development work—or, at any rate, a considerable part of it—of desert recovery in Israel has been possible. So I am not hesitating about words.
What I am hesitating about is how we can produce the machinery for doing it. I am not giving people the excuse to get out of the idea; I am saying that before we can produce, or even expect to impose (if that is the word) compulsory service, we must have the means to absorb. The great weakness to-day is not, I assure your Lordships, a shortage of volunteers. We cannot absorb, we cannot use, what we have. If we went out and recruited more of them, we should be in even greater difficulties. What we need is a systematic expansion of new ideas consistent with their own, not something like cleaning up the back shop, but things that they want to do. If

489
we are to have national service in a total sense, we have to create beforehand the means by which we can exercise this service.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords,
do I take it that the noble Lord is not against the conception of national service, but is pointing out that the physical facilities are not available?
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I am certainly not against the conception of such a service. I have tried to promote this in international terms. I am not against it. Whether or not we apply the word "compulsory" is mere quibbling, because the stage comes when because enough people are doing it, we must ask everyone to do it. At the moment, what we have to do is to create the means by which we get on to the wavelength of this generation and create new, imaginative, adventurous organisations entirely consistent with social and humanitarian service all over the world.
7.22 p.m.
LORD DUNLEATH: My Lords, in view of the number of speakers this evening and the wealth of knowledge and experience which has been brought to bear, I shall omit much of what I had originally planned to say. I shall also try to resist the temptation to link my thoughts with what other noble Lords have said because this would occupy too much time. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I shall confine myself to recording one or two experiences that I have had while working with young men, mostly in their late teens and early twenties, and try briefly to draw one or two conclusions therefrom.
I feel that I must apologise in advance because what I am going to say will be on a much lower level than the erudite contributions which we have heard so far. My limited field of experience is the Territorial Army, and to a smaller extent the Army Cadet Force. At this stage, perhaps it would be proper for me to declare my interest. I am still a serving officer in A.V.R.3, and I have the honour to command the North Irish Force, which has centres in Belfast and Londonderry. My personal interest therefore is considerable, though my financial interest has not been so strong since April 1 of last year. That, as your Lordships may recall, was the date on
490
which a major reorganisation of the Reserve Army took effect. Those who were serving at the time will have unhappy memories of the long and damaging period of uncertainty which preceded the final announcement as to how this reorganisation was going to take place. When eventually firm plans were announced, I think that there was a general sigh of relief, not because units were pleased about the restrictions and reductions which were imposed on them, but because at last the uncertainty was ended—or so it seemed at the time.
From this moment on there was a magnificent response from all ranks. I must say that it exceeded anything that I had anticipated in my most optimistic moments. It would have been very easy for those who had already two or three years' service in the Territorial Army to have grumbled a certain amount, to have said, "Things are not what they used to be. It isn't like the old days", and discouraged the younger, newer members thereby. They did not do that. They regarded this as a challenge which must be met. They were determined tint the new circumstances were not going in any way to interfere with the proper functioning of the regiment.
I would just briefly quote three examples. One is of a lance-corporal who is a crane operator in a Belfast shipyard. By the nature of his work he customarily earns quite a high wage. By attending the annual eight-day camp last September he lost some £16. I need hardly remind your Lordships that £16 is not an entirely negligible sum of money to a weekly wage earner. I commiserated with him. He said, "It can't be helped. It is worth it for the sake of the regiment." There is also the heavy transport driver who unfortunately lives some 14 miles from the Territorial Army centre. He does not possess a car, and there is no suitable public transport service. But he is an extremely regular attender. He does the 28 miles round trip on his motor-assisted pedal cycle in all weathers. He is, I may say, one of the most remarkable people I have ever met—he actually enjoys cookhouse fatigues.
The third example I would quote is of a young company director in a small family firm in a highly competitive line

491
of business. He is a commander of my flying centre. At April 1 last year he found that the permanent staff instructor whom he had been promised did not materialise for various reasons. Instead of sitting back and saying, "It isn't my fault if I can't send out letters, keep documentation up to date and check stores. It isn't my fault if I am not given the staff to which I am entitled." He did not even ring me up to ask what he was going to do about it. He promptly took it as his problem and that it was his job to solve it. And solve it he did. Without hesitation he swung in the resources of his small company office. He took time off, not only spare time but also time off his own work, and did jobs which normally would be done by a corporal clerk or corporal storeman.
These are but a few examples, but they are typical of what has happened in the Territorial Army. The interesting thing is that as a result of the recognition that these difficulties have been met and overcome, morale is higher than I can ever remember it. This again has resulted in a steady increase in recruiting and an even more marked increase in regular attendances.
From the remarks which I have just made, it may be inferred that I have a fairly high opinion of the young people and indeed of some of the more mature people, with whom I have had the privilege of working in the Territorial Army. I am aware, of course, that the comment is frequently made that it is easy for Territorial Army officers to look at the youth of to-day through rose-tinted spectacles. The comment is made that the type of person who joins the Territorial Army is different from the average run of youth. They are people who are "clubbable" (a word already used this afternoon), who tend to do something constructive in their spare time, if not in the Territorial Army then elsewhere. I agree that there is probably a certain amount of truth in this, but I do not go along with it all the way by any means. In my limited experience, the sort of people who join the Territorial Army are typical, not untypical. They certainly look quite typical when they come up on their first evening to sign on, in their civilian clothes and particular hair styles.
492
They certainly react in a very typical manner. Frequently I ask them, may be four, six or eight weeks after they have joined, what prompted them to join, and often they say: "I knew nothing about it before, but I have a few friends in the regiment, and they advised me to come". I then ask them: "Now that you have been here for a few weeks, what do you think about it?" The usual answer is—and I do not exaggerate—that they are delighted with it, because it gives them something interesting to do in their spare time: indeed, they frequently say that they wish there was more training, because they get tired of having to spend evenings knocking about the streets or watching television. I do not think that is an untypical reaction.
The conclusion I reach from my modest experience of young people is that, provided they have confidence in their leadership and they are convinced that what they are being asked to do is really worth while, as opposed to being something just to keep them busy, they have an almost unlimited capacity to accept challenge, to shoulder responsibilities, to overcome difficulties and to give that quality of loyal and unselfish service which can move mountains. At the same time, they are not stupid. I suppose it is almost traditional that the younger generation look on the older generation as being rather more stupid than it really is; and indeed this may well be the healthy outlook. But I think it is inexcusable for the older generation to think that the younger generation is more stupid than it is. They are not a bit stupid—and I was once young myself. I think they are very penetrating, and particularly so in their recognition of any suspicion of humbug, hypocrisy, insincerity, half-truths, pulling the wool over their eyes, or anything like that.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: With respect to the noble Lord, I should not have thought that the older generation regarded the younger generation as stupid. I do not know whether other noble Lords would agree with me about that.
LORD DUNLEATH: I was not looking on the noble Earl as being a member of the older generation. I am afraid, however, that in my experience there have been occasional instances of the genuine

493
older generation revealing what I might call this slight failing. I none the less feel that our youth are extremely penetrating; and it is very easy for disillusionment to creep in unless complete integrity is maintained in one's dealings with them.
Here is the problem with which my colleagues and I in the Territorial Army are faced at the moment. Just about a year ago we were telling our members that now at last we knew what the form was, and we knew where we stood. We were in a position to make plans, to explain to our members what we were going to do and why we were going to do it. In the light of the Government's announcement just over a month ago, what can we say to them now? If when the new announcement is made, which we expect at about the beginning of next month, we tell them what we are planning, will they believe us this time? I think it will be difficult for me to do anything other than to apologise to them.
To sum up, the excellent qualities of youth, to which reference has been made this afternoon, are there. I am certain of this. These qualities, if properly exploited, can be worth more to our country than all the gold in Fort Knox or all the missiles in Russia. Various noble Lords have suggested excellent ways in which such qualities could be brought out and developed. For myself, I would humbly suggest that the Territorial Army is hard to beat. It provides many of the opportunities for service which have been mentioned—involvement, sense of community and mutual responsibility. Furthermore, I would suggest that it is extremely good value for money. But of one thing I am certain, and that is that the best way to dissipate and suppress these qualities is to reward enterprise, loyalty and service with a kick in the teeth. I do not intend to sound bitter about this; I merely intend to emphasise as forcefully as I can that here, I think, is a moral which relates to our entire attitude towards youth.
7.35 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like first to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for asking to change places with me in the running order, because I have now had the benefit of his very stabilising speech, and also that of the noble Lord,
494
Lord Dunleath. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for initiating this debate, and, with humble sincerity, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for his very thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. I was especially interested in what he said about states of mind. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, used the expression "younger generation" rather than "youth". For one thing the word "youth" seems to have a very male colour, and "younger generation" gives that age group a wider meaning.
If this is not a diversion—and I do not intend to speak for long—I would recall a passage in Disraeli's Sybil or The two Nations, where he is talking in a very fascinating paragraph or two about the suppressed characters of English history, one of which he says was Lord Shelburne, who gave way as Prime Minister to the younger Pitt—as le says "the marvellous boy". Disraeli says:
"Why Lord Shelburne on that occasion was set aside will perhaps always remain a mysterious passage of our English history.… Perhaps the Monarch, with a sense of the rising sympathies of his people, was prescient of the magic power of youth in touching the heart of a nation."
I feel very strongly (and this has been stressed by several noble Lords) that we should not make artificial divides, to use a theological metaphor, between one age group and another. One can be much too self-conscious talking to the young, as one can be too self-conscious talking about the older. Only in words can one accurately use a phrase like "the youth of the nation". I think the cliché that one is as old as one feels is perfectly true. In terms of my own sons, as I am, I suppose, one of the younger parents t) have a son of 27 (I have three sons), I would stress the extreme unity between us as compared with my relationship with my father, who was much older and much more inclined to give me small lectures, even on the state of the Labour Party, when I was 12 years old. I feel that, though I may have ridden the situation with my children on rather too loose a rein, this is the right line, even down to points like the length of hair, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords this afternoon. I think this is a symbolic point. It is not an aim at a style, but almost an aim at "Continuity is our right". It is true, I believe, that the

495
majority of generations have worn their hair much longer, and this may be a hunger for a link with the past.
I disagree with the idea that clothing makes it hard to distinguish whether a person is a male or female. As it happens, I did have contact for a little while last year with a member of a fairly famous beat group, and I was astonished that on the record player, as well as, say, playing a disc of his own, he would come up with a Bach prelude and fugue, or a Sibelius, on all of which he was equally keen. I feel that one has a lot to learn from the younger generation. I managed to go through my schooling without learning one single hour of science. I therefore have to find out from my children even what water is made of.
I think the point that is uppermost in my mind is this non-stressing of youth as a group. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, asked us to comment on his suggestion about one year's non-military service. I agree with him in principle, but again it emphasises youth qua youth. One may be much older and still feel in the same spirit. I very much appreciate the overseas service point. I did, in fact, as I was no good at cricket, go to work for the Grenfell Mission in the last summer term, instead of staying at home; and this did me a lot of good. I also, again, by the luck of my father supporting the expense, spent a year, immediately after being in university, on a New Zealand sheep farm; and I realised that these were ultra-privileges, which is not what we are mainly talking about, and will not appear again.
I feel that this debate has very strongly and rightly stressed our understanding for the younger generation. As I was saying, I felt almost equally unsettled by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, which I am sure is not typical in its cynicism of the younger generation, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper—whose speeches do not usually unsettle me—which rather attacked the whole idea of "beat" groups and that form of self-expression—possibly that form of showmanship. I would finally quote something, which I think is true and from which we could all learn, from a poem of Longfellow:
"The boy's will is the wind's will
"And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts."
7.42 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow his line, but time is going on and there is one point that I wish to make regarding the Scottish problem. In Scotland we are particularly suited for adventure training, and we have over the years evolved certain adventure training centres. They might almost be said to originate with the Highland Field Craft Training Centre, which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, started for the Army during the war; and the Moray Sea School, which was Kurt Hahn's child, from Gordonstoun, has been backed up by the Dulverton Trust; and Lochiel Centre which is making good progress. Those are what one might call the voluntary centres. The State centres are the Scottish Council of Physical Recreation, at Glenmore Lodge, in Aviemore, and there are now others run by local authorities, such as the Edinburgh education authority. One of these is in Argyllshire by Ben More. These centres are doing an extremely good piece of work, and they are "fed" by the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, working very largely through the voluntary youth organisations, and also, of course, through the schools.
The point I want to make is that there is difficulty in filling all these places for adventure training. In some cases the cost is of the order of £50 or so, but finance is not always the main factor. It is rather, to a certain extent, lack of applicants. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this point for fear that we become too complacent. My own view—and I thoroughly endorse what other noble Lords have said—is that the good of the younger generation is probably better than ever before, and the opportunities they have been given for training in adventure are probably greater than in any generation before. But I feel that there is a danger of complacency because the good is so very much better than it has ever been, and it seems to me that we must pay some more attention than perhaps we have done so far in this debate to what one might call the disillusioned youth.
A mild attack of disillusion leads merely to young persons' seeking safety in life, playing for safety, leading a quiet life, and so on. But a bad attack of

497
disillusion gives us some extraordinary results in our society. I believe that we ought to pay rather more attention to the causes of their disillusion. After all, if you are disillusioned, you must have some illusion to be disillusioned of. What are the wrong illusions that this particular type of youth had that has made them so sick of society? Some of them have been brought up certainly with the illusion of easy wealth, and when they find that it does not come to them as easily as it comes to some of their contemporaries, they become disillusioned and sink down. Others have the illusion of the Welfare State, and that the world owes them a living, rather than that they owe something to the world. All the remarks that have been made by so many speakers in this House to-day, emphasising the need in particular for service, reinforce this particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave a list of what one might call antidotes on this point, and I hope that attention will be paid to the remarks that he made in this connection. Those are the only points that I wish to make. I will not delay your Lordships further, except to add to those of other noble Lords my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for giving us an opportunity to bring these points forward at this time. And I would emphasise the importance of this particular problem, especially in relation to the voluntary organisations.
7.48 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in thanking Lord Robertson for bringing this Motion forward to-day? Then, may I put it to your Lordships that this comprehensive policy for youth really has two sides? There is the need to provide, first of all, better opportunities for young people to have outdoor activities, and secondly, there is the chance for young people to give some kind of community service. Neither, in my view, should be considered separately. Fun should be mixed with work and service, and I think that young people living in towns should be encouraged to pit their wits against nature, whether it be on land or sea or in the air.
I want to say a few words about community service and the need for some preparation or training. There are already a large number of organizations
498
in the field, and I suggest it would be wiser, before starting on some new idea, to use their services and their administrative experience to find out what is really needed and how to fit young people for the job. Some new organisation, or some new co-ordinating body, may well be necessary, but many of the existing voluntary organisations, I feel sure, could do a much better job if they were helped by some of this money which the Government now have to spend—if they could be helped financially and if they could also benefit from some free publicity, because most voluntary organisations, in fact I believe all real voluntary organisations, do not spend their money on publicity, because they simply cannot afford it. They spend it on getting the job done. Surely this is the moment for the Government to stimulate the existing well-tried voluntary organisations, organised by people with experience, before they start spending this precious money administering and publicising a new scheme which may well tread on the toes of those already in the field.
May I now say a word about training or preparation, because for most forms of service some training or preparation is an advantage and there are only limited jobs where people with absolutely no training can be used safely? May I give just one or two examples? I suppose at this stage I should declare an interest. because I have been concerned all my life with a number of organisations, and chiefly with those which have forms of training as the basis of their work. I refer to the Girl Guides, for a start. I was a pre-nuclear Girl Guide, and I took great pride as very nearly a Guide, but in fact still as a Brownie, in taking part in the 1918 Victory celebrations and marching around with all the others. In those days we were all proud to belong to some organisation like the Guides.
When I grew up, and after the war, I joined the Red Cross, whose peace-time purpose, as your Lordships will know, is the training of all age groups (not only the young) of the general public in both community service and welfare work, or whatever one likes to call it. I will not weary your Lordships with many examples, but it is obvious that when very young people are involved it is splendid if they are willing to do the job, and they should be allowed to do it, but it

499
is very much better for the handicapped person, if it is a handicapped person that is being helped, and for the young person if that young person knows a little about it beforehand. All sorts of unexpected things can happen, for instance, in getting handicapped persons in and out of chairs or cars. Even a little preparation and knowledge makes it much nicer for the handicapped or the old person.
Also, in regard to visiting in the homes, I know it has been said that young people do not like continuity of service, and that they get bored. I sympathise with that. But, on the other hand, somebody else must do it if they do not, because the old person (if it is an old person that they are visiting) expects them. An example of the problems which can arise is the old person who takes a long time to write a letter, writes it and then says, "That's fine; my young person is coming to visit me to-day. I will give it to him to post". Then something crops up and the young person does not visit, and the old person is left with the letter until, possibly a couple of days later, somebody else chances to go in. This really matters. It touches the heart of the young person when he or she is told about it afterwards; but that is all part of what I call "preparation". There are also more exciting things, such as handing out drugs when people are not capable of dealing with them themselves, but this again needs a certain amount of training, and the hospitals now are asking organisations to give training to those young people who volunteer to do the work—not in the wards but elsewhere, because hospitals cannot use them in the wards unless they have had some basic training, or at least have some knowledge of hospital matters.
One has to realise that a community service is very much a two-way affair. One cannot look at it only as something for the young person to do: one has to look at it also from the point of view of the receiver at the other end. It is not just something to occupy the young. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, said that we must stop this age war, and I am sure your Lordships will have read recently in The Times a series of articles entitled "What Britain Needs". One was by the Director of Shelter, and I should like to quote a short passage from it. He wrote:
500
"This barrier of suspicion and fear that lies between the generations must be broken down by debate and by rational concessions to each other's strengths.
"Youth should give credit to experience, admitting that man can still walk without crutches at 50 and that the ideal in any society is a balance between generations and just sufficient tension to bring the best out of both."
I think there is a lot of sense in that.
I was particularly interested recently at a weekend living-in conference where we had all age groups, and one of the young ones during a discussion said, "Don't treat us as an isolated group. We do not want that. We want to be treated as one of the family, as you would in a family". That brings me to the root of the problem, and I must emphasise how profoundly I disagree with the professor who gave the last Reith lectures, when he said that the family counted for nothing. I am sure that much basic, common-sense training starts within the family, and with their co-operation, interest and hacking it should be possible to create opportunities for young people to play their part in local enterprises and community service.
I would emphasise the word "local", as other noble Lords have done—local to start with, because this fosters local interest and pride and gives them a feeling of belonging and being responsible to a community, who should, in their turn, encourage them to have the guts to think that a bit of preparation and training for some sort of service is the sensible thing to do. Finally, I go back to where I began, and stress the need to link recreation and fun with service, because one must ensure that both are equally enjoyed.
7.57 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I think this might be a convenient moment to adjourn for dinner. Therefore, I suggest that this House do now adjourn until 8.30 p.m.
[The Sitting was adjourned at 7.58 p.m. and resumed at 8.30 p.m.]
LORD HIRSHFIELD: My Lords, I think we can all agree that the most important responsibility which society has towards its youth lies in providing an educational system which matches the needs and aspirations of youth. Education

501
and the educational system are considerable subjects. They have obvious relevance to this debate, and some noble Lords have referred to education during their contributions to-day, but if education is to have thorough attention it really belongs to another occasion. Our debate has already covered a wide field, both in specific factors connected with youth and youth service and in the general sense. As has been said, it is abundantly evident how highly your Lordships' House rates the importance of a debate on policy towards youth from the long list of speakers and the eloquence of their contributions. I suppose at this hour of the evening only very limited contributions from the last third of over thirty speakers would be most welcome to your Lordships, and I shall try to oblige by omitting several of the things I had intended to say. Indeed, a number of them have already been very adequately covered by other noble Lords.
There is one aspect which is vital in to-day's debate, and that is the future for youth as we proceed into the technological era. However, before proceeding I am persuaded to tell your Lordships, in view of the Lord Chancellor's fleeting reference to "pot", that my telegraphic address happens to be "Ellessdee", which it has been for at least twenty years, but that does not mean that I exercise a sinister influence on youth or supply anything but service. Now with decimalisation of sterling approaching, and foreign friends, Americans particularly, thinking I might be a source of supply for the wrong kind of LSD, I must consider change. And the word "change" is, of course, something that leads one back to technology and automation.
My Lords, in examining the question of harnessing the resources of youth we should bear two or three things in mind. First, there is a crucial period in the late teens when idealism has not given place to cynicism, and when there is a deep response to demands. It is at this point that encouragement and facilities for raising the sights instead of thinking second best must be provided. Otherwise the inherent desire to serve and be used gives place to selfishness. Secondly, this can be achieved only by providing an example from the top, and also by freeing younger people to run their own show in their own way and to develop ideas that
502
may not concur with those of the elder generation. Thirdly, behind the apparent aimlessness to-day is a deep searching, a belief that material possessions are not in themselves a need, a deeper recognition of total responsibility, so that no man is an island, whether he is a Vietnamese or an Englishman, and a questioning of earlier standards which seem to have got us into such a mess. There is also, I believe, a deep honesty of thought, however distasteful some of its manifestations may seem to be.
In looking for ways of helping younger people, we should ask not what more we can do for them but what they can do in their own way for others. The Peace Corps, especially, directed at our internal problems, is one outlet, Voluntary Service Overseas on a much bigger scale is another, and I will not say more about those organisations because we have heard all about them already to-day. This, is a single world made so by global communications, and we shall not survive if we do not share our fortune at well as our misfortune, our brains and potentials, as well as our problems and lack of opportunity. Specifically I should think that Government has to provide an environment in which youth can play its part. It must do so by providing the type of education and facilities that are suitable to this age. It must allow youth to share the responsibility of accelerated change, to shape the new world in which they must live, and above all to have total responsibility, and not just under tutelage, for areas that are given to them to explore.
It is apt in this debate for me to say something on the subject of automation and rapid technological change, particularly in view of the activities of the Foundation on Automation and Employment which was formed by me some five years ago, with the able co-operation and support of several prominent Members of your Lordships' House, and the active assistance of a number of other well-known leaders from the management and labour sectors of the automation and electronics industry. The Foundation on Automation and Employment is a nonprofit-making body financed by voluntary contributions to promote sociological studies into the human impact of rapid change and the ways and means of

503
ensuring technological progress. Someone has described automation as the thick end of the wedge. The thin end is when they begin to replace humans at work; the thick end is when they begin to replace work. We are experiencing the thin end to-day, but the thick end will be with us in some degree within a generation. The time has therefore already come to consider the changes which those who are now at school will experience and, indeed, steer.
During a recent address to headmasters and careers masters concerned with preparing the generation now at school for the impact of technological change, Mr. John Hargreaves, Director of Public Affairs at I.B.M. (United Kingdom) Limited, said:
"To fit people for the 1970s will require a new pattern of education. The concept that education continues up to a certain point in one's life, after which formal education ceases, is inappropriate if people are to be trained for a world of change. Education must be a continuing process, and we must accept the philosophy that the man who ceases to learn begins to die. We can expect people to undergo regular periods of formal education throughout their careers, and that provision will be made for this in the accounting year just as it is for paid vocations to-day."
The subject matter of school and university training must be amended to give pupils a basic ability to learn and a broad general education, rather than a too early specialist training. This is because specialist knowledge changes, and if that particular knowledge becomes obsolete there is no broad base on which to fall back and relearn, and an individual's ground is cut from beneath his feet. This broad base should include the humanities as well as the sciences.
Mr. Hargreaves reminded his audience on that occasion that we live in a scientific age, and he emphasised that 90 per cent. of all scientists who ever lived are living to-day. Your Lordships will recall the tag, Ignorantia neminem excusat. But ignorance of science, like ignorance of the law, is no excuse. Mr. Hargreaves went on:
"Unless science is tempered and balanced by a thorough grounding in the humanities. the qualities that are needed for the exercise of leadership are lacking."
To prepare for change, to inculcate an ability to learn rather than particular learning, to accept the concept of con-
504
tinning education, to use the correct combination of men and machines in the education of whole people—these are the tasks for contemporary education.
The preservation of a capacity to learn will help people in their working life. The attitude towards industrial training which entails learning a particular skill and then expecting the right to practise that skill for evermore belongs to a past age. We can expect people to be trained and retrained two and three times in the course of their careers. Estimates on both sides of the Atlantic suggest that 50 per cent. of the jobs that will be available in 1980 have not yet been invented. Mental elasticity is the price to be paid for continuity of work in a changing world and the assurance that redundancy of skills need not he accompanied by redundancy of people. The late Mr. Adlai Stevenson said that we live in an age of transition from the ancient problem of sharing scarcity to the modern problem of distributing abundance. But to realise to-day's potential means a departure from former thinking based on national concepts. We have a big task in preparing to-day's school-leavers to think in new dimensions and to embrace the world in their thinking.
There is a responsible part for industry to play in all this. Contrary to much that happened in the past, industry to-day is in the mainstream of the nation's life. Its managers require many of the qualities of national and international leaders. Business management is giving place to industrial statesmanship, and the impetus of a country's life stems largely from industry. There is a career and a responsibility for the best products from our schools and universities, and those who join industry with this in mind can find an outlet for their interests and the satisfaction and rewards commensurate with the important work they have to do.
If the demand for annually rising living standards is to be met, three conditions must be fulfilled: first, technological progress must be rapid; secondly, its potential repercussions on the education of the rising generation, on retraining and employment, must be studied ahead of time so that social and economic changes can be made with the least

505
friction; thirdly, teenagers must be enabled to understand the social needs of technological progress and the personal implications for them, and to feel a sense of participation in responsibility.
The Foundation of which I spoke earlier is therefore planning to sponsor a project which should help to get some initial notions about technology and automation over to teenagers of school-leaving age and in the first year of their apprenticeship—that is, in transition between school and industry. One suggestion now being explored by the Foundation is that a practical way of arousing the interest of young people would be, if possible, to translate these abstract ideas into visual media, models and apparatus, probably accompanied by a textbook on their use, addressed to both teachers and students. A possible scheme outside the Foundation's ability which should be examined favourably and quickly is the production for certain schools and colleges of specially designed mini-computers capable of only a limited performance and made available at low cost.
I would conclude this contribution to your Lordships' debate with the words of Kuan-tzu in the 3rd century B.C.:
"When planning for a year—sow corn.
When planning for a decade—plant trees.
When planning for life—train and educate men."
8.45 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, may I start, as others have done, by expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for initiating this debate, and indeed for his kind personal suggestion that I should say something during it. It may be over-simplifying the matter, but I think that youth's public life might be divided into three parts, and it is these three parts which I think should be linked with a more comprehensive policy. First, there are the schools and the education of these young people; secondly, their impending careers and working life; and thirdly, the Youth Service and the voluntary organisations. I want to leave out the question of schools and education because others know much more about it than I do. I simply say, in passing, that I am glad that nowadays schools seem to teach subjects more relevant to the 20th century than they did
506
when I was there. As perhaps do many of your Lordships, I feel quite weak when I remember all the blood and sweat involved in poring over Greek iambics and such-like, and pondering what benefit they could possibly be in the work I was to do later on.
The Youth Service can, and should, link the schools with the outside world. There is a feeling that it narrows young people's outlook if everything they do up to a certain age goes on at school. It is helpful to them in the so-called awkward period of adjustment if they mix with people with no connection with school, who are not their parents and who can open up entirely new and separate aspects of life.
I know it was recommended by the Albemarle Committee that the Youth Service should help the young people prepare for every aspect of life. It is with this in mind that 11 shall concentrate this evening on the Youth Service, and especially the Scout Movement. A few years ago I should have felt myself more or less in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, whose speech I enjoyed, but now I am not so sure. In my case, to a large extent I think this is due to my noble friend Lord Rowallan, who is here this evening and who appointed me one of his Commissioners in the Scout Movement.
I want to commend this Movement to your Lordships. I know you are all fairly familiar with it. I feel a little nervous in doing so, sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, who is a much greater authority than I, but I want to commend it to you, particularly now that we have established a new and fresh outlook with the Advance-Party Report. Tying knots is only a small part of the training; but in this connection I remember happily being taught to tie my knots by the father of the noble Lord who will reply to this debate who, with great ingenuity, as the noble Lord will remember, tied innumerable knots with one hand. I can remember that quite clearly. I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply is himself quite familiar with the Scout Movement and all that is being done.
The Scout Headquarters is taking a great interest in this debate. I and my noble friend Lord Aylesford have been

507
consulting them about it, and I know they are most interested to hear what emerges. I do not want to bore your Lordships with a long history of the Scout Movement because, particularly in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, I do not think it necessary. But it might be as well to remind your Lordships that there are now in the United Kingdom half-a-million scouts and half as many guides. One in nine boys between the ages of 8 and 18 is a scout. There are 10½ million scouts in the world, and there are ten times as many scouts in the United States as the Americans have troops in Vietnam. All this has grown up from Lord Baden-Powell and the 20 boys who camped at Brownsea Island in August, 1907. The aim is to encourage physical, mental and spiritual development of young people, and the ideal is to include boys of every country, class and creed and handicapped boys. I want to commend to your Lordships the great value of the unpaid volunteers, the leaders in the Scout movement who are backed by a hard core of professionals. This is particularly important at this time, when obviously we are not in a position to spend more than is absolutely necessary on the Youth Service, and when a great deal is being done voluntarily.
The movement was started principally as a service for youth when there was a crying need for this. We feel that it is still important to show young people how to get as much as possible out of life, how to enjoy it to the full, and how to help them to make good adults of tomorrow. But those familiar with Scouts also recognise the words, "To help other people at all times". Service to the community has always been part of the training programme. There are many examples of this, and many go un-recognised. But one thinks of the service in two world wars, in fire watching, stretcher bearing, salvage collection, coast guarding and so on. One thinks more recently of the Cub and Scouts collection of silver paper to buy guide dogs for the blind and the Rovers' help to old people. Even this year the Glenshee first-aid teams helped in the winter sports in Scotland there were conservation projects in Surrey, the Red-seal Inland Waters Rescue Unit on Tyneside
508
evacuating villages on the River Wear. Then there is service overseas. There is a great call for our Scout leaders in South America, particularly in Peru, and the service is particularly stressed in the new training programme which I have already mentioned.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, and others, feel that there is still too much untapped good will among our young people, and I recognise this would probably include the Scouts. I entirely sympathise with his constructive thoughts on tapping this good will. Of course we have the Community Service Volunteers, the school leavers, who do at least four months service, with food and accommodation arranged, and who have 30s. a week pocket money and work in all kinds of lobs among the old, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, in the approved schools and so on.
As for the noble Earl's suggestion about constructional jobs, I find this a little more complicated. I have had a little practical experience of it. During last summer we at home had to build a cowshed, and we invited four undergraduates from Oxford to come and assist us. Well, there was plenty of enthusiasm and a good deal of wisecracking; and one young man who came from Ruskin did cartoons of his fellow work people which were highly entertaining. But, of course, when it came to the actual work, they could not be expected to have, and did not have, any particular skill; and there is no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of skill needed in any form of constructional work. I think that in following the noble Earl's suggestion one would need to have a great deal of understanding supervision available.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would agree that demolition work, which I also mentioned, does not require so much expertise.
LORD CRAWSHAW: That may be true, my Lords, though I would say that there is a good deal of danger involved in that, and you have to know what you are about. Apart from that, I welcome the suggestion of the noble Earl, which I think ought to be thoroughly investigated. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, asked for more co-ordination. First of

509
all, I think that we must have co-ordination of the Ministry Departments into one, which could then formulate the overall pattern and they could make full allowance for the varied contributions to the Youth Service of all the member agencies, and they could show how the pioneering spirit of the voluntary organisations can best be directed. The Scout Movement has unique methods and characteristics which it must maintain, partly because of their success, and partly because they are accepted the world over. I know that my noble friend Lord Rowallan would agree with me that we cannot alter them to any great degree, even if we wanted to do so. There must also he various organisations to cater for other tastes. Of course, there must be the "pop" groups, the drama groups, handicraft groups, sports clubs and so on, but all these should be complementary rather than uniform.
The age range of the Youth Service at present is 14 to 20. We feel that full recognition should be given, backed by grant aid, to the importance of groups below the age of 14. Schools alone cannot show these children every aspect of of the world outside, and it is known that this is an age when much antisocial behaviour starts. We in the Scouts value the work of the Cubs, who are between the ages of 8 and 11. They have quite phenomenal enthusiasm which should be directed; and if it is not directed in the right way, it will go the wrong way. We very much hope that recognition in the form of grant-aid will be brought to their assistance. Finally, if as a result of this debate we can establish a more comprehensive and efficient policy and an overall pattern, I am sure that the Scout Movement and other members of the Youth Service are only too ready to grasp it. Association, training and challenge is what the Youth Service is all about, and we should certainly welcome any chances to achieve these aims.
8.58 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on his interesting maiden speech. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving us the opportunity for this enormous "talk-in", from which I hope some action will result. May I say, with respect, that in
510
listening to a great many speeches during this long afternoon and evening it sometimes seemed to me that speakers were talking about a strange species: not about people who would eventually perhaps grow into people like ourselves—or, we hope, better—but people whom we had to treat as though they were extraordinarily fragile. If Lord Robertson will forgive me for saying so, I felt that his remark that he was grateful to young people for talking to him was somewhat curious. I do not think he should be grateful. Why should they not talk to him? They are lucky to talk to him; and they should listen to him, as well. On the other hand, there was a sort of fear of young people—in the way that I imagine tobacco farmers might talk about Africans. The talk did not seem to be about girls and boys at all, but about something rather strange called "youth".
When I heard about this debate and decided to put down my name to speak, I thought it might be useful to find out what some of the young people themselves thought about it. I am not here referring to the organisers of the different youth services, groups and so on, however good the work they do may be (and it is extraordinarily good) but to the young people themselves. So with the help of my daughter, who works part-time at a youth club when she can, we got together a group of 20 young people who do social service from the club (she calls it a "social service within a social service") and asked them what they thought about this Motion. A boy of 18 said, "If the Government expect more young people to go into active youth service and take responsibility, then they must give us the vote at 18". Another boy of 18 said, "Anything that harnesses available latent talent of youth to-day can only do good". Another one immediately put in his point. He added, "Even by putting up posters in public lavatories". A girl of 15 put forward the view that, youth should be helped to understand that other people besides themselves have problems; and someone else pointed out that helping older people helps to fill the gap between the generations. Those all seem to be comments that any of us here would be proud to have our names put to, and they are not from a different species.
When I discussed with my daughter the club and the work they do, and asked

511
for her own view, she said that many of the young people are extremely good. To many the challenge is enormous, and the more difficult the task, the greater the challenge becomes. But then she added, "Many young people are lazy and selfish." So I said, Goodness! if I said that, what would you say?" To which she replied, "That is what you say to me, but it is different if I say it." And that is right. We seem to be scared to talk to the young people.
I think the girl who said that "Helping old people fills the gap" had her finger on something very important, because when we talk about the gap between the generations what we really mean is the gap between our children and ourselves. I refuse to use the term, "middle-aged": I just cannot bear it. I have "a thing about it", if it refers to me. But when it comes to the generation beyond, to the age of their grandparents, then children can feel a very much more relaxed relationship, and they are much better able to have a two-way system and can talk to the older people.
This gap between the generations is a very real one, and I believe that it is different from what it was before. There has always been a gap; it would have been unnatural if there had not been. But I think the difference is that in the old days young people (except for a few out-and-out rebels—who were probably sent to Australia, or somewhere) used to give adults the benefit of the doubt. They accepted a certain amount of authoritarian paternalism, but to-day they do not. It is the credibility gap between the generations which I believe is greater than it has ever been, and many young people see themselves as used, opposed, obstructed and controlled. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, said that we do not want to substitute an age war for a class war. But, my Lords, we have no choice; it is just there. It is not something we can say we will or will not accept. There is a jealousy between the generations to-day. Many young people who are school-leavers are earning more than their parents ever did at their age. On the other hand, the students, to whom the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, are in the position of being dependent economically on their
512
parents, yet are "raring to go" when they are in their early twenties and many of their contemporaries are then earning.
Some of the motivation for the work which is being done by young people—and there is nothing wrong with this motivation—is one of protest. They are wanting to supply a need. They want to feel needed, and they want to belong. But they also want to change society, and I think they are quite right. We cannot have a static society and I do not think we have done particularly well by them in the last couple of generations. If they want to change it, and are doing it by means which seem strange to us, perhaps we should be questioning our values and ourselves, instead of questioning the young people. And certainly they are questioning themselves. There is for example, the Anti-University, Very well. Maybe there is a lunatic fringe attached to it now. But the basic idea is that of questioning.
Then young people are attempting far greater participation and are wanting to take more responsibility. When I was at the London School of Economics I was demonstrating in all sorts of ways, but it never occurred to me or to my contemporaries to take part in the running and the responsibility of the College, and I think that this is a magnificent move. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that it was a good thing for them to air their grievances, but I think that is rather too negative an approach. They have something to contribute, and I do not think they should just be taken on sufferance. I agree that perhaps their demands go too far, but if you do not demand too much when you are young when will you? You will be a "fuddy-duddy" before you are 30.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry referred to "unclubbable" and "unattached" people who join movements such as Nuclear Disarmament. Here I must declare an interest: I have been a unilaterist for years. I also demonstrated, when I was at school and college, in favour of all sorts of causes, but I never considered myself unclubbable, and I have never been unattached.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, was kind enough to send me a letter about his plans, and I feel it only fair to answer him briefly. Frankly, I am worried about

513
the scheme. I think there are opportunities, both through the new Young Volunteer Force Foundation and through the existing schemes, such as Community Service Volunteers, which will cover what is wanted. I am also worried about the fact that the scheme would he on a purely physical basis, because young people want to give service and to do things in all sorts of different ways. Some want to use their brains, some their hands and some their feet. The noble Earl, talked about there being a need for discipline, but discipline is really a value judgment, and it depends what we mean by it in our society. Although he has great charm and is very articulate, I suspect that perhaps the noble Earl and I would not agree about discipline. Perhaps if he put forward something more specific I might find myself in favour, but at the moment I am not.
Young people rise to a crisis in the same way as older people do. There were the youngsters—and they were not by any means all Jewish—who volunteered to go to Israel during the six-days war, and the youngsters who wanted to go and help deal with the floods in Florence. They just do these things; they do not need anybody to push them. Perhaps we could do more, in the national economic situation which prevails, by trying to mobilise young people so that they can help in the social services where cuts have had to be made, so that they are really associated with the economic crisis and it becomes something vital to them. To try to get them to do anything by suggesting it is for their own good seems to me rather like suggesting to people that if they get married they will learn patience, they will find they have got to get on with somebody else and they will learn sometimes to keep their mouths shut. This is all very laudable and it comes by the way, but I do not think that one would want to get married if that were the sort of thesis put before one. One wants to get married because one thinks basically that one can do something for another person. As many people have suggested, that is the way that young people should be approached.
The new Young Volunteer Force Foundation has taken "a bit of a bashing." Here I must declare my interest. I am a very new member of the Youth Service Development Council
514
who was appointed after this scheme came out. It may be that it has faults; and although I think it was presented clearly—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor underlined tips this afternoon—that it does not intend to compete in local areas with what local organisations are doing, I would ask the Minister whether he would reassure us that it is going to be very careful; in other words that not only should equity be done but that it should be seen to be done. Because people, particularly young people, feel very strongly about someone from outside coming to their area, even if it is to help them.
May I suggest that when consultations take place they should not take place merely with the organisers of the local statutory or voluntary groups but also with representatives of the young people themselves? I should like to know a little more about the way in which it is proposed that the action workers should be trained. My own view is that the various skills can be picked up, but the most important thing is the training in human relations. It is here that youngsters can be helped to get fitted in; because if they work in hospitals they have to deal with matrons, and in old people's homes they have to deal with the old people themselves and the people running the homes. I think this is very important as it also gives these young people confidence in creating relationshps with other people. Finally, my Lords, I think those of us with children will agree that it is much easier to find or articulate the tight social prescription for other people's children but the most difficult thing in the world to do it for our own. I fear that many of us, when we are talking about youth, are talking about the others, not our own. That is why this sort of barrier appears to come up. Perhaps if we were able to meld this together and get rid of what I feel is a sort of pare ital schizophrenia, we should get more done in a more relaxed and less self-conscious way, and be better friends with young people. I think they are ready for us.
9.12 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords. I hope I shall not detain your Lordships too long. We have had a very long debate, and a most interesting one, which I have followed almost from start to finish. Most of it I agree with most

515
heartily; other parts of it I should like to consider further. As so many noble Lords have spoken about the necessity to find outlets for voluntary service, I should like to say straight away that the Pilgrim Trust have made available to the Scouts Association a considerable sum which will be devoted to conferences in four different parts of this country and across the Border on that very subject—the subject of assessing the necessities and priorities and outlets for voluntary work, by people of various ages and various skills, and quite possibly some with various handicaps. The first of those conferences will be held very shortly and the last will be concluded towards the end of the summer or the beginning of autumn.
I am not going to talk so much about the good boys, although I have a most profound admiration for them. These are very difficult times through which we are passing. There are many temptations; and the wonder is the extraordinarily high quality of the majority, the vast majority, of boys. But we must at the same time recognise that there are some who fall by the wayside. I wonder how many of your Lordships realise that a very great proportion of the boys who finally graduate to borstal started their acquaintance with the police at the age of seven to nine years old. And just as a mini-dose of antibiotics gradually forms a quite useless protection against the onset of germs, so a great many of these boys had been given mini-penalties, small fines and admonitions, over and over again until in the end they had lost all respect for the police and developed a hearty contempt for the law. That is something which we have to consider, as it is undoubtedly a real contribution to the development of crime in young delinquents.
During the war I was given the penance, I thought, of having command of a Young Soldiers' Battalion. It consisted of boys of from fifteen to about nineteen years of age, to cover the time between when the boy left his school and when he went on to National Service. I found that 85 per cent. of them had police records, and that an additional percentage ought to have had police records, but, by good fortune or by skill, they had managed to escape.
516
When I went to the Battalion I found that thefts of Government property in each of the five companies averaged £300 to £400 a month—apart altogether from "dips into the till" in various shops in the town—and that there were some quite expert safe breakers.
Something, I decided, had to be done about it. The first thing I had to do was to get rid of every officer, warrant officer and non-commissioned officer except for the regimental sergeant major; and I was very greatly helped by General Wimberley, commanding the 51st Division, and by Sir Andrew Thorn, commanding the Scottish Command, who enabled me to get first-rate young officers and first-rate senior N.C.Os. That was the first step. The junior N.C.O.s came from the boys themselves. It was rather like a yo-yo for a time—a sergeant today and then below in detention perhaps a couple of days later, or after the short time it took to run a court martial. But gradually we sorted things out and managed to get a more or less stabilised cadre of junior N.C.Os.
The next thing I had to do when I had trained my officers, was to get permission for them to spend one 24 hours every week off the aerodrome where they had been employed filling in holes (which had met the idiosyncracies of the local sub-area commander) and digging new ones. It was certainly not the best training for boys of that kind. They could not see the use of it; neither could most of us, as a matter of fact. However, I got permission for them to go off the aerodrome; for 22 hours of the time off they had to take "normal military precautions" and for the remaining two hours it was the officer's job to amuse them, entertain them, and at the same time give them a modicum of instruction.
We did some rather unconventional things. Nothing that we did was ever without an object. A route march was not just a route march; each section was expected to make a report on some subject—perhaps the suitability of different types of roads for different types of vehicle; perhaps merely the morale of the civil population. But when they came back from these route marches each section, under its section commander, produced a report. Then they read out the reports and criticised them, and we had a vote. It was

517
quite obvious, having one vote one man, how they would vote—so we decided that they would have one vote for themselves and another for the next best; and that those who put both votes for themselves were automatically disqualified.
This taught them to keep their eyes open and gave them an interest instead of its being just a plain slog. Everything else was done in the same way. In this way we kept these fellows on their toes from start to finish. Gradually crime began to disappear and instead of thefts of £300 or £400 per company we reduced it to about £100; and then to £50, and gradually we managed to eliminate crime almost entirely. This was because we were given a job which was a really good one, of providing a demonstration platoon each month for the special training centre down at Loch Ailort from these ex-borstal boys and approved-school boys. It proved such a success that the Lieutenant-Colonel commanding the Scots Guards wrote to me, in accordance with a recommendation from Lord Lyell, who later won a V.C. and was killed, that he would be willing to accept without any further parley every boy who made the physical standards for the Scots Guards. Immediately we got that job I made it a condition that no one would go who had an entry on his conduct sheet within the previous three months. That meant automatic selection to start with; but in the end it was sought for with tremendous keenness. It gave them a self-respect which they had previously lacked, and their keenness and enthusiasm were a real joy to see.
A great many of these young fellows had in the meantime risen to be war substantive sergeants. I was told that it was no use sending them away like that because they would not keep up the standard, but when we went to the Field Force they maintained their standard, and so far as I know, not a single one was reduced either as a result of incompetence or for any other reason. My great ambition was to get one borstal boy a commission, and I think that one could have achieved it if the battalion had not been divided among the Field Force just nine months after he left borstal. I met that boy afterwards out in Africa while on one of my travels, and I thought he appeared a little embarrassed when I first
518
looked at him. However, I told him it was all right, and that I would not let anybody know about his past. I was only too delighted to see that he still kept up the standard we had had. That young boy was a sergeant instructor and was really loved by the Africans and the Europeans who commented on his extraordinary character and sense of responsibility.
My Lords, we had 85 per cent. of these borstal boys who made good and became good citizens. We had 10 per cent. who were so low mentally that, although one could get them so far, they could never be trusted with full responsibility. And we had 5 per cent. who were just plain bad—there is nothing else that one could say about them. We tried everything but could not make the slightest impression, and I am afraid that in the end I acquired a "tame psychiatrist" who, at the drop of my hat, would pronounce them mentally deficient, and they would be passed on to the unarmed Pioneer Corps. I used to put them on the train and that was the last anybody saw of them, so far as I know. But it was essential that those "bad apples" should be removed from the barrel, otherwise they would have been a constant source of reinfection and danger to the other boys who had pulled themselves out of the mire.
I was very glad to hear that in Scotland all boys who go to borstal are sent to a selection centre. There they go through a fortnight of hard training and are allocated to the various borstal institutions in Scotland, according to what the officials believe will be the most suitable place for them. The ones who respond are sent to open borstals, the others are sent to closed borstals. They have not yet found a really satisfactory means of dealing with the irredeemables, but they are constantly trying and they hope that some day, by hard work and by gaining their confidence, they will be able to redeem those boys, too. But somehow I have my doubts.
Without the efforts that I have been describing, what would have happened to those 85 per cent. of boys who made good? They would have gone back to their homes after their terms of borstal, and before they had time to turn round their old pals would have been at them again, leaving them in no peace whatsoever, until they had backslidden into

519
their old ways. That is one great opportunity that I see for people in the voluntary services: to keep an eye on those fellows and try to keep them from backsliding; to give them an opportunity to win themselves from their old ways and get the strength to resist the temptations which will be put in their path. I believe that it can be done; I believe that it must be done. And we must start to do it at a much earlier age than borstal, to try to prevent the corruption that is going on just now in so many of our cities, with a very small minority making life unbearable for so many of their companions.
9.27 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, not only for initiating this important debate but also for the way in which he did so from his vast experience of young people, both in the Services and in one of our big service industries. I should also like to pay my own tribute the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for his admirable maiden speech. For a time his son was curate in the village of Ashstead, where I live, and he did a great deal for the young people there. He was not only a devout churchman but also an expert trombone player, and the two mixed particularly well with the young people in that part of Surrey. I believe that the noble Lord's elevation to this House is something for which we should be thankful.
I have two daughters, one of whom is a Girl Guide and the other a Brownie, and a son who in a few years will be a Cub; so to some extent I have been indoctrinated into the fine work which these young units do. I think it is important that we should recognise some words which were written by the Dean of St. Paul's, for whom I have a particular affection because he is a New Zealander, in a recent pamphlet. He said:
"I plead for a moratorium on criticism of our young people and ask that a period be given to listening to them, encouraging them and positively challenging them."
I think the operative word there is "challenge". There is all too much tendency these days to regard young people as something very special or very unusual. We read of those who wreck
520
trains, who cause trouble on street corners or who take drugs. We do not read, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords in this debate, of those who, for example, go and read to mentally retarded patients in local hospitals. I live in an area where there are several mental hospitals, and where some of the patients are quite young. The senior girls from one of our local grammar schools do this very thing—though they would certainly not thank me for making public the fact that they do it. But this is something which they do, and do willingly.
Recently there was a terrible railway disaster at Lewisham, when nearly 50 people were killed. Some of the first at the scene of rescue were young people, some of whom had long hair and some of whom wore what some of us might think rather gaudily coloured clothing. But these youngsters indulged in valuable and at times distressing rescue work. I think it is in this context that we must see the young people of this country.
Then in the field of culture we have the National Youth Orchestra. I should like to put a question to the Government in this connection, although I do not expect an answer this evening. I should like to know what is the future of the National Youth Orchestra, which I think I am right in saying consists entirely of youngsters ranging in age from about 15 to 25. I have heard them on a number of occasions, and they certainly stand up to the competition of some of our more renowned professional orchestras. After all, if we are going to look at the field of culture, which is a vital invisible export, we must think of our young musicians, and indeed of all young people connected with the Arts because these are the musicians, the artists and so on of the future.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry made one point which I felt to be of great importance about the question of voting. He said that, for a start, the vote at 18 could be given for the purpose of voting in local elections. I think this is something of which the Government should take note. As one who has been engaged in politics—not in the other place, but in a young political group, of which for a time I was chairman—I do not take the view that young people to-day are not interested in

521
politics. I am not talking of any one political Party. It may be that young people feel a certain disenchantment with Governments of all colours, but this does not mean to say that they have not an active interest in current affairs. I know this from the several schools, of all kinds, which I have visited recently to lecture about House of Lords reform and a number of other subjects, and from the intelligent questions which have been put to me. I am sure that other noble Lords who have given similar lectures will have found the same. I hope that the Government will take note that politics and current affairs are certainly not regarded with disinterest by many of our young people to-day. After all, why should they be?—because these young people are the politicians of the future, just as our young musicians are the musicians of the future, our Brownies are the Girl Guides of the future, and so on.
May I say just one quick word about Scotland? My noble friend Lord Balerno mentioned Glenmore Lodge, which I myself visited last summer; and the courses there in rock climbing, botany, sailing, and a whole list of subjects suitable for youngsters of both sexes, are something which I hope the Government, in conjunction with the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation, will continue to look at very closely. The recent debate on sport brought out the importance of young people taking part in sport, and one notices at the various Highland Games throughout the various centres in Scotland how many young people in fact take part.
Finally, may I say just this. Parents who tell their children that, "In my day we did this, that and the other", are not necessarily their children's best friend or counsellor, although I suppose most of us, including myself, tend to do it at times. As a nation we have to move with the times; we have to tolerate the views of our youth, whether we like them or not. There have been many instances in which the views of our young people to-day, taken in their proper context, are of enormous value, as has been this debate.
9.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF AYLESFORD: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for giving us the opportunity
522
of this debate on this highly important subject, dealing as it does virtually, with the capital of our nation. I should also like to take this opportunity, in passing, of saying how sorry I am that the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, has had to go, because, as Lord Crawshaw said, I am a scout and I was quite prepared to take up nuclear scouting if that was what he intended. In my county scouts do use electronic methods; they use computers, so we are not so far behind as he would like to believe. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for bringing us down to earth slightly again; and I would assure her that more than half my brief was written by Queen's Scouts and not by my headquarters.
I was glad that over this debate a word which I was always scared about, "comprehensive", seems to have defined itself slightly. It seems in modern days to be changing its meaning towards "all embracing". I was pleased we were using more or less its dictionary definition—that is, an extensive quality of understanding—and I certainly support to the nth degree the view that we need an understanding and more extensive policy.
With regard to the second half of the Motion, I am afraid I have taken the liberty—and I hope noble Lords will not mind—of splitting it into various parts. I started off with creating opportunities, and I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, use the word "acceptance". This is the vital part—acceptance by authority of the opportunities that are being found. Not only do we want to create opportunities, but more important still the initiative should come from them; and even more important than that, we ought to help them to follow up opportunities of their own making. It is perfectly true that they may be right or wrong. It is true that some inevitably will be wrong; some will be right in essence but will be done in the wrong way, and some, as in the parable of the sower, will fill on good ground and will yield an hundredfold. But adults must not interfere. The young people must be allowed to make their own mistakes. True, one should not allow them to swing from chandeliers or to make any too dangerous mistakes, and certainly they should never be encouraged to make the same mistake more than once. I think it is an awful pity that some of the adults alive to-day did

523
not make a few more mistakes in their early youth.
That leads us to excitement and adventure. Of course they must have these things, and every publication on youth stresses this point. But who, as adults, are competent to judge? Unless one is privileged to be literally alongside youth, in most cases we should be wrong, because we are looking back 30, 40, 50 or maybe even more years, and we are thinking in terms, with our present experience, of what we believe we should have considered exciting if, again with our present experience, we were their age now. It is not at all the same sort of thing. In actual fact in most cases if they were asked it boils down to the fact that what is exciting to them is to be responsible: to be given a job and trusted to do it, however menial that job may be. If they need advice they must done and ask for it. They must find out, but we must never make it too easy for them. They resent this. We must always bear in mind, with our experience, that they think in different terms. It is rather like little Tommy and his teacher. When little Tommy was asked a question, "If there are forty sheep in a field and one gets out, how many will be left behind?", he answered promptly, "None". He was told off, and told that he knew absolutely nothing about arithmetic. His immediate retort was that the teacher knew nothing about sheep. But if little Tommy had been somewhat older, he would still have known that if one sheep got out the rest would follow. But he would have treated that question as an arithmetical one and would have answered correctly, so experience has a great deal to do with it.
The Motion has been bound up a great deal with the Albemarle Report, and we have only two years to run before the ten years is up. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, of the sixty years of Scouting, and our new designs, so I will not say any more on that, except that it will produce a vital and exciting modernisation of our movement by 1970. However, there was one paragraph in the Albemarle Report, paragraph 164, which intrigued me. It refers to the continuing pioneering spirit of the voluntary organisations. Our "new look" envisages an immense increase in activities and con
524
sequently, of course, an immense increase in costs, not only at national level but at county level as well.
A number of the counties have been on a "do-it-yourself" basis, and I am still of the opinion that it is a good thing for youth to do it themselves. One learns a great deal, not just the skills, but the leadership and organising ability and character building. However, obviously we shall need more money. My own county is in the same boat as another county, in that we have no big cities within our boundaries. That county has the "do-it-yourself" complex, and over the years it has only asked for one grant of £100, which was granted. The new plan makes £100 look remarkably silly, so they computed roughly the expenses they would have to pay to scouters and commissioners if they had been paying expenses at the normal rates—as paid, for instance, in other youth organisations—and the figure came out at the staggering sum of £25,000 per annum supplied out of the pockets of the small people who make up that movement.
I am perfectly certain that there are many more counties where the total is even higher, but this is the only one I know, and it is not one of my own. But judging from the figures, that is £8 to £10 per head of adult leader trainers. They can do no more that is about as far as they can go. I should like it to be borne in mind, when continuation of the pioneering spirit of voluntary organisations comes up for discussion at the end of the Albemarle ten-year period, that we are pushed as far financially as we can be in supporting our own movement from our own pockets.
The other part of the Motion refers to the creation of opportunities for youth to play a full part in national life. It has not been mentioned to-day, but I am sure it is important. It concerns activities rather like those of the Scout movement. These people we are talking about, although they may appear superficially adult, are not fully adult; they are in a transition stage, and usually it is a very difficult transition stage. The old adage of "All work and no play," and so on, is still very valid, and we should never forget this. Whatever they undertake, however important a thing is, it must be fun. To play a full part in every aspect of the national life is a

525
great aim, a tremendous ideal, but it is difficult to achieve. Older people are not very good at handing over authority to the younger, just as youngsters will resent needless authority by the older. This is the crux of the war of the generations. But I am certain that with respect and tact, slowly we can achieve that particular end.
One of my pet theories is tied up with what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, who wanted to put the voting age down to 18 for elections to local councils. I should like to go one further: I should like to see them elect their own local councils to act on youth matters at council level. I am sure this would be a good thing, and this is what we ought to be doing. They would be asked to solve all the youth problems that come up at local council. I am referring here, of course, to the older boys and girls, but I feel that local education authorities (except of course in the Greater London Council, where they are more enlightened) are wrong in not catering for the lower age groups. I personally believe that we can put over a tremendous lot to the 8 to 11 age group.
I believe that originally the pattern of Education, with a capital "E", was a mixture between parent, school and church as equal partners. To-day the school is increasingly getting a major share; more and more the parents are beginning to opt out, and consequently, through no fault of their own, less and less is the Church effective. The result of the present educational system, in my opinion, is getting dangerously near to a training system to pass qualifying exams, and it is moulding our people into narrower and narrower little boxes from which none can have a wider vision of the long term. The voluntary youth organisations are doing their best to redress this balance, by giving wider horizons and building character, but I think we should go further than this. We are only touching the edge of the problem.
Then we come to the important matter of co-operation between the statutory bodies and voluntary bodies. At last the scouts have seen the need for this and for the last five years co-operation, so far as we are concerned, has been steadily growing. We have a scheme this year
526
which might interest some of your Lordships, a scheme which we call "Operation Euro-venture", which is for our own scouts. We are setting up an activity centre on the Franco-Swiss border to provide all the things one can get for ski-ing, mountaineering, climbing, canoeing, boating and all the other things that go on with activity of this sort. Next time we operate this centre we hope to be able to invite other British youth organisations to partake, and Continental scouts to join US.
Again in the field of co-operation, I should like to see some form of activity information centres, a sort of general sorting house for all these activities—not just those that have been done but also those that are proposed and those that can be found. Somebody to-day mentioned the Stratford Canal. I Live in Warwickshire, and only one of my scout groups took part in this activity because we did not know it was going on. I should like to see some form of information centre. I think this would fit in well with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, though I was a little worried about that suggestion as here is a danger that it would be left open to interference and over-direction from Government. I tried this information centre on my county education officer, who was most helpful, but the whole scheme fell through because voluntary leaders work by day and we could not man the office during office hours. So we are now exploring existing information bureaux to see whether they can help us.
One matter has not been mentioned here to-day, but it is, I feel, almost the main key to success. It is a Key that is much easier for us in the voluntary organisations to use than for paid people on the other side. The real key to all this is abounding enthusiasm from both youth and adult alike. So if this Motion can do anything to help the Government unobtrusively to smooth the path of our youth organisations and to cut red tape, and without giving us a package deal on a plate, I unquestionably support the Motion.
9.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, "the youth of the nation": How completely and, if I may say so, how wisely has the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, left these persons undefined. The

527
net is very widely thrown. They may be ignoramuses or undergraduates, sixth-form public schoolboys, or girls in convents. All we are told of them is that they are young. How shall we set about looking for a comprehensive policy for so heterogeneous a group as this? Is it possible? Or am I perhaps taking the word "comprehensive" too literally, using it in either or both of its possible connotations? I do not think so, for I believe there is one thing that all young people ought to have regardless of age or sex and which at present they are, in the mass, grievously without; and it is our duty and within our power to help them to find it. That one thing is a sense of purpose.
The young to-day are growing up in conditions vastly better, on the whole, than those of any previous generation, and yet we have had the self-styled "beat generation" that we have heard about to-day, the "hippies", the "flower people" and all the rest of them—the people who, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, have withdrawn, drop-outs: young people, not, I think, to be thought of as bad or vicious or mentally defective; not typical, of course, but at the same time not to be pityingly shrugged off as misnts, because the tact of their failure to fit into society is often due to their own deliberate choice. All this happens in the middle of a so-called affluent society, in which opportunity awaits all who are capable of seizing it. These are the young people—some not so very young—who see all too clearly the futilities of the world as it is now and can see no good future worth striving for. Their condition and thought has been well described to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham. They are a symptom of a grievous sickness which is pretty widespread among our youth—not the sickness itself, but a part of its syndrome. The sickness is lack of a sense of purpose. It is this sickness which we ought to be able to set ourselves to cure. This indeed would be a comprehensive policy.
What then are the causes of this disease? I think that the most fundamental causes can be reduced in essence to two. The first, paradoxically, is the very affluence which I have mentioned. The
528
standard of living of the young has risen so much, their financial independence has so greatly increased, and life on the whole has become so much easier than it used to be, that the incentive to effort has greatly disappeared. In short, there is no outlet or challenge to be met. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and other noble Lords have already spoken of this problem, and have offered suggestions of ways in which it might be met.
The second cause of the disease, and the one with which I myself am concerned, is rather different. What does the nation look like to the eyes of the young? I submit that it looks as though it is aimlessly drifting. Whether or not this is true is not the point; that is what it looks like. The effect on the beholder can only be one of frustration and disillusion—in a word, demoralisation. The morale of the nation in which and into which our young people are growing up is low. I do not think there can be any serious argument about that. Where does one look for the cause of demoralisation? I do not think there can be much argument about that either. In any organisation the standard of morale is always set at the top: "Harry and his followers" who set the youth of England all on fire; "Monty" and his Corps Commanders, if my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery will permit the familiarity. Of the late General Wingate it was written—and I personally can testify to this—that, "He made men see a star above the battlefield." These are examples of morale raisers in war, but the principle remains just as true in peace. Morale depends on those who lead.
Who then are the leaders now? My Lords, we are. By "we" I intend nothing personal. I use the word to refer to men and women who sit in Parliament, whoever they may be and however they may have got there, whether they be Cabinet Ministers or Back-Bench hereditary Peers. Whether the true power lies in the Palace of Westminister or in Whitehall makes no difference, for it is Parliament that sits in the glare of publicity. Collectively, politicians get more column inches of publicity than anyone or anything else. We cannot read of the war in Vietnam without collecting the views of assorted politicians. If

529
there is a fashion article in a newspaper, sooner or later there will be a cartoon of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a mini-skirt. Even Aviation News tells us that Shackletons are obsolete, though I hope that it is not true in this House. As for television, the public may have their heroes from David Frost to Quackers. But how much T.V. can you watch without having something about politics or politicians thrust upon you, whether you like it or not?
The sad truth probably is that the British people have never had a truly extravagant admiration for their politicians, and I dare say that the standing of politicians just now is as low as it has ever been. Thus Mr. Quintin Hogg, as reported in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday:
"There is a mood of disillusionment with all politics. There is a denigration of all Parties and all public men sneered at as politicians."
We hear this over and over again, and the fact that it is from politicians themselves that we hear it makes it if anything more distressing. People are bound to ask why, if politicians have so low an opinion of their own standing in the country, do they not do something about it? Not even the most fervent supporter of the present Government would suggest that they are enjoying halcyon days just now. They have certainly had their failures. Well, failures of Government are not unknown, and perhaps they will recover now. It would be unpatriotic to hope that they will fail again. But they are also being assailed on grounds of breach of faith, of dishonour itself. From many quarters there has been vilification of the Prime Minister and certain of his Cabinet. I intend no Party point in this; the Conservatives also have been accused of breaches of faith.
But what is new in all this is not so much the nature of the accusations as the force with which they are made and the impact which they have on the public, particularly upon the impressionable young. Nor am I thinking solely of accusations hurled across the Floor of either House of Parliament. The battle rages far more widely than that. It rages—and this is the point—in the Press, on radio, on television, which means that it rages daily in practically every school, home and workshop in the
530
land. There is no escape. Every child can know, even if he neither cares nor understands, what Mr. Macleod thinks of Mr. Wilson, what Mr. Shinwell thinks of Mr. Heath, and what this, that or the other faction think of one another. Small wonder if children, growing up in this atmosphere of accusation and counter-accusation, come at a comparatively early age to exclaim with Mercutio, "A plague o' both your houses".
If politicians themselves proclaim loudly and repeatedly that the nation is fed-up with politicians, I do not think I need feel guilty of a breach of tact in saying that I think they are probably right. The fact is that in these days of instant mass communication our politicians, inside and outside Parliament, are too noisy, too eager to shout about the mote in another's eye, and, above all, too numerous. By "too numerous" I do not mean that there ought to be fewer Members of the Houses of Parliament; I mean that those Members who are simply politicians are too numerous in proportion to the whole. Surely some of them ought to grow up and graduate to the rank of statesman, but how many do? Cast the eye about London S.W.1, and where will it light upon a venerated figure of whom one naturally says, "There goes a statesman"?
In a recent article in the French magazine Paris Match the writer likened us to a ship that set out a century ago upon a world cruise. The cruise is now over and the ship has come home to port. The writer did not suggest that this ship had been battered in defeat or rendered inefficient in any way, or unseaworthy. He made the excellent point that the possession of an empire is not a cause or source of power. On the contrary, it is the possession of power that makes it possible to have an empire. We no longer have such power and so the empire is gone. But does that mean that Britain is no longer great? Not unless greatness and imperial power are synonymous; and if anyone thinks that they are I assure him that the idea is a novel one. England was almost the last of the nations to embark on the colony-collecting game, and I have never heard it suggested that anyone doubted her greatness for several centuries before then.

531
I am sick and tired of hearing persons in authority telling us that we are still a great people. Why should we doubt it? Other nations do not, until they hear our public men talking in this "chip on shoulder" kind of way. I have even heard us described, and by an Englishman, as "a once-proud nation". What have we to be ashamed of now, I should like to know, beyond the fact that we are represented in public by men who can talk in this defeatist and self-denigrating way? It is time for us to talk again like men, for if we do not how can we expect our boys to grow up believing that they are men? And if we deprive them of the chance of this belief, what injury are we doing to that golden treasury, their self respect?
I think that the world, ourselves included, is bedevilled by ideologies. Ideology, as your Lordships know, is the science of ideas; and an ideology is a collection of ideas, not a collection of ideals. The difference is profoundly important, but Governments appear to have lost sight of it. We live in a time in which political Parties are seen and heard to invoke their ideologies as though they were something sacred. Nations do the same, and even whole groups of nations, until we hear of ideological wars. I suppose we shall have to go on putting up with that. But I think we should set a less unedifying example to the young if we were to reverse our present tendency in our Party politics to set ideas above ideals. Ideals may be sacred, but ideas are fallible, and when they turn out badly they should be cast aside. If they are not, we end up with doctrinaire bureaucracy, the decline of Parliament and such costly fatuities as the treatment meted out by the Parties to the steel industry—which, whatever it may have done for steel, has certainly made our whole system of government look ridiculous.
532
So, my Lords, this is my comprehensive policy for youth: that we, by our own example, should set about the task of convincing it that in a present that may hold much evil there is none the less everything to strive for in a future which may hold much good. We shall do it by re-injecting into the process of Government the old and trusted principles; that is to say, the principles of putting nation before Party, of fighting always for honourable ideals and being ready at any time to jettison mere political ideas. When we say that the first duty of a Government is to promote the interests of the nation, we shall remember to add the words,
"in so far as these are compatible with truth, honour and fair dealing".
When we speak through the media of mass communication, we shall be careful to say straightforwardly, honestly and unequivocally what we mean and what we think. Speakers who think they already do this may care to notice from now on how often, instead of saying "I think", they say "I would have thought", which implies, whether they intend it or not, that in fact they think something else. We should remember that what we say may be heard by all, and should be a little less ready to hurl invective across the Party lines. By such means we shall make it plain that Great Britain is still fit to be the leader among the nations that England has been for centuries and, with dignity, infuse a sense of purpose into the young who all the time are coming on to take our places.
"The youth of a nation",
wrote Disraeli,
"are the trustees of posterity".
And we, my Lords, are the trustees of youth.
10.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I regret to say that I shall not follow the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in his remarks, with almost every word of which I disagree. I came to the House tonight to speak for one short and simple reason; that is, that I am a youth club leader, and have been so for two years. This does not entitle me to expect that the House should accept my remarks as being to any degree the more valuable than those made by such notable leaders of youth as the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and others. My experience of the work is so much shorter than theirs. I may say, in a lighter vein, that perhaps I have more recent experience, in that I had to leave your Lordships' House for most of the centre of this debate in order to spend two hours, dressed in jersey, corduroys and deck boots, runing my acquatic youth club on a barge on the Regent's Canal. Having looked after the twenty youngsters who turned up in the cold and rain and darkness tonight to boat there, I have put on more reasonable dress to return and address your Lordships.
Looking at the question of youth over the years during which my attention has been so forcibly directed to it, I believe that we, the adults of Britain, have committed a crime, though perhaps it is not so recognised today. It would have been recognised more some centuries ago, when they acknowledged that the man who stole the goose from off the common committed a crime, but also considered that some odium rested on the man who stole the common from the goose and, by enclosure, took away land which had been used for public purposes, and which no doubt had given great enjoyment to the youth of the day. When I was a boy—and this is true of many of your Lordships—I enjoyed great liberty of movement. I was also to roam the countryside, I could shoot, I could fish, I could climb trees, build sandcastles, sail and swim. I could do all the things that most of your Lordships could do. But, let us face it, if you tried to do almost any one of those things in London at the present moment, you would quickly be in trouble with the police. I believe that somehow we must replace those activities in the hands of our youth.
534
You may say that all this is play. Well, of course, in a sense it is play. When a kitten plays with a ball of wool it is play; but at the same time that kitten is using its brain and its muscles and practising the co-ordination between the two in the very active and serious business of growing up to be a fully-grown cat. For exactly the same reasons we need to expand the personality of our young people by giving them every possible opportunity to use their brains in all the ways that they can; by giving them the chance to use their muscles, their nerves and their co-ordination in doing all the various things which in earlier years—or even in the countryside to-day—they were free to do, but which they are not so free to do in our big cities to-day.
As to the quality of our youth to-day, my experience is that it is high. And to this remark I would add that I also have a very great respect for their parents. My experience is mainly with the younger ones. I entered this field of youth leadership in a rather remarkable manner and largely without knowing that I had done it. What happened very briefly is this. I have a house on the banks of the Regent's Canal and have a landing stage with my own boats moored to it. Inevitably, at some moments, groups of unoccupied youngsters came drifting along the towpath who called out asking whether they could use my boats. In a moment of insanity—or perhaps one might call it a moment of sanity of an unusual kind—I said, "Yes".
The natural result was of course that they came back again, bringing their friends; and, shortly afterwards, their friends brought their friends, and before I knew what had happened I found myself the leader of a youth group established on a big old steel barge moored in a quiet corner of the canal, with 20 smaller craft, dinghies, canoes, sailing craft, punts and small motor craft. Now, after two years, we have a membership of 370 boys and girls who turn up so regularly and with such fervour that on a dull, overcast Saturday in January, 65 of them turned up.
My Lords, when I started this I did so in a state of acute ignorance. I knew absolutely nothing of running a youth

535
club; I had no theories, no knowledge of other people's practice. We signed on all who turned up, quite regardless, and they came mainly from Camden Town and Kentish Town. We had to make 8 the minimum age, because that was the lowest age at which children had the strength to row a boat and swim and at which they were reasonably obedient so as to be safe on the water. We made the top age 19, because 19 was the age of the oldest who turned up. Within those age limits we took on all comers; boys and girls, white, black and brown, and we would have taken green ones, I am sure, had any turned up. That was how we started.
We discovered what I am sure we could have been told by the Youth Service had there been anyone to tell us, namely, that the older and younger groups did not mix in an altogether satisfactory manner. So after a time we decided to make the club one for younger children, since three-quarters of those who came were aged 14 and below. The ages at which we now accept them are from 8 to 14. We did not turn out the 15-yearolds and we keep our 14-year-olds when they become 15. Various things have become very clear to us over the years. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, the bad lads are a very small minority. The enormous majority never put a foot wrong in any way.
We have been lucky in that the club is on the water and this, in itself, imposes a certain discipline which is absolutely essential if you are not to drown the children. This is recognised by the children and it has enabled us to carry with the discipline necessary for safety a certain number of other rules so that we keep up a high standard of behaviour. The fact that the club is on the water has attracted parents. Some have taken to boating with their children and help me to run the club as club officers or by working in the canteen, and so on. Even those parents who do not take to the water themselves often come to see how safe we keep their children and what the children find of interest on the waterway. And so we get a great deal more cooperation and contact with parents than I believe do most youth clubs. All of this has been a very great help.
536
Another thing we have found is that we get so many youngsters under 14 because the services provided for children over 14 are, comparatively speaking. much better developed. The younger children are not so well catered for, in spite of the fact that obviously these youngsters, when school ends, have to go out into the street. I am sure that if there is any extra undisciplined behaviour in the youth of today, especially in the big cities, it is to some extent due to the fact that there is nothing for this age group to do. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that this age group is the starting point for the troubles which occasionally afflict our youth, and if we mean to prevent such things starting, rather than waiting till later and then trying to put right what has gone wrong, it is my belief that this is where we should put in a big effort now to start this group going in the right direction. The amount of enthusiasm which this age group has is most impressive, and if it can be harnessed and not allowed to die away in boredom we can do more good and get greater return for our investment of cash in the Youth Service by doing this than by any other possible method.
10.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I apologise for having had to leave in the middle of the debate and return dressed as I am. I speak tonight, first as a father of five children under 17, secondly as Chairman of the Training Committee of the Scouts for Kent, and lastly as President of the Kent Association of Boys' Clubs, which has 53 clubs and over 3,000 boys. I was delighted not to miss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, with so much of which I agree. I was also glad to hear the noble and learned Lord Lord Chancellor give more details of the Government scheme, because we were afraid of what "comprehensive" meant and of what some of the ideas appeared to be. I got my running orders from three boys in the club, and they were very straight. They said, "Tell them that we are bloody well going to go to what clubs we like. Sometimes we want to go to a mixed club and sometimes to a boys' club."
With respect, I think that the noble and learned Lord was wrong on two

537
points; first, in the idea that the young are looking forward to their lives at the age of 50. That is almost in the grave for them. They want to see themselves through the next three to five years, and that is difficult enough at present. The military half of the noble and learned Lord's speech I think I had better leave to the defence debate. I think there are more things for students to protest about than the atom bomb. For instance, there is more danger in biological warfare. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord meant that it was a good thing for students to protest against bad Governments and leaders, but on a night like this I do not want to make political points.
Adolescence is the most difficult period of life that young people have to go through. They do not want advice and lecturing; what they want is a spark of leadership to set them alight and a challenge. They want excitement and to take risks. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, was at Cambridge with me, and we got our risks, not only on the hunting field but off it. I do not remember whether he was there the night that the Communist Party meeting was broken up, and I spent a short time in police custody. I do not think there is very much difference between those of us who do it on the ski slopes and the hunting field and those who have an occasional "knock-up" on the beach at Brighton. It is the same basic thing: that a young man wants a risk and excitement.
It is for that purpose that, at least in Kent, the boys' clubs exist. We endeavour to give them every form of risk-taking activity, but under safe guidance, even so far as going at 100 m.p.h. on a motor cycle, with the welcome help of the Army youth team at the racing ground in Kent. It is an enormous thing, to be able to teach a chap to take a risk safely, because it is that much better. They walk for miles. If your Lordships come to Maidstone at 8 o'clock on Sunday, May 19, you will see them finishing their Margate to Maidstone walk; and they are boys of all ages. Although most of the members of the boys' clubs come from normal and good backgrounds, some of our clubs are formed within the approved schools. The winner of the Margate to Maidstone walk last year came from an
538
approved school. First-class those boys were; and they won many other sports. There, I think, we should look at the particular school that I visit, where there are 87 boys, of whom 60-odd come from broken homes. I hope your Lordships will remember this when we come to consider the Divorce Bill, because it is one aspect of that problem that we should face.
I found the same thing in the Army. To take the most serious crime, that of murder, there were eight murders in the Army when I was in Germany—I hope not because of it. Of the eight soldiers convicted of murder, six came from the most appalling broken homes. One young soldier who committed a nasty sexual murder had been made to walk to school in girls' shoes by his mother, the father having divorced her and left. This is the kind of situation where the sins of the fathers' are literally being visited on the children.
Although most of us have spoken about all that is good in youth, and that which is having the natural outlet in the Scouts, clubs and so on, we should above all help those who have not had a fair start in life. Referring again to the school in Kent that I have mentioned (I do not want to give its name), they gained only one O level, mostly again, I think, because the children have not been made to go to school, or because the appalling difficulties of their home situation have made it impossible to learn. Yet they fit into the boys' club movement extremely well. Some of them have been caught stealing—and I mentioned that there but for the grace of God most of us would be: and some of us have been inside. Some have been taking drugs. Again, I think that is done more from a spirit of adventure and of trying anything once. I must also confess that when I was a young officer on leave in Cairo at a certain night club I tried hashish from my hubble-bubble. By the grace of God I got extremely sick; it was not at all a pleasurable feeling, and I never wanted to touch hashish again.
It is this enthusiasm to which we have to give some meaning in our youth service. I fear that we do not give them much of a start in the society that we leave for them. With the exception of

539
the right reverend Prelates in this House, I do not think that at this moment of time religion has helped them very much. The trumpet has been too uncertain. There are too many priests—Catholic in my church, and in the Church of England, and also a few Bishops—who now seem to start the Creed, "I used to believe". With an uncertain trumpet, how can the young have something to hold on to on that side?
In politics, several noble Lords have mentioned the difficulties, and it is virtually impossible. I spoke to two club members on the subject of politics, and we were talking about the economic debate. They asked me a question which I could not answer. They said: "Are you going to the economic debate in the House of Commons?". I said: "Yes". They said: "You know what each side will say?", and I said: "Yes". They said: "You know what the vote will be when it is all over?" I said: "Yes". They said: "What the hell are we trying to do? Is this the way we should be governed?". You can see the cynical approach, caused I think by us, because too many of our leaders on all sides think that one man is Truth. It is about time we made it quite clear, however much our leaders pontificate, that no man is Truth.
There is among the youth of this country, as I expect has been mentioned while I have been away, an enormous will and desire to help others. I have seen it in my own clubs. Again, all that is required is a suggestion, a hint, a spark of leadership once more, and they will do what is wanted. On Saturdays our boys go to shop for old people when the rush at Saturday shopping time is too great to be coped with by old people; they go into hospitals to write letters for old people who do not have relatives nearby and who find it difficult to phrase the words. It is all there, my Lords, provided that the leadership is there and the challenge is given to them.
10.31 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, when we discussed this subject in 1962 we finished the debate by 6.45 p.m.; in 1965 we finished at 8.45 p.m. What worries me is what will be happening in 1971.
540
The Motion, for which we thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, calls for
"a more comprehensive policy towards"
young people and for
"further opportunities for young people to play a full part in every aspect of our national life".
I should have thought that one aspect of our national life in which it is obvious that young people can play a part is their jobs; and it is rather surprising, I think, that so little has been heard to-day about the part that industrial training can play in this whole field. It was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, in his fine maiden speech, and from Lord Hirshfield and Lord Hunt, some aspects of this. Nevertheless, it is surprising that so little has been heard on this subject to-day. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us a little more to indicate that there is not a divergence between the youth services and industrial training.
I myself want to follow the majority of noble Lords for a moment and look at the Youth Service, and particularly to consider how far the Youth Service helps along the path which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has pointed to us. It cannot help in more than one-third of the way because not more than one-third of our young people use the Youth Service in any form. This was something which was true when Lady Albemarle's Committee reported, and it is still true to-day. This help goes rather less than one-third of the way, in fact, because a good part of the Youth Service is devoted to doing things for young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, would have it do, rather than to finding worthwhile things for young people to do for other people.
There are, of course, plenty of exceptions to this, and we have heard something about all of them this evening: the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides. St. John, the Red Cross, and the cadet forces, and one that has come in for particular mention to-day, the V.S.O. This year the V.S.O. are deploying, I understand, 1.300 young people overseas, while the C.S.V. are deploying very nearly 400 people who are giving four months or more of their time in voluntary service in our community. We salute all these, and others like them, for all their efforts to find

541
worthwhile and useful things for young people to do, and for what they are doing to help them to undertake these tasks efficiently and responsibly. But all these bodies, and those like them, taken together—admirable as they are—are only for those few, not more than one-third of our young people, those very few, who join them.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham pointed out, those few are fully, perhaps over fully, involved already. And as the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, has said, we still have to face the fact that at least half of our youth—I would say two-thirds of our youth—most, but not all, with great latent potential for valuable service in them, go through their last terms in school and into their first years in employment without having had that spark of service kindled or kept alight. Nor has the other group had its rebellions and its protests effectively harnessed. All this is familiar ground. Lady Albemarle said this in her Report, in 1959; Sir John Newsom said the same thing in his Report, and in 1964 the King George's Jubilee Trust said the same thing in their Report Opportunities for Service and, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare reminded us at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Bessey said it in his Report in 1965.
As a result of all this talk certainly something has been done, but I would guess not all that much; and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that it is nothing like enough. But I would point to the example set us by Task Force, which since 1964 has been showing one way—and I freely admit that it is only one way—of stepping up the scale of these activities by young people, many of whom are quite unattached to the Youth Service and unattached by Churches, clubs or organisations of any kind. I mention this because of the difference in scale. C.S.V., which has rightly several times today been applauded, has at any one moment rather less than 400 boys and girls deployed in approved schools, mental hospitals, and so on. Task Force, not yet a national organisation, working only in London, has 11,000 to 12,000
542
boys employed, not working for such long periods as C.S.V. volunteers, but nevertheless engaged in some form of voluntary service.
I should like to say just a few words on this Task Force service. It is a service that concentrates exclusively—and I stress the word "exclusively"—on finding worthwhile things for young people to do, on finding young people to do them, and on nothing else whatever, beyond that of checking that the job is still worth doing and that there is still somebody doing it. There are no distractions of maintaining club membership of looking after club premises, no badges. rules, subscriptions—nothing, except finding these worthwhile jobs to do and finding the young people to do them. What Task Force has done is to develop this process of assessing what jobs are suitable and worth while, putting the right young people to work at them, and keeping that young person or finding some other young person until the job is done.
All this has been worked out to a very high pitch of efficiency at the Task Force centres which are all manned by gifted young people, working full time at full time salaries. As I see it, there are four things that make Task Force such a valuable service. First, it gives the workers in the statutory services, who are among those who are being helped more than any others by this system, the assurance that they must have, that the help they are being offered really will be forthcoming and will be sustained and continued, and will be supervised and checked. Secondly, it gives teachers in the schools who are operating community service schemes help to find the right jobs, and help in supervising the boys and girls who are working at them. This is something that relatively few teachers have time to do thoroughly when they are working without Task Force behind them.
Thirdly, Task Force gives youth organisations (and I stress this) like I.S.V. or the Boy Scouts, a central place to which they can refer to get projects suitable for their particular membership, whatever its age group and sex may be, and it provides this same service just as effectively to unattached boys and girls as

543
it does to clubs. It gives doctors, clergy, old people's welfare committees, home helps, all those people who are in receipt of cris de Cœur from the community, a centre to refer to for that kind of help that can be given by boys and girls but cannot always be given, or given quickly, by the Welfare State.
This service Task Force has been providing in London and is now providing in eight or nine of the 32 London boroughs, and it is in the process, or was in the process, of being transplanted into Derbyshire and Hertfordshire before this Young Volunteer Force Foundation came into being. I had a measure of responsibility for the transplant operation in Hertfordshire, and after fifteen months of planning and preparation—and I would agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that it is very important that this preparation be done thoroughly and local needs and situations carefully assessed—I would judge it is now going reasonably well. And I hope that further expansion of this or a similar method of finding opportunities for young people to serve the community will take place until it becomes the normal thing for school children to do, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich led us to hope and expect. I hope that this is the aim of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation—this or something like it. If it is, I wish it every success.
If it is to succeed it will, I think, have to start by finding a rather better name. "Young Volunteer Force Foundation" is not the best that could have been devised. And I should like to register with other noble Lords a few mild misgivings about this new set-up. I believe, and I hope, they are misgivings which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will easily be able to set at rest. The founder of Task Force, who will be the Director of Young Volunteer Force Foundation is still a young man, and the full-time officers of Task Force were all young men, and this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, reminded us, is a very real attraction for the young people who work in the service. The Young Volunteer Force Foundation has what I should judge to be a great handicap by being headed by three Privy Counsellors. These are probably very "with it" Privy Coun
544
sellors but they are not in their twenties or even thirties, and for a young people's organisation this is something of a handicap.
Task Force was, and is, an independent voluntary body like C.S.V. and V.S.O., and the Young Volunteer Force Foundation is said to be, but, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare has pointed out, it is going to be launched, at any rate launched to local authorities, next month by a joint Government circular. joint Government circulars are not the most "with it" kind of document, and that approach is making this new body look suspiciously like Task Force nationalised. I hope we can have our suspicions and fears about that set at rest. There was another point which the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, made very forcibly, and I am sure she was right to do so. That was that the setting up of any new body like Task Force or any agency that might be sponsored by this Young Volunteer Force Foundation is a very delicate operation in any locality. It requires the greatest possible tact and patience: the way has to be paved with the greatest care. It has taken me in Hertfordshire 15 months to make quite sure that all the voluntary bodies, the mayors, the town clerks, and so on, were prepared to accept a branch of Task Force working in a Home County. I do not think a single day of that 15 months could have been spared. If you take short cuts in the preparation of this scheme it leads straightaway to trouble, and I hope that that point which the noble Baroness drew to our attention will be watched most carefully.
The spokesman for the Ministry of Education ruffled a lot of feathers by his rash talk of flying squads of young people from the Young Volunteer Force Foundation dashing about among the health and welfare services in the provinces. This is an attractive idea to the young, but it is most alarming to the Establishment, and is extremely irritating to those who are already working in the field. Let us hope that the Young Volunteer Force Foundation will recover from this rather groggy genesis. The idea behind the Foundation is excellent. Its advent must encourage those who, like me, welcome and support this Motion.
10.46 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, youth itself hardly lasts as long this debate has lasted, and for that reason I shall not detain your Lordships long. The whole House is greatly indebted to Lord Robertson for bringing forward this Motion, which is similar to one he brought forward three years ago, and I hope will prove similar to one he will bring forward in three years' time. I think this is a good interval for the House to concern itself with these matters. I should like also to join with all those who have already felicitated Lord Pilkington on an excellent maiden speech. I wonder what he will talk about next, and hope that it will be soon.
After the 1965 debate my honourable friend Mr. Denis Howell, who looks after the Youth Service and Service by Youth—a distinction which has often been made at the D.E.S.—sent a copy of Hansard of that debate to the Youth Service Development Council. That Council met and went through it. My honourable friend has told me that this time he plans to do exactly the same thing. It seems to me that this is the most practical possible way of handling the great wealth of constructive suggestions which have been made in this long debate. Not one of them will go by the board, not one of them will be missed, and I think probably noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that this is the right forum for the suggestions to be picked up and assessed, and from which action on them should flow. That being so, I hope that the House will exonerate me from the duty of picking up each individual suggestion which has been made by everybody throughout the debate. Those points which I do not pick up will be picked up in the Youth Service Development Council by means of this machinery. Of course, some points I must pick up and will now do so.
Lord Robertson, in opening the debate, said that if good opportunities existed for youth to serve, then youth would have less disposition to rebel. I think many noble Lords will agree with me when I say that I do not much mind
546
if they do rebel. I personally like being rebelled against, because I remember what fun it was to rebel. After all, this very rebellion is the stuff of change and progress in our society, and I think we should worry if we are too careful to provide opportunities for people to do anything else except rebel.
Lord Aberdare, speaking early in the debate, raised certain worries about the now Government initiative in the field of service by youth—that, I think, is a key phrase for it—in connection with the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. I should like to take him up on one or two things he said. They are only details, and they were not echoed later on, but I think it would be worth doing so. If I heard him aright, he said that at no time were the interested parties—meaning all the existing voluntary organisations—brought round the table together about this scheme. Well, that is true only if you look at it wearing very special glasses. What happened was this. All the interested bodies were consulted before the scheme was launched—every single one, most of them many times over. The particular body which has since voiced the most doubt about the scheme was consulted on at least two occasions at the very highest level and on others at a lower level. I have with me quotations of the reactions of those who were consulted, which were thoroughly favourable at an early stage. However, they were not all got round the table before the scheme was launched, and I expect the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will agree with me that, in a field in which there are so many voluntary bodies and so many interests involved, a round table meeting at a very early stage is not always the most effective means of getting progress. Then at a certain point last November the scheme was launched, and about two weeks ago there was a round table meeting of the whole lot—all of them—about the further development of this scheme. All the bodies concerned welcomed it and made their contributions to a scheme for its development, with the one exception mentioned by Lord Aberdare.
The second point which I feel I should take up with Lord Aberdare is this. He

547
asked whether it was not unusual to commend one particular charitable trust, referring to the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, in a circular to local authorities. The circular has not gone out yet, so it is a little hypothetical to discuss it at all. But since he raised the point, I might say that, subject to all the consultations which yet have to be done on the circular before it goes out, the idea is that it should commend voluntary service in general—that it should commend the lot—and should then tell the local authorities about the extra bit which the Young Volunteer Force Foundation has been set up to provide. It is not a voluntary organisation to compete with the others. It is not going to operate in the same way or on the same level. It is not going to recruit its own members in a mass, as many of the others rightly do; it is not going to get in their way. What it is proposing to do is to help in general all the existing organisations, and in particular to help them get into areas where they have not yet been. I think it will find that one of its main preoccupations will be to open up the field, or help in opening up the field, to the existing voluntary organisations, all of them in parts of the country where they are not "off the ground". It might be able to do this, and it is the intention that it should do so.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I am very grateful to him, and if his words will go towards helping to remove this controversy, which I was anxious to remove, that is all to the good. The circular, which the noble Lord said has not been released, has got out. A draft circular has been sent round by the Ministry of Health to hospital management boards. That draft circular does not go so far as he was hoping that the final circular would in a general commendation of all voluntary effort.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord must know that when circulars are being drafted, it is subject to consultation with many bodies—associations of those likely to receive them, and perhaps sample individual bodies among the bodies likely to receive them. In regard to forming any judgment about a circular which is at present in draft, the noble Lord said
548
that it has got out. I do not know whether or not it should have.
LORD ABERDARE: It has.
LORD KENNET: Well, it should not have.
A NOBLE LORD: Another leak!
LORD KENNET: Leak or no leak, the House should regard with some seriousness the prospect that a Government circular in draft should not be able to be discussed with those whom it is going to interest, because, as the noble Lord put it, there has been a leak. That would be a sad day. for the Government must have freedom to discuss these things and should not be held up by criticism, informed or partially informed, even in Parliament, during the discussion stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, voiced reservations about the presence of three Privy Counsellors on the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. He said that Privy Counsellors were not very "with it" animals, and that circulars were not very "with it" things. For heaven's sake, my Lords, not everything about the Youth Service or service by youth can be "with it". It is important to remember that if the "with it" people are to keep being "with it", and to move "it" in the best way they can on account of their being "with it", there must be a lot of extremely dull routine, with bureaucratic, financial and organisaional background. I would say that the most "with it" thing that an eider statesman or Privy Counsellor can do is to provide exactly this boring, persevering background work. The most "with it" thing that a Government can do is to take off the shoulders of the voluntary organisations, many of whom are extremely "with it", the dull routine work of communication with local authorities and co-ordination with local authorities, precisely by the use of that highly "un-with it" mechanism, the circular. How else would anybody wish the Government to proceed? I believe this is the right way to proceed.
May I join issue in his absence with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who told me he would not be able to stay? He spoke about adventure and implied that there would be less

549
scope for adventure for the young people of this country once we had withdrawn our military presence from Asia. I think that was the implication of his words about the contraction from the international scene. I was startled and even, perhaps, at moments appalled—I do not know how many of your Lordships will follow me—at the assimilation of adventure with military duties, including operational patrols, street fighting and occasional pitched battles, which was the lot of our forces in Asia and was what they were there for. If this is what he means by "adventure", then I think we should all think again about our categories. I believe that adventure is an entirely different matter. When I say to him that the Government are in favour of adventure and of providing opportunities for it, I emphasise as much as I can that this is not what the Government mean, and I should like to disentangle what I believe to have been the profoundly entangled thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on this score.
I come to the spirited intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. The difficulty here is: is it to be voluntary or is it to be compulsory? This is the great problem. I am not merely stalling on what I know he hopes will prove to be something vast, for if it comes out right I hope it will be something vast, too. But you cannot have voluntary compulsion and you cannot have compulsory voluntary service. When you say "National Service" you think at once of compulsion, because National Service was compulsory and we abolished it. When you say "National Service" it immediately suggests a return to conscription of some sort, though conscription is for a different purpose. If the intention is that this great movement should be compulsory, I say straight away that the Government are dead against it for reasons which I could not possibly put better than the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, did. If, on the other hand, it is to be voluntary, the only question is: how much can we do and how soon? I hope the noble Earl will agree with me that the present course on which the Government are set is the right one for starting it up.
I hope the movement may get bigger and bigger. I hope it may turn out in time to be something like the noble Earl
550
envisaged. Of course, the field is full of problems, because if you get vast numbers of voluntary workers clearing slum sites you are going to upset the whole economics of the building industry, because it is going to bring down their costs. Whose costs is it going to bring down? So there is going to be a lot of argy-bargy about that in different sectors of the economy. But provided that it is voluntary, let us try it out and hope that it goes in the right direction.
There was one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, which I should like to take up. She enquired about the Hunt Report. The circular which went out at the time of publication of this Report asked for a report upon progress in the implementation of the kind of thing mentioned in the Hunt Report about young immigrants, and it asked for it by the end of this year. So that is where we stand at this moment: we are waiting to know "what is cooking".
On the training of youth leaders and the question of getting a clearer idea for the future, especially for the National College at Leicester, may I say that this is at the moment under review by the D.E.S., who are conducting this review in conjunction with the Youth Service Development Council. The programme of the Leicester College for the next year is settled; the programme for the year after that will depend on the review which is now going forward. But let me say that the Government entirely agree that it is important to get a clear future on this matter, and we hope to do it before too long.
My kinsman, Lord Crawshaw, spoke from most interesting direct experience of the Scout Movement, as indeed lid the former Chief Scout a moment or two later; and I know we were all interested and grateful for those interventions. I should like to tell Lord Crawshaw, just to keep it all in the family, that my house is still full of the knots tied with one hand by my father. We have got Turks' heads on the bannisters and double bowlines hanging from all the windows and heaven knows where else! Let me swiftly, if I may, compliment Lady Birk on what I thought was a speech which came closer to the reality of the relations between that wild tribe we tend to call "youth" and the rest of us than many

551
other speeches. It is possible that some of them see some of us as "fuddy duddies", but listening in the House today I thought that some of us saw some of them as "fuzzy wuzzies". Let us hope that if there is any conflict between "fuddy duddies" and "fuzzy wuzzies" it will soon be overcome, partly by the agency of this debate, which I hope will be widely reported.
My noble friend Lord St. Davids brought us right down to earth with a direct account of what it is actually like running a youth club, and I was particularly impressed by the way he described the fact that he did not begin it and did not specially want it, but that it just happened because he happened to have come boats. There is quite a strong analogy between that and the Government's attitude to the voluntary organisations at the moment. He welcomed all those who came along, and he got a concern going on that basis. The Government welcome all the voluntary organisations which come along. They have tried to set up a framework to help them, and they welcome them all on that very basis. I think I should not leave my brief mention of noble Lords who have spoken without speaking of one who has not. I refer to Lord Longford, to whom the Government are most grateful for the general inquiry within the Government which he set up into the Youth Service—an inquiry which was taken over, on his recent resignation, by Mr. Michael Stewart.
My Lords, let us for a moment look at the young people of Britain and see what we can say about them and in what way they have changed. Compared with before the war, when they are 13 the boys are seven centimetres taller than they were, and the girls four centimetres. If we take the age group 15 to 24 as a whole, we find that they are three or four times less likely to die than they were before the war; they are two or three times more likely to marry before they are 24; they earn twice as much; the girls are twice as likely to have a baby and four times as likely to have an illegitimate baby; they are all rather less likely to commit suicide; they are three times as likely to go to a university and seven times as likely to go to a college of education; they are twice as likely to
552
be killed in a motor accident as they were in 1951, even. But on the other hand, when they are still in the secondary school they are only five-sixths as likely to be in a class of over 30 as they were in 1963, only four or five years ago. The picture that makes is a pretty good one; we could not ask better. I am sorry that they are likely to have more illegitimate babies and I am very sorry that they are more likely to be killed by motor cars. But apart from that it is a picture of change in exactly the direction we should have wished. Things were not right with them before the war. We worked on it; my generation and the generation above. and it got better.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I am ashamed to interrupt, but is it not a fact that they were just about as likely to be killed in a motor accident in 1966 as they were in 1934? The death rate in both years was about the same.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the only valid figures I have been able to get are those that I have given the House: that they are now twice as likely to be killed by a motor car in one way or another as they were in 1951.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, at the beginning of the debate, quoted Peter the Monk in 1274. I should like to go further back and quote from what I believe to be one of the first pieces of continuous prose to come from our culture at all; if we count Ancient Egypt in our culture. There is a piece of writing—and you can see who is writing to whom—which goes like this:
"I am told that you forsake writing and give yourself up to pleasure. You go from street to street, where it smells of beer, to destruction. Beer scares men from you and sends your soul to perdition.
"You are like a broken steering-oar in a ship that answers neither to port nor to starboard. You are like a shrine without its god and like a house without bread.
"You have been seen climbing a wall and breaking into the—"
There is a hieroglyphic here, indecipherable at this point.
"… Men run away from you, for you inflict wounds on them.
"You ought to know that wine is an abomination. You are taught to sing to the flute… and to pipe.…You sit in the house and the girls encircle you. You sit in front of the wench and get sprinkled with oil. You drum upon your paunch. You reel and fall down and get covered with dirt.…"

553
My Lords, so far as invective against the younger generation is concerned, we have not progressed much since then; but I have no doubt that as far as justification for that invective goes, we have. You do not hear such things now; and if you did, it would not be true, I think. I am glad that no complaints were made about the long hair of the young men. You can read about it in the Press. No noble Lord was so Philistine as to base an attack on youth on this point this evening. It is interesting to remember that young men with hair to the shoulders or below the ear is the norm in European culture, and has been for 2,000 years. The periods in which hair was cut short have been rather few and rather transient, and associated with a predominantly military life. Soldiers on campaign have to do it, otherwise they would get lice. But in periods of peace and culture, as we have now, with all our troubles, it is normal for young men to feel they look nicer with long hair. This is a reversion and not an effete innovation.
I should like to report to the House, if I may, an interesting sociological phenomenon which came to my notice the other day. It is the fact that in a London comprehensive school in a class of 14-year-olds, the teacher asked them to write down, in order, the problems which in their opinion face contemporary youth. It was during a French lesson, so they wrote it in French which no doubt added something to the educational value. They wrote down—with at least general agreement; and I should like the House particularly to note the order—in the first place, parents; in the second, drugs; third, spelling; fourth, sex; and thereafter, in order, money, capitalism, Communism, poverty, hunger and last, but not least, each other.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, surely we are not going to be asked to take serious note at this time of night of what one form in one school has voted?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the House will take what notice it wishes of the sample, for which I claim no statistical validity whatever. I merely introduced it to show that the youth of to-day is probably about the same as it was when we
554
were young and to engender a feeling of community, because I feel that this is the point of this debate: that they are not a separate class of people, a sort of dangerous tribe living in a balloon blown out from the side of society. They are part of us, and the national policy towards youth is one thing. But, of course, the obverse is the youth policy towards the nation, and the two have to lock together and belong.
I suppose if the youth of this generation do differ from others, it may be that, apart from the respects in which I have already given your Lordships figures, they are healthier and larger and mature younger. I think that perhaps they are more peaceful than they used to be. I do not mean that they do not bash each other up less, but perhaps they hope and work more for peace in the world than used to be the case some time ago. They are certainly much more educated. Society, through the State, has seen to that for them. They take a much greater pride in their appearance, which is a pleasure for all of us, and for many people pride means inwards from the outside in, and that is very much to the good. If it can be said of a society that it gets the youth it deserves I think that this society clearly deserves well, but I should like to put it another way round and say that so far as our young people go we are in luck.
11.12 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, it is a tradition of your Lordships' House that the Peer who proposes a Motion is given the privilege of speaking again at the end of the debate, and I have given a lot of thought as to what profitable use I might make of this privilege without transgressing further on the patience which your Lordships have so generously shown through the long hours of this debate. I have decided to do two things. The first is, with great sincerity, to say, "Thank you" to all the noble Lords and noble Ladies who have spoken and to include in my thanks especially the noble Lords who have spoken from the Government Bench and who have dealt so meticulously and patiently with the questions put to them. It has been a memorable and exhilarating day for which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, joins with me in expressing our sincere thanks.

555
The other thing I should like to do is to shine the light for a moment on something which has emerged in this debate; a thought, a truth, which has emerged from the speeches of a number of your Lordships. Perhaps the one which occurs to me as being the most recent was the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, but I will show your Lordships what I mean by quoting sentences from the speeches of two noble Lords neither of whom is present now. They sat on these Benches within a yard or two of each other and those of your Lordships who remember seing them will agree that there could be no two men more different from each other in appearance, background, reputation and age. I quote from the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, in fact, was making a quotation from a speech, a remark which is very well known to most of us, made by Mr. Dean Acheson. He said:
"England has lost an empire and she has not found a role."
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, said (I forget his exact words) that he was told to back Britain, but he did not know where Britain is going. I offer this suggestion to your Lordships, especially to those noble Lords who represent our Government now and those who hope to represent our Government in the future. Take away from this debate the
556
thought that the youth of England is waiting for Government, for its leaders, to give a clarion call. That is how it appears to me. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTTISH LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  SALVATION ARMY BILL [H.L.]
  Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bills committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  COURTS MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
  CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.