Sitting of 11 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    Manpower Gap
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made in closing the manpower gap identified in the National Plan.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams):The manpower gap was a function of the overall calculations of the National Plan, a number of assumptions of which have now ceased to be applicable. The development of industrial training in recent years should do much to prevent shortages of skilled manpower inhibiting economic growth in the future.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Even ignoring events subsequent to the plan, could the Under-Secretary confirm or deny the report in a responsible Press article that the original gap of 200,000 men in 1970 was a purely statistical error?
    Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot confirm that information. I have not seen the report. But the 200,000 arose as a result of a presumption of a 25 per cent. increase in G.D.P. over the period 1964–70.
    Mr. Higgins: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the crucial deter-
    706
    minants are likely to be changes in gross national product and changes in productivity? Surely he must have formulated some view of what the likely out-turn will be compared with the National Plan. Does he expect a bigger or a smaller gap?
    Mr. Williams: I know that the hon. Gentleman is awaiting his own contribution to the productivity of the nation, but on the present figures the indication would be that productivity is rising at least at the rate anticipated and possibly at well above it.

    Regional Policies (Grey Areas)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what surveys he has made to assess the effects of present regional policies upon the grey areas.
    The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): Studies by the Government and, in respect of particular areas, by regional boards and councils led to the setting up last year of the Hunt Committee to carry out a searching analysis of the problems of all areas whose rate of economic growth gives cause for concern. While awaiting the report of that Committee I am continuing to watch closely developments in all areas.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen and studied an article by his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the subject of giving subsidies directly to private industries? Would he not agree with his right hon. Friend that it is far superior to support the infra-structure by public expenditure than give subsidies to private concerns?
    Mr. Shore: I have not, as it happens, seen the article by my right hon. Friend, but I shall certainly study it because I am always interested in what he has to say. I think that the case for giving cash aid to firms in development areas is very strong, and I am satisfied with the R.E.P.
    Dr. Gray: What effect does my right hon. Friend think that his regional policies have had on the below-average wages which prevailed in the constituency of Yarmouth and throughout Norfolk?
    Mr. Shore: I am afraid that I have no direct information about the effect of

    707
    development area or regional policy on Great Yarmouth in particular, but if my hon. Friend has any information that he wishes to bring to my attention I promise to study it.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's policy that this direct financial aid to firms should have the result of preventing from closing down firms which otherwise would have closed down?
    Mr. Shore: In so far as cash grants through R.E.P. help firms in development areas to stay open when they would otherwise need to close, I think that this is a useful contribution that they can make to the maintenance of employment in development areas.
    Sir Cyril Osborne: Even though the firms are inefficient?
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Yes.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what has been the average anual rate of economic growth since his Department was established; and what was the average annual rate for the immediately preceding period of similar length.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how the rate of economic growth to date in the period covered by the National Plan compares with the target annual average given in the Plan; and what is the difference represented in terms of resources available in total and per head of the population in the three years 1965 to 1967.
    Mr. Shore: In the three years 1965–67 the average annual rate of economic growth was 1·8 per cent. but it is now rising at a higher rate of between 3 and 4 per cent. The corresponding rate in the preceding years 1962–64 was 3·6 per cent. The target for the national plan was an annual average growth of 3·8 per cent. In terms of resources the difference between the target and actual performance in the three years 1965 to 1967 was about £1,800 million which is equivalent to rather over £10 per head of population per year.
    Mr. Boardman: Do not those figures show that the rate of growth upon which
    708
    the prosperity of the nation depends has been halved under the Labour Government, and does this not prove the ineffectiveness of the Minister's Department and of Government policies?
    Mr. Shore: It certainly shows that comparing the second three-year period with the first the rate of growth was at about half, but that in itself does not explain the reason. The reason, as I see it, is that at the end of the previous three-year period—it greatly affected the average of those three years—we had a year of what I call irresponsible and elec-torally-minded growth of nearly 6 per cent. in G.D.P., the highest that we have ever had, and a year which also coincided with the worst balance of payments crisis that we have had.
    Mr. Blaker: Does not the Government's poor performance, combined with the fact that public expenditure is still at National Plan levels help to explain why the Government are having to forecast that the standard of living next year will be lower than in 1966 when the last election took place?
    Mr. Shore: It is almost axiomatic that, if one wishes to maintain public expenditure at the higher level we have sought to maintain in spite of the recent cuts, and the overall gross national product is not rising, there will be that much less available for private expenditure. That is the case today.
    Mr. Cant: Would my right hon. Friend be interested to know that I was a captive listener to a conversation by two eminent Conservative Members this morning and that they confessed privately with some reluctance that we are going to get an economic miracle after all? Will he be surprised to learn that they were not prepared to concede any credit for this to the Government?
    Mr. Shore: I am always happy to hear that hon. Members opposite are looking ahead rather than at the immediate situation and are seeing the signs of positive change and improvement which I believe are there.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the year 1964, which he described as one of irresponsible growth, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends urged the then Government to
    709
    expand even faster? Does he also agree that, in relation to resources for future growth, there is no lack of manpower but that the principal problem is overmanning, much of which needs to be retrained and redeployed?
    Mr. Shore: I remember the Budget of 1964 very well. Along with certain others, I was asked to comment on it in a long B.B.C. programme. My judgment now is what it was then—that it was an irresponsible Budget. There was the certainty of economic crisis that year and the Budget was only explicable in terms of the coming General Election. On the second point put by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no dispute at all.
    Mr. Speaker: Long answers mean fewer Questions.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will reconsider the policy of making cash payments to firms in development areas in order to increase turnover.
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the Government's present policy regarding the future of the regional employment premium at the end of the planned period.
    The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin):The regional employment premium, which I assume the hon. Member for Blackpool, South has primarily in mind, is intended to make manufacturing industries in development areas more competitive in comparison with similar industries elsewhere, and thus to stimulate the growth of employment opportunities in these areas. When it was introduced we announced that the scheme would last a least seven years, and this remains our policy. I cannot speculate on the position thereafter.
    Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman said that the regional employment premium is intended to stimulate the growth of employment opportunities. But what is there to prevent a firm from using its premium to purchase labour-saving machinery, thus achieving the same turnover with lower manpower?
    Mr. Urwin: There are encouraging signs that firms are using their discretion
    710
    in determining their pricing structure, as a result especially of the regional employment premium, but it is still too early to judge its effects fully.
    Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the article of 10th June in the Financial Times by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) represented Government policy in stating that the regional employment premium would be withdrawn at the end of the seven-year period?
    Mr. Urwin: The policy is to last for seven years and clearly, at the end of the period, it must be reviewed. It is impossible to speculate so far ahead.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on this side of the House, we welcome the fact that he is rejecting any pressure to get rid of the regional employment premium? Will he institute inquiries to make sure that firms getting the advantages of the premium are making full use of it?
    Mr. Unvin: We expect firms to use the amount of money allocated to them through the premium in order to ensure that the scheme becomes self-generating and provides more employment opportunities.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of jobs in development areas attributable to the regional employment premium.
    Mr. Urwin: As my right hon. Friend explained in replying to my hon. Friend's previous Question on 18th January, we expect about 100,000 new jobs in the development areas over a period of years. —[Vol: 756; c. 1945.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Since we are spending £100 million a year in order to persuade industry to do things it would not otherwise do, is it not time to get figures to show what is happening in order to ensure that the money is being spent in the best possible way?
    Mr. Urwin: I cannot give the kind of answer my hon. Friend clearly expects, but this aspect cannot be separated from the rest of the package.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister's policy of July, 1966, for redeployment and a more efficient use of labour must mean less jobs and that, in a free society, no Government can guarantee full employment for everybody all the time?
    Mr. Urwin: This, in common with the many other measures the Government have introduced to help development areas, is aimed at reducing and removing the imbalance between the regions. Unless the unemployment disparities in different areas are reduced, growth and employment prospects will suffer. We should be delighted to consider any further measures which hon. Members on either side have in mind to improve the situation, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that if the last Government had done as much to help development areas as the present Government have done and are doing, there would not be such imbalance between the regions.

    Economic and Industrial Prospects (Document)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made in the preparation of the new national planning document; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now publish a White Paper giving the Government's assessment of the medium-term prospects for the economy arising from the discussion he has held with the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Shore: As I have already told the House, work is in hand in preparing a document which we aim to present later this year, assessing the economic and industrial prospects over the next four to five years. I do not intend to publish what could only be an incomplete and provisional paper in advance of the main document.
    Mr. Jenkin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at this stage whether this time the paper will be more precise about the nearer period and less precise about periods which are further away, in contradistinction to the somewhat topsy-turvy
    712
    arrangement which affected the National Plan?
    Mr. Shore: It is a little difficult to know precisely what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but in terms of targeting— year by year progression, as it were—in the four to five years I have described, I cannot easily answer his question. However, on the general issue, it is extremely important to make certain in a five-year document that the forecasting of the first year or two is soundly based. If that is the point being made by the hon. Gentleman, I accept it.
    Mr. Marten: Can the right hon. Gentleman be more precise as to when he hopes the document will be published? Will it in the end contain the criteria on which all these calculations are based and for which we have been pressing so long?
    Mr. Shore: As I have said, I hope to present the document before the end of the year. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press me too much as to the assumptions on which it is based because we are still in a fairly early stage.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in drawing up further national planning documents, he will have regard to representations made to him concerning the effect of Government policies upon smaller businesses.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): The Government are always ready to consider representations, whether in the context of national planning or otherwise, relating to the effect of its policies on small businesses.
    Mr. Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many quarters there is strong feeling that the practical effect of Government policies has been to date very prejudiced against the interests of small businesses?
    Mr. Lee: I do not think that that is so. Many of the services we offer are to help small businesses. For instance, there are the Export Promotion Service, the Ministry of Technology's Advisory Service, the work of the British Productivity Council, the Aston Small Business Centre, which we support and which provides

    713
    educational consultancy and research assistance, and last month my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade launched a pilot scheme in Glasgow and Bristol to assist small businesses to employ consultants.
    Dr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to the effect development area policies have on small boat and shipbuilding firms in East Anglia?
    Mr. Lee: I am aware of this problem and we will give attention to it.

    Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Payments)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what are the industrial projects for which the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has made payments, and for which it has made commitments since the publication of the last annual report of the Corporation.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will state the total outstanding amount advanced to the Industrial Reorganisation Commission at present.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: To date, the Government have advanced £29·46 million to the I.R.C. Of this sum, £11·925 million has been spent by the Corporation since 31st March, 1968, the end of the period covered by its first Report and Accounts, on reorganisation and development projects in the pressure vessel, scientific instruments and paper industries. The Corporation is additionally committed to paying £27·35 million in respect of agreements made during its first accounting period and a further £1·525 million in respect of commitments entered into since 31st March, 1968.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact, therefore, that purchaser and commitments amount to a total of nearly £60 million? What pressures are being put on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to sell some of its commitments in the open market in order to make good use of the funds at its disposal?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman knows the terms of the Act. The I.R.C. will work on its own judgment, and I have
    714
    the greatest confidence in its ability to time the market rightly.
    Mr. Ridley: As this money comes directly out of taxation, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the I.R.C. will be made to sell its existing holdings in order to undertake more, and that its total limits will not be increased?
    Mr. Lee: No, I will not give that undertaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because, as I have said, it is entirely for the judgment of the I.R.C. It has to borrow at Government rates, and it is not likely to hold on to investments beyond the period when it thinks it right and appropriate to sell them.

    Northern Region (Unemployment)
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department in providing new jobs within the Northern Region, and on the planning arrangements made for dealing with the unemployment position arising from pit closures and the general contraction of older industries.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The estimated additional employment flowing from industrial development certificates issued by the Board of Trade in the period 1965 to 1967 totalled 56,000, more than two thirds of which are for males. The figure for the first quarter of 1968 is 4,400. Incentives to new industries have recently been reinforced by the regional employment premium and, for areas most adversely affected by colliery closures, by the additional incentives offered in special development areas.
    Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while this is a very significant success story, tremendous difficulties for the area nevertheless still lie ahead? Will he consider the provision of Government-owned factories and directing jobs, investment and so on into the area at a greater rate in order to meet these impending difficulties?
    Mr. Lee: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there are many important issues yet arising in the Northern Region. I remind him that the development areas have the advantage of the Government's contract preference scheme, and I assure

    715
    him that we are closely looking at the effect of that to see whether we can further assist by Government purchasing.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As in many of the development areas service trades account for a great deal more employment than manufacturing does, why have the Government decided to withdraw the Local Employment Act assistance from smaller service establishments?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman must also remember that we have recently announced the efforts which we are making to assist the hotel industry in the development areas. It is a question of balance. In many of these instances, it was felt that the huge amount of clerical work involved with the very small results which accrued did not provide an economic return.
    Mr. Will Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nine advance factories in the North-East are not occupied? As an essential feature of the whole problem is forward planning, what steps are the Government taking to survey these factories and, if private enterprise does not respond, to encourage public enterprise to develop?
    Mr. Lee: I speak subject to correction, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is wrong to say that nine advance factories are now empty. My feeling is that within the last three or four months some seven or eight have been occupied. I cannot go further about Government purchasing than to say that this subject as a whole is now under review.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) was referring to the withdrawal of B.O.T.A.C. grants, which will mean a loss of jobs to Scotland greater than the number provided by the advance factory programme for three years? In those circumstances, would he reconsider it?
    Mr. Lee: For the first time for many years Scotland is now showing a healthy balance. If the hon. Gentleman and his party had done one-third as much for Scotland as we have done, Scotland would be far better off than it now is.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the
    716
    need for new industries in the town of Peterlee and the Easington area? Is he aware that Peterlee has not had its fair share of the number of industries injected into the northern area, and is he further aware that several pits in the locality have been closed down?
    Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend will be aware that areas where the pit closure programme is at a heavy rate have been made special development areas which offer even greater inducements to industry than do ordinary development areas. I cannot direct people into the Peterlee area or any other development area, but we will do everything in our power to ensure that it is known that the North-East is a lovely part of the country in which to live. I bring to the notice of industrialists the fact that a great artist, Mr. Lowry, has said that he is retiring to the North-East because of its great beauty.

    Cambridge Instruments Limited
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the purchase of shares in Cambridge Instruments by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the support given by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to assist George Kent Limited to take over Cambridge Instruments Limited.
    Mr. Shore: I have nothing to add to the statement I made during Monday's debate.
    Mr. Sheldon: As the views of the directors and shareholders concerned have been expressed either by voice or through their transactions in shares, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is only right that the national interest should be heard and that that interest has been well-expressed by the operations of the I.R.C.? Will he convey the congratulations of many hon. Members to the I.R.C. for the way in which it has acted?
    Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I have made clear to the I.R.C. how much the Government appreciate the work which it is doing. After our debate last Monday, it will

    717
    have realised that it even has the support of a number of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the positive approach of the new managing director of I.R.C., arising out of this case, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with his colleague the Minister of Technology about the workings of the Industrial Expansion Act? Does he now feel that it may not be as necessary to carry out some of the schemes envisaged in that Act?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend slightly misunderstands the rôles of the Corporation and the Act. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is concerned mainly with mergers, whereas the Industrial Expansion Act is concerned with projects which affect single firms. That is the distinction between them, but we are in close touch.

    Economic Planning
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of his Department in the field of short- medium- and long-term economic planning; and if he will define short-, medium- and long-term when used officially in this context.
    Mr. Shore: The D.E.A.'s work on national and regional planning is a continuing process. Different timescales are of course required for different types of planning. Conventionally the short-term is considered to extend one or two years ahead, the medium-term up to five years ahead, and the longer-term a period of 15 or more years ahead, but there are no precise definitions.
    Mr. Barnett: Has my right hon. Friend noted the recent Brookings Report, which confirms other reports on the British economy, indicating the extent of the problem and how it stems very much from the lack of capital investment over very many years? What plans does he have to increase the amount of capital investment both from the short, medium and long term?
    Mr. Shore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Capital investment is certainly one of the keys to our future rate of growth and to our whole prosperity. My answer is that this Government have
    718
    done an enormous amount directly to increase incentives to industrial investment. I would also point out that although we have passed through a period of falling activity, the sort of "stop" phase, nevertheless during that period we have maintained an unusually high rate of industrial investment.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can the Minister tell us whether he is planning for the economic miracle in the short, medium or long term?

    Interest Rates
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what study he has made of the effect of prolonged high interest rates on the scale of investment in projects aimed at import substitution.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The Government keep the level of manufacturing investment under constant review, but my right hon. Friend has no evidence that high interest rates have any marked effect on projects aimed at import substitution.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's policies of fixed wages, high taxes, restricted investment and low profits are exactly what one would expect to produce a stagnant, backward economy? Where is the economic miracle coming from—still more short-term overseas borrowing?
    Mr. Lee: The Government regret the need to keep interest rates at their present level. The reviews that we and other independent people have made show that high interest rates are not necessarily one of the more restrictive factors for investment.

    Humber Feasibility Studies Unit
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the report of the Humber Feasibility Studies Unit before the beginning of the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Urwin: No, Sir. The report has not yet been received.
    Mr. Johnson: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." Is my hon. Friend aware
    719
    that it is 12 months since statistics were sent to his Department? Can he really blame the people of Hull for thinking this to be shocking procrastination?
    Mr. Urwin: I can appreciate my lion. Friend's concern, remembering the powerful advocacy made by him and many of my other hon. Friends. I am sure that he will appreciate that the Planning Unit was set up by the Central Unit and completed its work on the ground in August last year. But the Central Unit has since had to consider the mass of physical data gathered by the Physical Planning Unit and consider the economic aspects, as well as contemplating its own statistical and related work. This is quite a long exercise.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that what makes the heart sickest is the continued refusal of the Government to honour the pledge, given during the Hull by-election, to build a Humber bridge?
    Mr. Urwin: I would assure the hon. Gentleman there is quite a long time yet for the honouring of the few election pledges which are as yet unhonoured. As to the Humber bridge, he will appreciate that it would be extremely foolish to take any decision about a project as large and important as this undoubtedly is in advance of the fullest possible appreciation of the area's prospects and potential. The essential preliminary work on wind-tunnel tests and trial borings is continuing and will not hold up work on the bridge once the go-ahead is given.

    Import Substitution
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further plans he has made for imports substitution as part of a new planning policy for economic enlargement; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Shore: Means to further import substitution are an important feature of the work of the economic Departments. There is frequent consultation about such measures with the industries concerned, both directly on particular projects and more generally with the C.B.I, and T.U.C. bilaterally, in N.E.D.C, and in the E.D.C.s. We have constantly under review ways in which these efforts can be intensified and extended.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Since such very heavy emphasis was placed on import substitution by the Prime Minister on 16th January, and as there is no evidence of any success in this area in the last six months, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing figures, taking the House into his confidence, and telling us what has been achieved in import substitution and import economy after all this "brouhaha"?
    Mr. Shore: As the House will be aware, it was never expected that the immediate effects of devaluation would be beneficial on the import side. It was understood that a period of time would elapse. The hon. Gentleman has perhaps seen today's trade figures which are at least encouraging.
    Sir G. Nabarro: One swallow does not make a summer.

    Offices (Location)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what study he has made of the dispersal of the offices of new Government agencies, boards, commissions and councils throughout the United Kingdom in promoting regional development; and if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in this direction.
    Mr. Urwin: We promote regional development by establishing the offices of Government Departments and other public bodies outside London whenever it is feasible to do so. Each case is studied on its merits and I will circulate a list of the offices planned for location outside London since 1st January, 1965. in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Taylor: Has the Minister seen the report of the Location of Offices Bureau, which shows that no London firm or agency employing a significant number has moved to Scotland last year? Is he aware that the Government are creating new civil servants at the rate of 45 every day? Why cannot we get a fairer share? Will the Government take steps to halt emigration from Scotland, which was at a record level in 1967?
    Mr. Urwin: It is unfortunate that the Administration supported by the hon. Gentleman failed to halt emigration from Scotland over a very long period of years. As to Government policy, I have already said that since 1965 we have

    721
    given a much greater impetus to the dispersal of Government offices into the provinces, with specific emphasis on development areas. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Scotland already has its own administrative offices and that the possibilities of further new offices are often limited by operational requirements of the offices concerned. Nevertheless, Scotland is always considered when offices are to be dispersed or new ones are built in the provinces.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long Answers mean fewer Questions.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in South Wales we are particularly grateful for the Government's policies of dispersal, particularly for the Royal Mint at Llantrisant, the motor taxation offices at Swansea and now the census offices of the Board of Trade at Newport—all projects which will alleviate unemployment in this area?
    Mr. Urwin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reminder about the value of Government work in this connection. When he reads the list of dispersals I am sure that he will be even more satisfied.
    Following is the information:

    MAJOR NEW OFFICES OUTSIDE LONDON

    (from the beginning of 1965)

    Department

    Location

    Inland Revenue (Schedule E Centres)

    East Kilbride

    Bootle

    Cardiff

    Manchester

    Investment Grants Organisation, Board of Trade

    Southend

    Glasgow

    Billingham

    Crosby (will, later on, move to Bootle)

    Cardiff

    Land Registry (Provincial Offices)

    Swansea

    Plymouth

    Land Commission, Head-quarters:

    Newcastle

    Regional Offices

    Newcastle

    Cumbernauld

    Leeds

    Salford

    Nottingham

    Birmingham

    Cardiff

    Bristol

    Ipswich

    Croydon

    Reading

    Post Office (Giro)

    Bootle

    Department

    Location

    H.M. Stationery (Printing Works)

    Office Gateshead

    Ministry of Social Security:

    S.E.T. Duties

    Cumbernauld

    Tokens for Welfare Milk

    Blackpool

    Short-term Benefits

    Reading

    Staff Training

    Billingham

    Ministry of Transport (Licensing work)

    Swansea

    Meat and Livestock Commission

    Milton Keynes

    Scotland

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Charges
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General whether he will set up a committee to inquire into the hardship which will be caused in consequence of the most recent proposed increase in telephone charges.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: As the Minister told me in April that 55,000 people would give up their phones because of increased charges, and since for many people the phone is the only link with emergency services and their friends, would he be prepared, under any circumstances, to consider concessionary charges for old people living alone to enable them to make limited use of the telephone?
    Mr. Slater: Concessionary charges have been before us time and again. They are not, for our part, an appropriate solution to the problem. The increases in charges have to be made and will be made. In general they will apply from 1st October. They have been examined and supported by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I am aware of the great interest which the hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that an inquiry is being carried out on this subject and related subjects at Essex University? Has he anything further to report on this inquiry at this stage?
    Mr. Slater: I reported on this the last time that I answered Questions in the House. At this juncture I have nothing further to say.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Secondary Reorganisation, Bootle
    Mr. Simon Mahonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware of the need for secondary school reorganisation in the county borough of Bootle in the county and voluntary spheres; and, in view of the financial burden to be borne under such reorganisation by the voluntary bodies, if, in the interests of equal educational opportunity for every child, he will seek to provide additional financial aid to voluntary bodies engaged in making such extra educational provision as reorganisation demands.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): The costs arising from secondary reorganisation were among the factors taken into account by the Government and the religious bodies in negotiating the grant settlement now embodied in the Education Act, 1967, and I cannot provide extra aid.
    Mr. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bootle and other places on Merseyside the child population in the voluntary schools is 54 per cent. and those attending county schools 46 per cent. of the total child population? This is an intolerable burden. Would she consider the matter again?
    Miss Bacon: My hon. Friend made a speech during the passage of the 1967 Act, and he knows as well as I do that under that Act it would be impossible for me to exceed the 80 per cent. grant provided for on that occasion. I look forward to receiving the Bootle secondary reorganisation plans for both the county and the voluntary schools.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Residential Children's Establishments
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of capital expenditure on residential children's establishments in each of the last five years; and what was the average cost for each type and size of building.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): As the Answer contains
    724
    figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The nature of the work and the types and sizes of the establishments varied so greatly that it is impracticable to give average costs.
    Mr. Moonman: Would my hon. Friend confirm that there are wide variations in costs of buildings catering for similar numbers? Would he give increasing support to those schemes which are promising?
    Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has not had a sight of the figures. In 1963–64, the total spent was £3·65 million. In 1967–68, it was £4·6 million. The work done includes new construction and adaptations of the whole or parts of establishments ranging from small family houses providing a few places to approved schools housing 100 or more.
    Mr. Hogg— —
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Hogg: I have almost forgotten what I proposed to ask. The Question was limited to capital projects. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when we may have news of his right hon. Friend's general plans on child care?
    Mr. Morgan: That question, however welcome, goes rather wider than the original Question. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman tables a Question on that point, he will get an answer.
    Following is the information:

    EXPENDITURE ON APPROVED SCHOOLS, REMAND HOMES AND CHILDREN'S HOMES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

    1963–64

    1964–65

    1965–66

    1966–67

    1967–68

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    3,651,000

    3,937,000

    3,293,000

    3,045,000

    4,602,000

    Law of Contempt (Committee)
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce the names of the members of the committee to review of the law of contempt as it affects comment on, or statements about, matters referred to a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

    725
    for Scotland and I have decided to appoint the following to be members of the Committee on the law of contempt in connection with tribunals of inquiry:

    Lord Justice Salmon (Chairman).

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Hertford. East.

    Mr. J. B. Butterworth, Vice-Chancellor of Warwick University.

    Sir Geoffrey Cox, C.B.E., Deputy Chairman of Yorkshire Television and formerly editor of Independent Television News.

    Sir Allan Walker, Q.C., Sheriff of Lanarkshire.

    Mr. Roebuck: My right hon. Friend's Answer will give satisfaction to journalists, who will draw a favourable comparison between the activities of this Government to stimulate freedom of expression and the efforts of a previous Government under whose rule two journalists were sent to gaol for upholding their professional code of conduct. When does he expect the Committee to report on this matter, which has been causing concern to the Press for more than 40 years?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is a little painful to dwell on the dark ages before 1964. We should take comfort from the fact that now we have a Government who are determined to uphold a strong and free Press, and we are certain that the Press will reciprocate accordingly.

    Local Authorities (Immigrants)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to make an announcement of the measures to be taken by the Government in respect of help to local authorities with large immigration population.
    Mr. Callaghan: The study is continuing and I shall make a statement at the earliest time possible.
    Mrs. Short: I appreciate that constituencies like mine have had far more help from this Government with the immigration problem than they had from their Conservative predecessors, but would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Prime Minister's speech at Birmingham held out considerable hope that we would get additional help? Would my right
    726
    hon. Friend make a statement as soon as possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: The intervening weeks since my right hon. Friend made his speech have been spent in obtaining a great deal of information. Obviously the programme will cost us money and it has to be fitted into the public expenditure programmes. It is that aspect with which I am concerned. I certainly hope to make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Montgomery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the help given to towns like Wolverhampton is hopelessly inadequate? Cannot he speed up the matter and, in the meantime, help to try to ease this problem?
    Mr. Callaghan: I would not accept that criticism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said, there has been a great increase in the amount of assistance given. The only question left for us— Interruption.]
    Mrs. Short: Look after your own.
    Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to come to the Dispatch Box and answer the question. I know that there are 620 Members who could answer it better than myself, but for the moment I have to do it. The only question now is how we can match the additional financial resources available to the needs.

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY)
    Ql. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for meeting with Heads of State to urge support for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamp-stead (Mr. Whitaker) on Tuesday last to which as yet I have nothing to add.— [Vol. 768, c. 211–12.]
    Mr. Molloy: Can my right hon. Friend say what additional steps the Government are taking to encourage those countries which have not yet signed this

    727
    remarkable declaration and that within a reasonable time the Government will take the initiative in calling a conference to review the situation? Will he use the Government's influence in the United Nations to get recognition of China so that she might be encouraged to sign?
    The Prime Minister: Together with the other nations which sponsored the treaty, we are doing all that we can to encourage further signatures, and, in particular, and as the first step, we hope to persuade those States which voted for the resolution to sign the treaty at an early date. On the question of Communist China, which is recognised by Her Majesty's Government, we have repeatedly pressed and voted for her admission to the United Nations.
    Mr. Sandys: Does the Prime Minister recognise that in order to obtain the essential adhesion of the non-nuclear countries it is necessary to offer them some assurance of assistance in the event of aggression? Will he discuss this matter with the Governments of the other nuclear Powers?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statements made in the United Nations by the Governments of the United States, Soviet Union and ourselves on that very point.

    INCOMES POLICY
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister, in view of the Government's recognition of the need for an incomes policy, if he will now give an assurance that such a policy will not be abandoned because the Trades Union Congress is opposed to it.
    The Prime Minister: The Trades Union Congress at its conference on 28th February endorsed a report which in turn endorsed a policy on productivity, prices and incomes. The assumption underlying the hon. Member's Question is therefore not valid. The Government's policy was stated by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in the Second Reading debate and subsequent debates on the Prices and Incomes Bill,
    728
    which received the Royal Assent yesterday.
    Sir C. Osborne: Has the Prime Minister any evidence that a leader like Frank Cousins is any less bitterly opposed to this policy than he was when it was first introduced? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can achieve his promised economic miracle for this country without the co-operation of the trade unions on this vital policy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's Question referred to the Trades Union Congress and not to the position of individual leaders or individual unions. I stated the position concerning the 28th February conference. It is essential that we have an effective and continuing prices and incomes policy, and, for the reasons repeatedly stated in the House, we felt that it was not enough to rely on the T.U.C.'s voluntary policy, at any rate for the time being.
    Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision recently announced to extend the "freeze" on the municipal busmen's pay award will arouse the most bitter resentment among trade unionists and lower paid workers? Will he look at this matter again before it is too late?
    The Prime Minister: I have been extremely involved in this matter and I recognise the anxieties about it. My right hon. Friend has given the required statutory notice of intention to have a standstill and has made it clear that there is a very satisfactory solution available now. Since talks are currently going on, and have been going on today, it would not help if I went into the matter, although in the fullness of time questions can be put to my right hon. Friend on it.
    Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say whether it remains the Government policy that wage increases should only be authorised in respect of productivity agreements actually firmly reached and signed up?
    The Prime Minister: The policy remains exactly as stated in debates on the prices and incomes policy and the criteria set out in the White Paper on Prices and Incomes which foreshadowed that legislation.
    Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister not answer this particular question? Does it remain the Government's policy in both the public and private sectors that before a wages increase is granted a productivity agreement is signed and in being?
    The Prime Minister: Productivity is one but not the only criterion which is involved. My right hon. Friend, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, both in this House and in every negotiation in which she has been involved, has stressed the importance of productivity, and has, indeed, refused to accept wage increases where there was not an adequate return in terms of productivity.
    Mr. William Hamilton: With regard to the original Question, would my right hon. Friend not agree that much more important than the attitude of the T.U.C. or any other body is the need and necessity to get increased productivity between now and 18 months hence? What prospects are there for getting the required productivity?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about this, and indeed, when I have been asked about the question of the renewal of legislation I have said that it depends on our getting that productivity and on T.U.C. policy being seen to be effective during that period. My hon. Friend will not be disappointed at the latest figures of production and productivity, which show an increase of industrial productivity of something like 5½ per cent. compared with the same period last year.
    Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the Government will not waver in their determination to arrive at a satisfactory incomes policy under pressure from the official Conservative Opposition acting under the leadership of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park), the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
    The Prime Minister: I have never heard any constructive alternative by any member of the Opposition at all on the subject of prices and incomes.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the T.U.C. is still carrying out its own voluntary policy
    730
    with a certain measure of success, and though it has certain misgivings about the Government policy it will still give 100 per cent. support to this Government?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly do not underrate the importance of, or the contribution made by, the T.U.C.'s voluntary policy. It represents a very big step forward in the history of British trade unionism and collective bargaining in this country. At the same time I do not think anyone feels that it would be entirely safe to rely on that policy unaided. That is why we introduced the Measure which received the Royal Assent yesterday.

    CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will propose to President Johnson that the United States and United Kingdom Governments should together seek a new international convention on the problems of inspection and verification of weapons of chemical and biological warfare;
    (2) whether he will propose to President Johnson that the two Governments should promote the establishment of a new international convention forbidding the use of chemical and biological weapons.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to a Question by him on 1st July by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.—[Vol. 767, c. 167.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Since the use earlier this week by the Vietcong of asphyxiating gas, does not such an agreement assume even greater urgency, and, in this field, is not the temptation to escalation even greater than in the nuclear field? Has not the time come when, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, we should at least attempt to do something about it?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly no less dangerous in this field than in the nuclear field, I quite agree. Of course, we utterly deplore any breach of long-established and binding treaties and conventions wherever this may happen. I am not fully informed of what happened, or is alleged to have happened, in the

    731
    Vietnam fighting, but I will certainly make inquiries, and of course my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as co-Chairman, will be concerned with it.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: As the making of germ weapons is not only an obscene prostitution of medical science but also military lunacy, will the Prime Minister bring some realism into the matter by ordering his experts to prepare some plan on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend so that it may be ready when a disarmament treaty is being made?
    The Prime Minister: I think my right hon. Friend knows that this matter can be handled only on a multilateral basis, as indeed can the nuclear problem, and that we are examining the whole question of what proposals we should make when the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee reconvenes next week. We have been devoting very close attention to the question of chemical and biological weapons in our study of arms control and disarmament matters.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister what Northern Irish matters he will answer Questions about.
    The Prime Minister: As the House knows, for Questions to be in order in this House they must engage the Ministerial responsibility of United Kingdom Ministers. As the House also knows, the division of functions between the Parliament of Northern Ireland and the Parliament at Westminster is laid down by Statute. A summary list of matters affecting Northern Ireland for which this Parliament is responsible is contained in an Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 29th November, 1966.
    As to the division of responsibility between myself and my right hon. Friends for answering particular Questions on these matters, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Answer to a question which he has down for answer later today.
    Mr. Whitaker: Why should hon. Members of the Orange Order be able to vote on the Race Relations Bill, which
    732
    applies to England and Wales only when we are not allowed to do anything about religious discrimination in Ulster?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is a very good question, which I have asked myself, and I recall that when this Government had a majority of three in this House we could have been voted down by the Northern Irish Members voting on Rachmanism in London, when English Members and United Kingdom Members had no opportunity of voting on Rachmanism in Northern Ireland. I think it is a very good question. No doubt it will be discussed in the fullness of time.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is it not a fact that the powers which this House has under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, are very much greater than the conventional relationship between this House and Ulster would suggest? Would the Prime Minister not further agree that as far as human rights are concerned this House has a right to demand that the same standards will obtain in every part of the United Kingdom, and since we technically have those powers under the 1920 Act can we not now take the proper Parliamentary powers to exercise them?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have dealt with that question before, particularly in relation to human rights conventions and so on and the Strasbourg Declaration. These are matters for discussion with the Government of Northern Ireland. I have said a number of times, and I think many of us have recognised, that in the last two or three years considerable advances have been made under the present Premier of Northern Ireland. Not enough, I agree, but what has been achieved has been remarkable in view of the prejudice he has to meet in that particular area of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Fitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a considerable minority of United Kingdom subjects in the United Kingdom, and in Northern Ireland particularly, who look to this House to redress the wrongs which have existed in Northern Ireland for so long, and that it is only by Question and Answer in this House that public opinion can be shown the injustices which exist in Northern Ireland, and that there are 500,000 people in Northern Ireland who look to this
    733
    House because if they depend on the Government of Northern Ireland there would never be an answer to the problem?
    The Prime Minister: Since I referred to the majority of three I should, perhaps, point out that my hon. Friend constituted one-third of it last night. It is certainly the case that he has been very active, since he entered this House, in raising the problems of human rights and discrimination in Northern Ireland. I think these matters must be left for discussion with the Government of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and his colleagues know we cannot continue indefinitely with the present situation. Something has to be done.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: While accepting that the charges implied in the Question by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) are unfounded, as they usually are—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear both sides, even of the Irish Question.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: —will the Prime Minister agree that as improvement has taken place under Captain O'Neill, as he has already mentioned, in the climate of opinion, it should be maintained, and that the best way of removing such marginal cases of friction as may still be believed to exist there lies in allowing that climate of opinion to continue to be improved unfettered by damaging remarks such as those made by the hon. Member?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the progress made under the leadership of Captain O'Neill. I have always had full agreement with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I totally disagree with his strictures on the question put by my hon. Friend a few moments ago. I certainly do not believe that this matter can be left to depend on some of the pressures and prejudices to which Captain O'Neill is subject, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. We in this House have duties in this matter both nationally and internationally.

FLOODS
Mr. Emery Mr. Emery (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has taken and what proposals he has to deal with the major problems caused by the severe flooding in East Devon and other parts of the country yesterday.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The Ministry's officers at headquarters and in regional offices have been in touch with many local authorities, the police, water undertakings, and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.
All local services are working efficiently. Voluntary bodies has responded magnificently, and the Armed Forces have given invaluable help in a number of ways.
The main need immediately seems to be for additional dryers for houses and I am helping local authorities to obtain them through the Armed Services.
The Ministry's officers will continue to maintain close contact with the local authorities and give them any help which it is in their power to give.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would wish me to express the deepest sympathy of Her Majesty's Government and of the House with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and with all who have suffered in any way from the floods.
Mr. Emery: I am sure that the House would wish to thank the Minister for that statement and his conveyance of sympathy to the bereaved. Will he also thank the police and local authorities who, often in the darkness of night, have given considerable help?
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to try to ensure that a crash programme is brought forward to overcome the major difficulties caused by weak bridges and roads being swept away, which has made routes to the West Country impassable and a great worry to the tourist industry and to tourists?
Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance to those local authorities which

735
will have to incur major capital expenditure caused by flood damage that perhaps any amount over a 2d. rate will be met by the Exchequer?
Mr. Greenwood: I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about the work of the police and the local authorities. I have great confidence in the local authorities concerned. I know that they will do everything that it is practicably possible to do.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is closely involved in this matter and is treating it as a matter of urgency. One problem, following the interruption of communications both telephonic and by road and rail, is that it is not easy to know the exact extent of the damage. However, the Ministry of Transport is keeping this under review and will lose no time in taking any necessary action.
I hope that these disasters will not affect the tourist industry and that, before many days are past, the situation will have returned to normal.
If I receive any requests for financial help I will consider them in the light of the scale of the damage, the availability of insurance cover, and the extent of local resources.
Dr. John Dunwoody: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, does he agree that there is a critical situation in many parts of the South West? Has he seen this morning's weather forecast to the effect that more general rain is expected in this region over the next 48 hours? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider moving emergency services into the region so that they are on the spot should the situation deteriorate?
Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point. I am expecting further and more detailed reports on the situation later in the day. I shall then decide, if necessary, what further action should be taken.
Mr. Thorpe: I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy and ask him two questions. First, if the report relating to the repair of bridges indicates that the
736
assistance of the Army is needed, will the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to getting the Royal Engineers to assist?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman find out whether the warning system for floods in these exceptional circumstances is regarded as adequate, or whether assistance might be given by the Meteorological Office?
Mr. Greenwood: Iwill certainly find out how efficiently the flood warning organisation worked on this occasion. I have no information at this stage about how well it operated, but I will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The question of help by the Royal Engineers is one which I shall have to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the City of Bristol has been gravely affected? Has he been in touch with that local authority? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the repair of disrupted communications and through links is vital, because, even as we speak, we do not know how bad the situation is?
Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The Ministry's principal regional officer is located in Bristol and has been in touch with all the local authorities in the immediate area.
I entirely agree about the need for repairing the disruption of communications. This is a matter which we have very much in our mind.
Mr. Graham Page: I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches with the expressions of sympathy for those who have been bereaved and who have suffered material loss through this disaster. It is, indeed, a national emergency.
Does it not divide itself into two matters: first, the speedy restoration of public services—and in that respect, will the Minister make an early statement which is more specific than he has been able to do this afternoon?—and, secondly, the financial assistance both to local authorities and to individuals who have suffered loss? It is important that they should be put out of doubt as soon as

737
possible. Therefore, will the Minister make an early statement on the amount of assistance he is prepared to give?
Mr. Greenwood: I will certainly look into both these points. I am not quite certain at this stage how quickly it will be possible to make a statement about the restoration of public services. We have yet to ascertain the full extent of the damage which has been done, but I will keep the House informed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with me about it.
On financial assistance, I do not think that at the moment I can go further than what I said to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), but I realise the importance of this to the authorities concerned.
Mr. Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having spoken to most of the local authorities in my constituency this morning, I know that the damage both to property and to communications is extremely extensive? Will the Minister consider the possibility of co-ordinating the activities of the various Ministries concerned—Housing and Local Government, Defence and Transport—so that one Minister in Whitehall is responsible for giving the maximum assistance to the stricken areas?
Mr. Greenwood: That raises important questions concerning the machinery of government. If the disaster in the West Country is on the scale of a national emergency it will fall to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for Government action in emergencies of that kind. However, I hope that the present co-operation between the Ministries concerned will meet the requirements of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Minister give particular attention to reconsidering whether civil defence equipment, which is used in disasters of this kind, should not be left in the hands of the local authorities rather than being taken up to 100 miles away to central depots established by the Home Office from which it is not immediately available when wanted?
Mr. Greenwood: I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend the
738
Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Sir F. Bennett: I should like to make two practical suggestions. First, as there seems to be conflicting evidence about the roads that are open to the West, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend whether an early announcement should be made about trying to use the A30, the A303, or the A35 this weekend?
Secondly, following the disruption caused by the rail go-slow, the tourist industry has been badly hit. Would it be possible to ask British Railways whether they could run extra train services this weekend so that we do not have another week's or fortnight's loss to the tourist industry?
Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall discuss both those points with the Minister of Transport,
Mr. Ogden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while a speedy return to normal is necessary, this will leave many areas, not only those in the South-West, equally vulnerable to future storms? Is he aware that most local authorities have to base their calculations on a 10-year storm control and damage period? If, in special areas, this could be reduced to five years, we might avoid some of the damage in future.
Mr. Greenwood: That problem has defied solution for quite a long time, but I am interested in my hon. Friend's suggestions. Perhaps I could have further discussions with him about any ideas which he has for a more effective long-term method of dealing with this problem.
Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is precisely the sort of disaster in which the Civil Defence, now in the process of being disbanded, could have been extremely useful? In view of that, will he talk to his right hon. Friends about the possibility of reversing the earlier decision?
Mr. Greenwood: I have said that I shall draw that suggestion to the attention of the Home Secretary, but I think that we can leave it to local authorities and the competence of the Devonshire County Council to organise their methods of dealing with a situation of this kind. Without
739
necessarily accepting everything that is implied in the hon. Lady's question, I have not necessarily closed my mind to it at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]:
Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on the Future of the Scottish Regiments, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Afterwards, a debate on the Effect of Selective Employment Tax in Scotland, also on an Opposition Motion.
Motion relating to the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order.
TUESDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a Motion to take note of the Donovan Report (Command No. 3623).
WEDNESDAY, 17TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Lords Amendments to the Sewerage (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Order.
THURSDAY, 18TH JULY—Debate on Foreign Affairs, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions relating to the Redundancy Payments Exclusion of Merchant Seamen Order, the Grants for Guarantees of Bank Loans Order, the Field Beans Scheme, and the Small Farm (Business Management) Schemes.
FRIDAY, 19TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Bill [Lords], the
740
International Organisations Bill [Lords], and of the Theft Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.
MONDAY, 22ND JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]:
Subject for debate to be announced later.
Motion relating to the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order.
Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are giving time for a debate on the Donovan Report because we believe that it is of the utmost im- portance that the House should have an opportunity to express its view before the Government reach their own conclusions and prepare legislation? We therefore want the debate before we rise for the Recess.
Can the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the Government will give time, which they refused to do for Donovan, for a debate on the White Paper on Defence during the week after next, especially if that is to be the final week before the Recess?
Mr. Peart: I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the Defence White Paper, and have discussions through the usual channels. I think that we should give time for this debate. The White Paper has been published today. This is a very important matter. I understand the view of the Opposition.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about Donovan. We are grateful that the Opposition have chosen this Report for debate.
Mr. Orme: Will the foreign affairs debate be confined specifically to one area, or, as it were, one subject, or will it be a wide debate? One day does not seem to be sufficient for a wide-ranging debate.
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement on disarmament and on the Government's policy. However, as it is on the Adjournment, it is not for me to decide the planning of the debate. This should be left to the House, but I think that my hon. Friend should await my hon. Friend's statement.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give thought to debating some of the Reports from the Estimates Committee, of which there are about 15 outstanding? Only three have been debated. Many hon. Members worked very hard on this Committee and raised important points, but the reports are never debated. How are we to deal with this problem?
Mr. Peart: I recognise that this is an important matter. I pay tribute to our colleagues who work hard on this Committee, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members of the Opposition are afraid to come here next week after a statement in the Daily Telegraph, a leading Opposition paper, that their Chief Whip scowled at them and looked as if he was going to grasp them by the throat?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on serious business questions.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the rebels opposite will be protected next week?
Sir C. Osborne: When will we have the long-promised debate on economic affairs—we were promised two days for it—because this is the most vital issue facing the nation?
Mr. Peart: I cannot promise that at all, but certainly not next week.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a debate on the important Government White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes? It is vital that we debate this before the House rises.
Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific assurance.
Mr. Carlisle: When will the right hon. Gentleman implement his promise that we would have a debate in Government time on prisons, arising out of the Estimates Committee's Report?
Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not my fault that we lost time. We could have had a debate. This was rejected, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: What arrangements is my right hon. Friend making for the
742
further stages of the Divorce Reform Bill, which was given a Second Reading by a large majority, and the Committee stage of which was completed before Whitsun?
Mr. Peart: This is still being considered. I will discuss the matter with the sponsors of the Bill.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why we cannot have a debate on Welsh affairs, preferably next Wednesday? Would not that be preferable to Scottish sewerage?
Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should attack an important Scottish Measure. We cannot have a debate next week.
Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an irresponsible minority of Liberal Members and two Nationalist Members, on Tuesday, prevented the Scottish Grand Committee from debating higher education in the Scottish Grand Committee next week? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position with a view to giving us that debate either next week or the week after?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of that, and I was sorry that the Motion which I proposed to the House was opposed by sources which, I thought, acted rather strangely. However, I shall look at that.
Mr. Evelyn King: Is it a fact that the Rhodesia debate on Monday is to be confined to an hour and a half, which will give back benchers scarcely any time to speak? If the right hon. Gentleman should argue that we have discussed this Order already, perhaps I might point out that that is true of all Measures which come back from the other place. That has never been held as a reason for curtailing debate.
Mr. Peart: I think that an hour and a half is reasonable.
Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether next week's debate on Donovan is the only time which the Government will allocate to take note of the Report? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is Opposition time."] I recognise that. I am asking the Government whether they intend to add to the time given by the Opposition. That is my question.

743
Is it the Government's intention to introduce a White Paper before bringing in legislation? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the expected legislation is to come in a series of parts or is to be taken altogether?
Mr. Peart: I cannot answer that. In any case, there is no time next week.
Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable astonishment in Scotland at the fact that the Opposition have failed to use their second Scottish Supply day to debate the one topic that everybody is discussing, namely, Scottish self-government? Will he say that next Wednesday, either in the Scottish Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House, there will be a debate upon this important subject?
Mr. Peart: I cannot give that undertaking.
Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger)? Is he aware that there are 250,000 permanently cohabiting couples whose expectations of marriage and the legitimising of their children depend upon the answer? Since we have had so many talks between the sponsors and the Leader of the House, is it not wrong that these expectations should be cruelly raised again, as they have been on three occasions in the past?
Mr. Peart: I gave a precise reply to my hon. Friend, and I stand by it.
Mr. Farr: In view of the importance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to so many developing nations, will the Leader of the House give time for a very early debate on the future of that Agreement?
Mr. Peart: Iam well aware of its importance—certainly to producing countries in the Commonwealth. I was once the Minister responsible. I note what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the practice of announcing the subject of Supply debates only four days before the debates occur is satisfactory, especially in view of the capricious and highly selective approach that the Opposition show to
744
important subjects such as the development of the Scottish economy?
Mr. Peart: I cannot alter this practice.
Mr. R. Carr: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement next week on her action in making such hasty use of the new Prices and Incomes Act in relation to the busmen—especially in view of the fact that this is contrary to the spirit of the assurances given in Committee during our debates on the Bill.
Mr. Peart: I will certainly convey that view to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give serious thought to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who asked whether the question of higher education in Scotland could be given another day? This matter was farcically vetoed because of the irresponsible action of hon. Members opposite. It is very important to the people of Scotland. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer?
Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will reconsider this matter.
Mr. Marten: Since the Leader of the House did not tell us that the House is to rise on 28th July, can he say when he will tell us?
Mr. Peart: Next week.
Dr. David Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the excellent record of the Labour Government in social administration is in danger of being marred if we do not get further immediate progress on the Divorce Reform Bill? Will he, when he speaks to the sponsors of the Bill remember that not giving time is as much an act of political wisdom or unwisdom as giving time?
Mr. Peart: I always bear in mind the views of my hon. Friend, but I also have to bear in mind other considerations.
Mr. David Howell: The Prime Minister said that he would name a Minister who would answer specific questions arising from the implementation of the Fulton Committee's recommendations.

745
Can the Leader of the House find out who it will be?
Mr. Peart: Not next week.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be deep dissatisfaction with the answer that he has given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) about the debate on the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes? Will it take place the following week? If not, does not it mean that although we were promised that this White Paper was for discussion purposes we shall have legislation in the autumn with no previous discussion in Parliament having taken place?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of this matter, but I have announced the business for next week and I remain firm on that programme.
Sir S. Summers: In view of the fact that the Leader of the House has made no statement about the rising of the House, ought we to assume that it is is expected to sit into August?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should not assume anything. I shall make an announcement next week.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are disturbed by the fact that we get insufficient time to debate specific issues of foreign affairs? In reference to the debate next week, will he consider having a series of days on foreign affairs as soon as possible? We are debarred from debating many very important issues because there is not enough time.
Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's view, and I agree with him, but a day has been allocated next week and I hope that we shall have a constructive debate.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Leader of the House lend a more sympathetic and attentive ear to the pleas that have been made about a debate on the White Paper, Old Houses Into New Homes? Does he appreciate that many human problems arise out of this, on which the Government should have the benefit of the views of hon. Members before formulating any legislative proposals for the coming Session?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, but the debate will not be next week.
Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a considerable time since we discussed the question of shipping and the shipbuilding industry? We are anxious to discuss many outstanding problems. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that a grave situation is developing, especially in the North-East? Can he promise time to debate this important matter?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend, who represents a North-Eastern constituency, has referred to. I will refer his views to the Minister.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: In reference to the Reports of the Estimates Committee, does the Leader of the House recall that he gave a firm promise that there would be a day for a debate on the Report on Prisons? Are we likely to have it before the Recess?
Mr. Peart: I did not give that precise promise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No. I am sorry that hon. Members did not take advantage of what I said they could have.
Mr. Hector Hughes: With reference to the Scottish regiments, does my right hon. Friend realise that his announcement of a debate on Monday will be received with appreciation in Scotland, on the assumption that the result is not a foregone conclusion that the regiments will be disbanded?
Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt convey his point of view to the Defence Minister.
Mr. Cordle: In view of the situation now prevailing in Nigeria, can the Leader of the House give time for a debate on that country?
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend made a statement on this matter, and is watching the situation. If necessary, when he has something new to announce he will make a statement to the House.
Mr. James Davidson: On the point just raised, may I ask whether, in view of the imminent disaster in Biafra and the general interest of the House in what is going on there, and especially in the findings of the Hunt mission, the right

747
hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will be making a statement next week?
Mr. Peart: I have had a word with my right hon. Friend. He will make a statement as soon as possible.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is being very unhelpful to the Estimates Committee in two ways? Has he forgotten that he or his predecessor originally gave us a whole day for the debate on the Report on Prisons, which we had to give up for the immigration debate? Is he further aware that his refusal to announce the date of the rising of the House makes it extremely difficult for us to plan the final sittings of the Estimates Sub-Committee, as we have witnesses due to appear before the Committee? Will he reconsider his decision and announce a date now, and also tell us when we shall be able to debate the Report?
Mr. Peart: I am always anxious to help my hon. Friend, but if I went further I would only be repetitive. She knows my view.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

AGRICULTURE
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Godber: It was the publication of the N.E.D.C. Report which prompted us to call for this debate on agriculture. Before turning to that Report, however, I must refer briefly to one or two other matters not directly connected with it. First, particularly as the reports of the appalling damage caused by last night's storms are still coming in, I must express on my own behalf and, I am sure, that of the whole House, our sympathy with all those in the farming industry who have suffered loss and damage over the last 24 hours. The farming community from time to time has to suffer tremendous setbacks at the hands of the weather and I hope that these latest storms will prove less devasting than the first reports have suggested.
I think that we all welcome the fact that the country is at this moment free of foot-and-mouth disease after the very long scourge which caused such terrible devastation in certain areas. The Minister recently visited Cheshire and Shropshire, as I have done myself. I do not want to anticipate the debate which we shall certainly have when we receive the report of the Northumberland Committee, but I would like to raise two matters now.
First, there is still in abeyance the question of the £ for £ scheme designed to help those who lost stock in the early weeks of the outbreak and whose rates of compensation will definitely be lower than the rest. The Minister is, of course, aware of this. Whatever has happened about the contribution from the industry, he will accept, I think, that there is a clear moral obligation at least on the Government for their share of this payment—and the need has not lessened as the weeks have gone by. Indeed, those who suffered first are in special need, and

749
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us today that he accepts that responsibility and will see that it is discharged to the extent of paying at least the Government contribution without any great further delay.
What struck me forcibly on my visit was the tremendous impact of the consequential losses, which extended extraordinarily in an area where there has been this concentration of the disease. No doubt the Northumberland Committee will consider this and report on it. We all recognise the difficulty over consequential losses and I hope that we will be given clear guidance. In particular, I feel a special sympathy for those farm workers who had to be stood off or, in some cases had to go on minimum pay for a long period, when it was clearly directly attributable to the disease. I hope that something can be done in that respect.
I have no wish to prejudge the issue and what we shall have to consider when the Committee reports, but I get just a little impatient at times with those who have special trade interests overseas when they seek to brush aside the financial implications which this disease can have and has had in this country. I hope that the Northumberland Committee will give a clear indication of the total estimated cost of the epidemic, both as regards the Government's participation through compensation and the consequential losses, so that we can have a serious assessment against which to judge the relative arguments about the risks which we should bear in the interests of foreign trade and the risks which we ought to impose on the fanning community.
I would like to refer also to the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs. This is a very full Report, which calls for sweeping action, and this is not the time to debate it fully. I do not suppose that the Minister himself is yet ready to give us his considered views. All I will say is that I am not opposed to the general proposal for a control, in this case, by minimum import prices. I have always made it clear that, although I opposed the general concept of a minimum import price for certain commodities, I do not feel that it is the same for eggs, since the total amount imported is very small and, therefore, the loss to the Treasury is not terribly significant.
750
Probably, it is the simplest way of controlling imports, where necessary.
However, it is essential, if one is to adopt that attitude and the policy recommended in the Report, to include a limitation on imports of liquid eggs. Otherwise, this would leave a dangerous gap in the system. The same applies to the Report's recommendation that imports of shell eggs for processing should be exempt. Neither of these categories can or should be exempt.
The Commission made it clear in paragraph 299, in talking about the effect which imported eggs can exert on day-to-day prices, that
"… they can have a disruptive effect on the market far in excess of their apparent significance in terms of quantity or value."
That shows how important it is, if that policy is to be adopted, that it should be adopted in full.
One thing that I am anxious about is the position of the small producers under the Report's recommendations. We shall want to be fully satisfied by the Government that they are taking this fully into account, and that, if they seek to adopt any of these proposals, a really effective transition period and adequate compensation will be provided. Without those two provisions, it would not be tolerable to consider adopting the proposals.
Apart from the comments about eggs, the position of marketing boards in general should not be weakened just because this one board has had insuperable problems. We should recognise that what happens over the Egg Board should not be an indication of attitudes in regard to other of the marketing boards.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: Perhaps I might ask a question, in view of Worcestershire's importance in producing eggs. Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that our party's attitude is that we must have a full debate here before the Minister reaches any conclusions on the Report and sets about any change in the structure of the Egg Board or its abolition?
Mr. Godber: I will accept the importance of Worcestershire as a producing county, if my hon. Friend will accept that of Lincolnshire. There must be equality in these matters. I entirely

751
agree that there should be a full debate, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it takes place.
I, and, I daresay, many other hon. Members, have been receiving a good deal of comment and advice during the last week or so over the proposals of the Meat and Livestock Commission. As we were told only a short time ago that we are due to debate the levy Order for that organisation on Wednesday next week, I propose to leave my comments on the matter for that debate, since that would make for a tidier arrangement.
I turn now to the general background of agricultural production against which we must weigh the N.E.D.C. Report. At present, the industry is working under the selective expansion programme which was introduced under the National Plan. That Plan was produced a long time ago, but we are told that, for agriculture, it is still the relevant document. It says, on page 141, that the Government
"… would expect home agriculture to be able to meet a major part of the additional demand expected by 1970, totalling some £200 million on food for human consumption. It would also supply much of the cereals required for the increase in livestock production."
That has been the policy of the Ministry for three years. But when we questioned the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about his interpretation of the words "major part", we were unable to get from him any indication of what they meant. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten us on the Government's attitude which, up to now, has been left in obscurity. All we know is that some increase is called for. I shall not go over the old ground again, but our best estimate is that the maximum increased annual production expected under the National Plan represented about 3½ per cent. a year.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June if he still hoped to achieve the target of the National Plan. I was somewhat surprised by his reply. He said:
"On present calculations we believe that it will be achieved, but we might even improve on it." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 436.]
That is the most optimistic comment we have heard about the fulfilment of the National Plan. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is optimistic, but he
752
should give us the grounds of his optimism. We should know why he feels it likely that the target will be achieved. His predecessor, in his various White Papers on the Annual Reviews, showed clearly that we are way behind target at present.
The White Paper on the Annual Price Review, last March, in paragraph 11, stated that output was expected to be 6 per cent. up on the two previous years. If we got a 6 per cent. per annum increase, that would be fine, but the indication is that 6 per cent. covers the previous two years, as well and these two years both showed a decrease over the last year for which we were responsible. So a 6 per cent. increase now is rather less than 6 per cent. when spread over three years.
It is an increase at the most of 2 per cent. per annum, which puts it into a different picture. The Government are well behind target, and even if they seek to achieve the modest targets of the National Plan they have to get an additional 6 per cent. rise in production in each of the two forthcoming years. We are glad that the right hon. Gentleman is optimistic, but we hope he can tell us why he is.
We have a plan with a limited target and that plan is lagging substantially behind its target at a time when agriculture has a great opportunity to help the balance of payments. That opportunity was there before devaluation and, of course, it is much greater now. Devaluation has increased not only the opportunity, but the need as well. That is the background to any consideration of the N.E.D.C. Report. We have an agricultural industry with the lights at caution when they should be at green. This is the message we want to give the Government. We want to see the target set higher and a real incentive to achieve it.
The Report has been warmly welcomed by the Minister and in various degrees by most of those connected with agriculture. I gather that the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture told the Select Committee on Agriculture yesterday that he had certain reservations about some of the technical conclusions. I have some, too. But let us all welcome the constructive approach and the massive sweep of the

753
Report as a whole. I think that Sir Edmund Bacon and his colleagues have performed a great service. I know that the Report has been endorsed by the parent body of the N.E.D.C. and I am glad of that.
The Prime Minister took the chair on this occasion and we are told that he said that the Report was excellent. But I want to give a word of advice to the Minister of Agriculture about this. I ask him to discourage the Prime Minister from making too many comments about agriculture until something effective has been done to give some meaning to his earlier pronouncements about it. They were all given prominence in the farming Press when they were made and are not rated very highly today. I remind the House of three of them.
First, on 24th May, 1965, before the National Plan emerged, the Prime Minister said at Newport:
"We shall not solve our economic problems, our balance of payments problem, without a vigorous import substitution policy through agricultural expansion."
That was quoted widely in the agricultural Press. It was believed to indicate an entirely new attitude but nothing was done to implement it. Certainly, the National Plan never called for any import substitution.
Secondly, addressing the T.U.C. on 5th September, 1966, the Prime Minister said:
"We are stepping up food production to save imports."
This was at a time when the then Minister of Agriculture had shown in his White Paper that agricultural production was going not up, but down; and, if anything, very slowly.
Thirdly, on 19th November, 1967, the Prime Minister made a television broadcast just after devaluation, when he talked about the £ in our pockets. He said:
"Farm production will be stimulated. We'll be able to do more to replace food imported from abroad."
What has been done to implement these promises? I have quoted three separate promises and there has been no indication of anything being done to implement them. I hope that the Government will give a clear indication of the view they
754
take of the N.E.D.C. Report, which calls for real expansion.
I have shown that the National Plan did nothing effective to expand production and never set out to reduce food imports. That was never the intention. The only firm action on the agricultural front which I can trace to the Prime Minister, at least since he assumed office, was when he bludgeoned the then Minister of Agriculture into accepting the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement against his better judgment.
I have always said that that agreement was not in the interests of the British farmer. When we study its total effect, it is clear that it is not in the interests of this country. I have been looking at the trade figures. For some years, we were roughly in balance at about £185 million in exports and imports. Last year, the real effect of the agreement came into force and our exports to Eire totalled £196 million while imports from Eire went up to £223 million. This was largely due to increased agricultural imports, which did harm occasionally to the stability of our own market. This is another indication of the way in which our agricultural interests get sacrificed under the present Government.
These figures ignore the additional cost to the Exchequer brought about when Eire subsided its exports of beef cattle to this country when our own market was glutted. All this indicates that we must have a fresh approach from the Government if we are to have confidence in agricultural expansion.
I have said that the N.E.D.C. Report has had a general welcome, and deservedly so. It postulates a rise in output of about £345 million worth of production, a net increase of £185 million, which is given as a 22 per cent. rise in output up to 1972–73. It is a substantially faster rise than that expected in the National Plan. It is claimed that this would result in a net import saving of £220 million a year by 1972–73.
This is a massive saving of imports. No other industry in the country is probably in a condition to bring about such a saving during such a period. This deserves the most serious attention of the Government. It has to be seen against the background of the Report and it was brought out clearly in the speech which

755
Sir Edmund Bacon made when introducing the Report. He said:
"we wanted to set out what agriculture could do if it were given the opportunity. At the same time, we have not made proposals which would involve wasteful use of resources."
Sir Edmund went on to refer to certain assumptions. The most important should be quoted in full:
"the assumption that all import saving possibilities should be considered, whether or not they might conflict with the United Kingdom's present international commitments. It may be questioned whether such an assumption was a realistic starting point for the study—whether, in fact, we should have started with the opposite assumption that we have these commitments and are likely to keep them. That could, I believe, have been even more unrealistic. International trading policies do change, as we have seen recently with G.A.T.T. agreement on cereals, and in the longer term I don't think we can ignore the vast underlying factor of world hunger and the population explosion which surely must exert a growing pressure of Change in the years ahead. Moreover, if there has to be restriction of home agriculture for reasons of broad international policy, is it not better to have a clear understanding of the potential increase in home production that we are forgoing and the resultant cost in imports of food that we are incurring?"
That is a clear indication of the attitude of the Committee in its approach to its task which we should bear in mind in looking at the conclusions because it conditions a number of them.
There is a great deal in this Report. I was tempted initially to go through a large number of the items, but I realise that if I did so I would be trespassing for too long on the time of the House. I shall, therefore, summarise briefly one or two of my reactions to various proposals. The proposals for the expansion of cereal production are very interesting indeed. The increase of 1·7 million acres of cereals is postulated to produce over 3 million extra tons a year by 1972. I agree that this is technically possible and I believe it right to aim for it.
I am not sure that I agree with the Committee on the way in which it divides this up between wheat, on the one hand, and barley and oats, on the other. Although the Committee has talked about expansion of certain break crops, I doubt very much whether on the basis it has put forward that I should be happy about the expansion of 1 million acres under wheat. This is a matter on which to exercise judgment. I want to see produc-
756
tion of wheat expanded, but I should like to see more done not only for wheat, but also for varieties like maris widgeon, and a definite opportunity taken to produce more of the harder type of wheat so that we do not have to import so great an amount of these.
As to the various break crops, there is a lot to be said for expansion of production of field beans. I have been advocating this for years. I also want to see a little more done about oilseed, rape and other things. The proposals for sugar beat break fresh ground. Until now it has not been assumed by many that it would not be practicable to think in terms of new factories and expanding the acreage. There is a definite technical ability to do this, but the problems of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement have weighed on us in the past.
The worrying thing about potatoes is the possibility of increased imports of processed potatoes, particularly potato flour. I was in correspondence with the Minister's predecessor on what we should do to stimulate such production in this country. I hope that the present Minister is interesting himself in this problem, which various firms are taking practical steps to face. Public demand and requirement for potatoes is changing. It is not enough to ban imports; we have to see that there are facilities for production in this country and I hope that full opportunity will be taken for that.
Probably the most important proposals in the N.E.D.C. Report refer to the expansion of meat production, particularly beef. Anyone who has studied the Report will realise that it makes a bold proposal about beef. It proposes an expanion of the dairy herd by 300,000 cows and an increase of 140,000 calves, from those now culled for veal, and 300,000 beef cows. The first of these proposals will have its impact on milk products.
The most disappointing thing in the whole Report from the point of view of consequences for the farming community is the reference to sheep. Many of us have been surprised that the proposals do not plan for a larger increase in the number of sheep. I hope that members of the N.E.D.C. will think again about this. As they say, there has been no technical break-through with reference to Lowland sheep production, but there

757
are clearly opportunities for expansion in sheep production. Sheep less than any other animals call for imported concentrate foods. Having an abundance of grass in this country we should seek to expand our sheep breeding. We produce less than 50 per cent. of our total consumption of mutton and lamb.
This bring me to the whole question of grass. Paragraph 23 of the Report is very interesting. I should like more emphasis placed on the need for expansion per acre and the use of fertilisers on grassland. There is a great opportunity for expansion in grassland and also in the utilisation of crops by whole crop silage and that type of thing. Anyone who visits the Grassland Research Institute at Hurley will learn of the very valuable work which is being done. It gives opportunities for a massive increase in production both of beef and sheep.
The estimates for pigs seem to be high. It is perhaps technically possible to achieve these figures, but there are some real problems here. When I look at the latest pig sample survey I think that the Minister will have some problems unless he is able and willing to tackle the question of getting a larger share of the pig market for our own producers.
Much as I should like to go into more detail on the Report, I must confine myself to one or two other points. The vital question: is any of this expansion likely to be achieved, or are we engaged in just a meaningless exercise? Again and again the Report refers to the need for confidence. Is confidence possible with a programme for massive expansion under the existing system of support or with the present unrestricted and uncoordinated imports?
Even ignoring imports, and taking merely the increased production given in the plan, if we take it on the present unit subsidy costs shown in Table B on page 42 of the Annual Review White Paper we find that to implement the plan would cost at least another £25 million to be put on the subsidy bill. Anyone who has studied this knows that that is only the tip of the iceberg, because an increase of the order of that envisaged under the present system of support would mean over-supplied markets. Once we have over-supplied markets it can mean an astronomical rise in defi-
758
ciency payments. Look at what happened to the subsidy on pigs in 1962–63, when it averaged £1 million per week, and last autumn there was £1½ million a week on beef alone. This is the sort of thing that can happen once marketing gets out of balance.
So I say that under the present system of support an expansion of this kind would mean not only an additional £25 million, but possibly ten times that amount on our additional deficiency payment. The Minister may not know this —I hope he does—but if he does not, certainly the Treasury does. There can be no doubt that the Treasury will have worked out this sum by now. Under the present system, any programme such as this is doomed before it starts.
I want now to refer to subsidised imports. We in this country are massive importers of food and even if the whole of this expansion programme were achieved we should still be, and people should realise that when they talk about the effect on our international trade. Three years ago, the National Plan gave the value of imports of temperate foods at that time as £983 million. That figure has risen in the intervening period and has been subsequently increased by devaluation. But even if we achieve all the expansion in the N.E.D.C. Plan, we shall still require to import upwards of £800 million worth of temperate foods. What upsets our markets and what destroys confidence among our own farmers is the influx of additional, uncoordinated, dumped and subsidised food.
We get it every year in one form or another. At present, it is French wheat and milk products coming from a variety of places which are causing great concern. This year we have also had the problem of early potatoes being imported at a time when our own first early potatoes were just coming on to the market. That caused grave concern and heavy loss. I acknowledge that our climatic conditions played a considerable part, but the imports had been coming in first, and there is no doubt that many of our farmers have lost a lot of money.
Butter imports are on quota, so the position is not so difficult. Otherwise, in view of the world supply of butter, we should be in great difficulty. But the imports of cheese and milk powders are
759
another matter. Imports of cheese rose by 11 per cent. between 1966 and 1967 and in the first four months of this year they were 25 per cent. higher than in the same period last year—an enormous increase. Imports of whole milk powder went up by a further 14 per cent. in 1967 and the imports of skimmed milk powder were nearly 25 per cent. higher than in 1966, another enormous increase.
These imports have a direct bearing on the farmers' returns. For some products, it can be argued that the effect of subsidised imports is merely to put up the deficiency payment so that the farmer is only indirectly affected until the impact on the next Price Review, but that is not the case with milk products. The "pool" price is depressed when the value of milk for processing is reduced, and farmers will be feeling the effect of the present position with every succeeding monthly milk cheque. There is no doubt that the increase in the last Price Review will be cancelled out.
There may not be a great deal of French wheat coming in, but it has been overhanging the market for months and has had a disastrous effect on prices. It has been offered at barely one half of the price which French farmers are supposed to get for it. It is a good example of the lengths to which people will go to off-load surpluses of food. It is this fact which tends to destroy confidence among our own farmers and it can be seen time and again. We have seen it with French wheat and milk products this year and we saw it with beef last autumn and the autumn before.
We are virtually the only free market for food in the world now that the Common Market countries are able to close their markets to foreign supplies overnight, and we get the full impact of the off-loading of these surpluses. If our agriculture is to plan ahead with confidence, this fact has to be faced. We have one or two restrictions on entry. For instance, butter is regulated by quota. The last Conservative Minister of Agriculture tried to stabilise the cereals market when he introduced minimum import prices for cereals. I supported that move at that time, but I have since come to the view that it is not the best way in which to control
760
imports. It can often mean paying more to the overseas supplying country than is necessary.
That is why my party and I now advocate a system of levies whereby imports can be controlled, but the additional amount paid by the importer goes to the Treasury instead of to the foreign supplier. That does not increase our balance of payments difficulties, but reduces them. However, whatever one's view of the best method of dealing with subsidised imports, nothing can excuse the almost incredible muddle, confusion and loss caused by the Government in the grain trade over the last six months. I presume that today the Minister will at last tell us something about minimum import prices—at least, I hope he will.
If a change were to be made following devaluation—and we were told that this was the reason for it—that change should have been announced many months ago. At the time of devaluation, we were told by the Prime Minister that the whole operation had been carefully thought out and planned in advance. If that were so, why was there no announcement about minimum import prices for cereals last November? If it is argued that under the 1964 Act we had to consult the other signatories, I remind the Minister that under that Act the time allowed for such consultation is four months, and that four months from the end of last November takes one to the end of March, this year.
It is now the middle of July. It was in March that we first heard the rumours of an impending change. On 4th April, it was announced that discussions were going on and that a further statement would be made six weeks before any change took effect. On 24th June, we had yet another holding announcement, when we were told that news was still awaited, but that the interval between the announcement of the actual minimum price levels and their coming into effect might be no more than three or four weeks. We still do not know.
Farmers, merchants and compounders have all suffered heavy losses and great inconvenience, but, worse, is the impact on forward contracting. Over the last few years, there has been a genuine attempt to get more orderly marketing in the grain trade and planning contracting

761
in advance. These are essential to effective and clear marketing and yet anybody who attempted to contract in advance this year under the threat of this change in the M.I.P. would have been mad. This is a sorry story of incompetence and bungling. It may not be the present Minister's fault, but it is typical of the Administration of which he is a member. I believe that the Government are using the wrong system, but nobody can deny that they are adapting this system in an incredibly inept way. I hope that the Minister will at last clear up this trouble, because it has caused grave concern to farmers and merchants.
This brings me to a comment on the whole subject of agriculture support. Both sides are agreed that effective support is necessary not, let it be emphasised, because of the inefficiency of our farmers, but because all our supplying countries support and subsidise their own farming economies. We could certainly compete on level terms with any other producers in the Northern Hemisphere, but when exporting countries subsidise their surpluses, as is instanced by French wheat, some support to British agriculture is essential.
When in office the Conservative Party introduced the present system of support. We believe, however, that if fanning is to develop its full potential, that system should now be ended and that we should move away from the deficiency payment system to one in which levies are placed on imports and the consumer pays the cost of production. We believe that an attempt to expand production in the way suggested in the N.E.D.C. Report would be so costly under the present system that no Government could contemplate it. We believe that a massive expansion of production is not only technically possible, but in the national interest. Thus we want to move over to a system which will enable home expansion to take place and at the same time introduce effective control over those heavily subsidised imports which cause so much dislocation to our markets.
Those who oppose such a change have argued that even if it would assist our farmers and even if it would help the balance of payments, it would be a heavy burden on the consumer. This argument has been used by hon. Members opposite
762
more than once. I have pointed out many times that this is not so and I am glad to have had my view confirmed by the Minister himself in a reply which he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for The Harlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) recently. The hon. Member asked what estimate the Minister had made of the increase in the price of food on the basis that the cost of agricultural support was passed to the consumer. The Minister replied:
"It is not possible to give a precise estimate because many variable factors are involved; but to raise market prices to the levels of the current guarantees to the agricultural industry would result in an increase of some 4— 7 per cent. in the cost of food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c.75.]
That is very much in line with that I have said. I have said recently 5 per cent to 6 per cent., but the figure that he has given completely straddles that. If our proposals were spread over a three-year period, that means a rise under his figure of from 1⅓ per cent. to 2⅓ per cent. on the cost of food per year over three years. When one considers that the cost of food represents now little more than one-quarter of the weighting of the full retail price index, it means that this represents a cost of certainly not more than one-half of 1 per cent. a year over a three-year period in the cost of living index as the cost of the changeover from one system to another.
When we recall, also, that in the last 12 months to the latest available date, which is the end of May, the cost-of-living index as a whole has risen by over 4½ per cent., that amounts to more than nine times the actual cost that would be involved over this changeover. So I think that anybody looking at these figures dispassionately must agree that, whatever arguments may be used in relation to it, the question of the cost to the consumer being unreasonable is one which certainly should never in honesty be used again.
These figures show quite clearly that this cost compared with the actual increase in the cost of living under this Government is infinitesimal.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves his description of the system which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends would introduce, will he deal with the question whether he would

763
do away with all production grants and all guaranteed prices within the system which he is advocating? This is something that the House would like to know.
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I was trying to hurry, because I have so much to say. We do not propose to touch the production grants; we would change them, no doubt, from time to time to meet requirements. We look at production grants as being something which can be clearly assessed in advance and which do not have the variation which the deficiency payments have. It is deficiency payments alone that we propose to deal with in this way. It was against the deficiency payments that the quotation from the Minister was given.
Quite apart from this, there is the other side of the coin, namely, that there would be resultant saving to the Exchequer of about £250 million a year, which would enable social security benefits to be raised to offset the effects for those in need, and still leave money over for the reduction of other taxation.
People may dislike our proposals for many reasons, but, since that answer given by the Minister himself in the House, nobody can in honesty pretend they would place an unreasonable burden on the people. The truth is that a levy system such as we are proposing is the right system for this country. It is not entirely new, because it has been in operation on one commodity, namely, sugar, for the last 10 years, and in that case the consumer is bearing the cost not only of support to our home producers but also to Commonwealth producers as well.
About £60 million to £90 million a year is collected by levy in this way. I have never heard sugar being described as something that cannot be afforded by the poorest of our people. Admittedly, I would not want to use the sugar system for the rest of the commodities, although I see a distinguished Labour peer, Lord Walston, recommended it in the Farmers' Weekly last week. That would be too expensive a system to adopt, but the system we propose is both realistic and sound.
If the N.E.D.C. proposals are to succeed, we must change not only the system; we also have to change the
764
attitudes in Whitehall. The Ministry of Agriculture may genuinely want to see expansion, and, if the system of support is changed so that Exchequer funds are not at risk in the same way, I believe the attitude in the Treasury to home expansion may change also. There remains the stumbling-block of the Board of Trade, and this is a real problem. Only yesterday in the House the President of the Board of Trade gave a very strange answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on the question of bacon. He gave what seemed to me to be a quite incredible answer, the complacency of which took some believing.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
"… we would all of us like to save imports, and recently ambitious ideas for agricultural import saving have been advanced. When we are considering these, we must also consider the possible cost to the consumer or to the taxpayer. I think that under the current Selective Expansion Programme we are moving satisfactorily in the kind of direction that the hon. Gentleman would like."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 494.]
It is quite clear from that that the President of the Board of Trade certainly has not studied the White Paper or the Price Review. Had he looked at the outturn for pigs on page 24 this year, he would have seen that production, far from going up in the way he suggested, has gone down substantially in the last two years, and we all know that we are not at this moment completely filling the bacon quota which we have under the bacon sharing agreement.
Sir G. Nabarro: Earlier, my right hon. Friend graciously allowed me to intervene on the question of eggs, very few of which, he then pointed out, are imported. In fact, 99 per cent. of our total consumption of shell eggs are produced in Britain and 1 per cent. are imported. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason why I raised this with the President of the Board of Trade yesterday was to bring out that 50 per cent. of the bacon consumed in this country is imported from Denmark, another 16 per cent. is imported from Commonwealth and foreign sources, and only 34 per cent. of all the bacon we consume is produced by this country? It is, therefore, the most rewarding of all the foodstuffs for a policy of import substitution. Bacon and eggs march together.
Mr. Godber: I agree entirely, and that is the reason why I picked out this point. Speaking from memory, I think that the figure we are entitled to is not 34 per cent., but 36 per cent. under the bacon sharing agreement. I confirm what my hon. Friend has so well expressed.
To return to what I was saying about the Board of Trade, one of the most revealing attitudes of this Department was that given by an official at a recent meeting of the Select Committee, when he made clear that it was the view of the Board of Trade that, if one had to choose between exports and encouraging the saving of imports, they would choose exports. The promotion of exports is, of course, something we all value, but the contention that it has some mystical advantage over the saving of imports seems to permeate Whitehall, and it is something which I reject.
There is one obvious and undeniable argument in the opposite direction, namely, that one has under one's control the saving of imports. The promotion of exports must be to some extent at the discretion of those to whom one is trying to sell. One can more closely predict the saving of imports, and I suggest that the Government should take note of that. We all rejoice to see today's trade figures which show a better position and some reduction of total imports. The Board of Trade, I gather, welcome this. I hope that it will equally welcome a reduction of imports arising from greater agricultural production in this country.
I apologise for having been so long, but I wanted to cover all these matters. I would sum up by saying that the advantages of import savings through agricultural expansion would be far more clear if it were not for the artificial nature of international trade in food and the heavy subsidisation to which I have referred. It is significant that all our main industrial competitors on the Continent and in America are careful to protect their own farmers from the effects of imports. Farmers in New Zealand know how impossible it is to get into the American market. We in this country repealed the Corn Laws 120 years ago. For many years that policy paid us handsomely. Conditions, however, are very different now. We no longer hold a predominent position in the export of manufactured goods. On the other hand, our agriculture has in the
766
last two decades become one of the most advanced in the world.
Productivity on Britain's farms has advanced more rapidly than in practically any of our other industries, and that came out very clearly in the National Plan. From being a poor relation, agriculture has become a pace setter. It is not British agriculture that is backward now. It is the thinking in Whitehall. The N.E.D.C. Report points the way to a new era and a new attitude to farming on the part of those in power. I only hope that the Government will accept the opportunity that they have now been given.
4.50 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has dealt with a large number of subjects in his speech, and I will try to comment on them in the course of my own.
At the outset, he referred to the damage caused by yesterday's floods, and I would like to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with his expression of sympathy to those who have suffered loss.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Egg Reorganisation Commission. This is a detailed and important Report and, as the House knows. I have asked the interested bodies for their views by 31st July. It would not, therefore, be proper for me to comment at this stage; but I was extremely interested to observe the cautious reaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to proposals for a free market.
I am glad that we have this opportunity to debate agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that Conservative ex-Ministers in opposition frequently are more drastic and adventurous in the policies which they advocate than when they were Ministers themselves. The House, therefore, will not be surprised that I do not agree with all the views on agricultural policy which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. However, I agree that this is a challenging and interesting time for those engaged in agriculture, and a thought-provoking time for those concerned with agricultural policy.

767
Why should this be? First of all, but not for the first time in our history, the public—largely an urban public—has become more aware of the economic importance of agriculture to our economy. The lives of townsmen and countrymen alike are affected by economic problems connected with the balance of payments. Since we import £1,600 million worth of food every year, and depend to a greater extent than any other industrial country upon imported food, this has, naturally, led people to ask what more home agriculture can do to help.
The deep interest of the House has been shown by the selection of agriculture as the subject of the work of one of our new Select Committees. The interest of the public has been roused by the publication of the Report of the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture. I want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation for the work that both bodies have been doing. I will deal with the E.D.C. Report in a little more detail later.
Against this background of interest in the future of agriculture arising from its manifest importance to our economic future, it is no wonder that we have all been led to ask ourselves whether the broad lines of present agricultural support policies are still appropriate and right for the future, or whether the time has come for change, and, if so, what kind of change. The right hon. Gentleman was doing a service when he posed that question. I cannot say that I agree with his conclusions, and I will deal with them as I go along.
In any area of support policy, the factor most likely to lead to a call for change is clear evidence of the failure of the existing methods. In agriculture, the evidence points not to a failure, but to notable success. Since the mid-1950s taking a period of 12 years in which Governments of both of the major parties have been responsible for policy, the volume of farm sales has increased by 35 per cent. Crop production has expanded by about 60 per cent., mainly accounted for by the growth of our cereals production. Meat and egg production has risen by about 40 per cent., milk by about 20 per cent. and horticultural produce by about 10 per cent. Expressed as tonnages, these figures
768
mean, for example, over 100,000 tons more beef and about 6 million tons more cereals.
The increase in value of our agricultural output over these years has been £500 million. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must not, merely because he speaks in opposition, lightly denigrate the record of the last 10 years or so. The value of imports now being saved as a result of higher production at home is certainly higher than the £250 million a year calculated at the time when the selective expansion programme was announced by my right hon. Friend.
During this period, the cost of support has fluctuated according to market circumstances, but, taking one year with another, it has been at a remarkably stable level. In real terms, it has fallen, and this is a point which the country generally should appreciate. The main reason for this is the increase in the productivity of the industry. Productivity has been growing by between 5 and 6 per cent. a year. That is a rate which compares very well with most of our manufacturing industries, and, therefore, a tribute is due to the industry for the work that it has done. This tribute should be paid to the farmers and farm workers and to our policies.
But, of course, because the cost of agricultural support is a major item of public expenditure, it must be closely watched. We must be satisfied that we are getting value for money. I shall certainly continue to look very carefully at expenditure. No one could expect a Minister of Agriculture to do otherwise. But I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will need no convincing that the record of the agricultural industry shows that, over recent years, it has given the nation a good return on the investment put into it.
No one would claim that all the improvement in productivity is the result of the present system of agricultural support. There are other factors. The industry has benefited from the results of scientific research and from technical developments. Then there is the work and example of progressive farmers and the work of farm workers and the advisory services. Even so, there cannot be any doubt that the assurance given by the Agriculture Acts and the readiness of the

769
industry to invest with confidence have been of the greatest importance.
I know that this assured stability is something that our farmers recognise as being of real value, and I am sure that farmers will read with great care what the right hon. Gentleman has said today. He has made an important speech on behalf of the Opposition, and it needs careful study by the farming community. But I do not believe that any responsible person would lightly abandon an agricultural policy which has served this country well for over 20 years, and it is with that degree of thought and caution that we should approach the problem.
There is the other side to this coin. The method of support that we have operated has been of great value in keeping the cost of the nation's food at a reasonable level. It has been important both to millions of ordinary families and their household budgets and, by keeping down the cost of imported foodstuffs, to the national budget as a whole. The policy of agricultural support, therefore, has brought great benefits to farmers, to the public and to the economy.
This is a suitable moment for me to emphasise that the cost of agricultural support, although undeniably substantial, is not a handout to our farmers. A mistake made frequently is that this is some form of a charitable handout. It could not be a bigger mistake. Farmers' incomes have been rising, as we should hope that they would, but by no means all of the increase has been available to them as cash to spend. In agriculture, income is the main source of new investment. Much of the industry's higher income has been used to sustain the level of new capital formation in the industry, averaging over £200 million a year. If one considers that this industry is composed of a large number of comparatively small industries, one sees that this is a very good record. That investment has brought about a continuing rise in output at moderate cost, to the advantage to our balance of payments.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman gave figures about expansion of gross capital in the industry as being over £200 million a year. But none of the figures given to the Select Committee up to 1967 was over £200 million. That for 1967
770
itself was £188 million gross capital formation. Where does he get his figure of £200 million from?
Mr. Hughes: This is interesting, but I do not think that we should enter into an argument about detail at the moment. I said that farmers are investing in their own industry and I gave the figure which I have before me. I will check whether I have made a mistake.
There has been a good deal of drift of manpower from the land. Agriculture has released manpower to the rest of the economy at the rate of 20,000 to 30,000 men a year. This is a considerable contribution. No doubt, the drift will continue to some extent, but the House and the Government will at some stage have to consider whether the industry can afford a drift at that pace. But that is something which we must consider again.
That then is the record. That is what has been achieved. It is well worth while underlining. But we must now turn our thoughts to the future. Is the system which we have known, and which has proved itself so well, still going to be the best system in the years ahead? This is the question that, as Minister, I put to myself, and it is the question that the right hon. Gentleman also posed.
This leads me straight into my objectives for agriculture. It is my aim, as it was that of my right hon. Friend, to see expansion based on increasing productivity and consistent with the best use of resources in the national interest. This has been the policy of the Government.
This does not mean expansion regardless of cost, or expansion towards which the industry makes no contribution by improving its own standards of technical and managerial efficiency. It means that the question of resources becomes of paramount importance. This is why the Annual Review has been used in a much more purposive way under the present Government than in the past, with the emphasis on the provision of resources for productive investment.
The farming community and the industry generally recognise that the Reviews have been constructive from their point of view—[Interruption.] There is no question about it. This is what they say. I was surprised at the uncharacteristically sarcastic remark which the right hon. Gentleman made about my right

771
hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, after all, is the chief executive and has responsibility for Government policy. Therefore, he is responsible for the Price Reviews which my right hon. Friend negotiated. I thought that that was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred at some length to the "Little Neddy" Report. I agree that this is one of the most important considerations which my colleagues and I will have in mind in examining the agricultural programme in the next year or two. The Committee has outlined a challenging programme and I have received it in that spirit. It has said that it is within the technical capacity of the industry to achieve a further very substantial increase in output which can contribute materially to import saving. Therefore, the Report is a valuable addition in our consideration of objectives and policies for the future.
As the Economic Development Committee recognises, the proposals raise a number of large issues which go a good deal further than the technical capacity of the industry to expand output. Not least, they raise questions with a direct bearing on our international obligations, with which I shall deal generally in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman was less than fair about the selective expansion programme. As he attaches so much importance to the Report of the Committee, I should remind him, perhaps, of paragraph 92:
"The broad effect of our proposals is to carry forward beyond 1970 the objectives of the Government's selective expansion programme for agriculture, but at a somewhat faster rate."
This does not suggest that everyone puts as little value on the programme as the right hon. Gentleman. The Report goes on:
"There are, however, certain differences in emphasis which, in part, reflect restraints that were placed upon the selective expansion programme because of our international commitments."
Therefore, it is clear that the able men on this Committee, who studied the problem for about two years and decided what the import saving contribution of agriculture might be, realised that the Government are on the right lines. This is what that paragraph shows, in spite of
772
what the right hon. Gentleman has said—
Mr. Godber: Since the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me specifically, perhaps I may say that he read out this paragraph, which referred to the objectives of the Government's selective expansion programme. I analysed the objectives and I analysed their achievement. It was not their objectives but their failure to achieve them and their being way behind target which I criticised in the main.
Mr. Hughes: Surely the right hon Gentleman does not think that this experienced Committee merely studied the objectives and not the achievements. Of course they studied the achievements. I shall deal with this later.
Although our system is mainly one of deficiency payments with a liberal import régime, it must not be overlooked that, within the system, we have arrangements which give a measure of market management. These include the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding, butter quotas, control of imports of main crop potatoes and, of course, the minimum import prices for cereals.
As the House knows, we have, for several months, been engaged in discussions with our main overseas suppliers of cereals about an increase in the minimum import prices to take account of devaluation. I had hoped that it would have been possible to announce new minimum import prices earlier than this. With the harvest approaching, it is obviously important both for fanners and traders to know exactly where they stand. However, we were bound by the agreements entered into by the previous Government with our overseas suppliers in April, 1964, which required the Government to obtain the consent of those countries to any significant change in the general level of the minimum import prices. I am glad to say that agreement has now been reached.
Again, I deplore the right hon. Gentleman's irresponsible outburst of criticism on this subject, when he knows what the situation was. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, he knew how the machine works, and we were operating an agreement which his Government entered into. It is little

773
short of tragic that he should play politics with the important agricultural industry.
I want to say now what the broad outline of the new prices is. For wheat, the increases lie between 12 and 13 per cent. The minimum prices for the two wheats which most affect the home market, namely, denatured feed wheat and continental milling wheat, will be £22 19s. and £25 5s. per ton respectively. For coarse grains, the increase is 9·3 per cent., making the minimum prices £21 19s. for barley and oats, £22 9s. for sorghums and £22 19s. for maize. The minimum prices for cereal products and by-products will be increased in the same proportion. The new prices will be embodied in an Order which will be laid before the House very shortly and will come into operation on 1st August. I am aware that the minimum import price system has been criticised from both sides of the House. Some of my hon. Friends have criticised it, fearing that it could result in an increase in the cost of food to the consumer and in the cost of feedingstuffs to the farmer. These fears stem, I think, from a misunderstanding of the purpose of the system. Its purpose is simply to stabilise the domestic cereals market by excluding excessively cheap imports, not to increase the general level of prices on the domestic market. Consequently, the minimum prices were originally set below the normal level of import prices at the time. It is only because the normal level has increased as a result of devaluation that we have increased the minimum prices. The objective remains limited, namely, to stop the price for the home crop being disrupted by, perhaps, quite small quantities of excessively cheap imports.
I am sure that, if my hon. Friends compare the prices I have quoted with current market prices, they will find that none of the consequences which they fear will materialise. On the contrary, it is possible to argue that the new minimum prices are rather on the low side for achieving the objective of market stability. The increase is, for example, less than the 16⅔ per cent. which would have been required totally to offset the effect of devaluation. Consequently, I have made clear to overseas supplying
774
countries that we regard the increase as an interim measure subject to further adjustment, if necessary.
Hon. Members opposite, on the other hand, after having introduced the scheme when they were in power, on the basis of agreements with supplying countries which have caused us a considerable amount of trouble over the last four years, have now decided that they would instead prefer a system similar to the one operated by the European Economic Community. In other words, there has been a major switch of policy by the Opposition. In advocating it, they seem conveniently to have forgotten how the minimum import price system works. There is no difference in basic principle between the minimum import price system and a variable levy system. Both systems are enforced by levies when the price of imports falls below the minimum import or threshold price. The main difference lies in where the level is set. Under the Common Market system this level is very high in order to maintain high producer prices, so that levies are, naturally, always in operation. Under our system they are on the low side so that levies are imposed only occasionally.
One argument of the Opposition is that under the minimum import price system we pay more to our overseas suppliers, whereas with a variable levy system we should collect a levy for the benefit of this country. This is what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. But, as I have said, both are levy systems. It is true that our system is operated on an individual country and not a general basis, but this does not allow our principal suppliers to charge us any price they like. Our two biggest suppliers of cereals, Canada and the United States, which together account for some 70 per cent. of our imports, cannot or do not make special export prices for the United Kingdom, their prices being governed solely by the world market. Certainly, the cost of our minimum import price system during the four years in which it has been in operation has been very small.
I realise that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so that I shall try to limit my speech. Turning now to dairy products, I should say a word about cheese. The House knows that imports of cheddar and similar hard cheeses have

775
risen appreciably. Stocks are well above the normal level and have depressed prices to the extent of 30s. a cwt., but there is no indication as yet of a market collapse in this country. Home produced cheddar and similar hard cheeses, which account for 45 per cent. of this market, have generally maintained their prices well. But, understandably, the Milk Marketing Boards and the industry have expressed their concern lest the price of home produced cheese should fall as a result of dumping. I am giving close and careful attention to this problem, which I regard as the most urgent at present confronting the milk producing side of the agricultural industry.
Mr. John Brewis: Is it not difficult to bring in anti-dumping duties in respect of cheese, as there are so many different types of cheese, specialist cheeses, Cheddar cheese, and so on? One would have to have information about the cost of production of each type.
Mr. Hughes: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a Bill dealing with dumping has been passing through the House. He will know what its provisions are. We are dealing here with hard cheeses, not with soft cheeses. At present, there is no problem in the other sector to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, I do not wish to go into detail at this stage because, as I say, we are giving the matter our urgent attention now.
I have been giving attention to potatoes, too. After barley, potatoes are the most valuable of our arable crops, being worth at the farm gate, on average, about £90 million. As the Report of the Economic Development Committee pointed out, the market demand has been turning increasingly to potatoes in diverse processed forms—dehydrated, canned and frozen, in addition to the pre-packs now regularly stocked by our supermarkets and self-service stores. The demand for potato crisps also continues to grow at a great rate. To meet the demand, manufacturers are expanding their capacity, but in some lines there has been a temporary shortage which has had to be filled by imports. This is the main reason for the importation of potatoes. There is a need for producers to organise their marketing to supply these specialised requirements, and for manufacturers to save imports by
776
drawing their supplies from the home crop.
To meet this changing pattern of demand, improved marketing arrangements will be introduced from 1st August next, as an outcome of the discussions with the Potato Marketing Board and the Farmers' Unions which were referred to in the 1968 Annual Review White Paper. The Board's present ware standard will be replaced by a new compulsory minimum grade. There will also be recommended higher grades which will be based on quality and size. This should help to secure improved crop utilisation and provide a sound basis for improving the quality of potatoes reaching the consumer. I regard this as very important. The new grades should also help in securing that the varied requirements of potato users, including the processing industry, are met as far as possible from the home crop, thus reducing the need for imports. Details will be announced by the Board early next week.
The new arrangements also provide that the Board will no longer regulate the quantity of potatoes available for marketing by adjusting, during the course of a season, the minimum and maximum sizes of potatoes which may be sold. Prices, if there are buying programmes, will relate to the new grades and will be fixed to ensure that the cost of support in any season will not be greater than it would have been had the present arrangements continued.
The 1968 Annual Review White Paper referred also to the increased level of potato yields and the implication that, taking one year with another, a steadily falling acreage would be needed to attain, without over-large surpluses, the production objective of self-sufficiency in main crop potatoes except in years of unusually low yields. The 1967 crop gave rise to a surplus of about 580,000 tons. On the forecast United Kingdom acreage for 1968 of nearly 700,000 acres, which is a little less than in 1967, there will again be a surplus if the upward trend in yields continues. Allowing for this trend, a reduction in the acreage for 1969 towards a level of 650,000 would seem desirable. Accordingly, the Board have been considering, in consultation with the Government and the Unions, the use they could make of their present powers to prescribe a quota so as to bring the

777
1969 crop acreage more closely into line with requirements. An announcement will be made next week.
The Potato Marketing Board has consulted potato merchants, retailers and processors on these arrangements. The implications for Northern Ireland, where there is no marketing board, are still being considered.
I referred earlier to the international scene. These current questions—cereals, dairy products and potatoes—draw attention to our international obligations on agricultural products. The right hon. Gentleman referred to our international trading position. He proposed that we should abandon our present arrangements and adopt a levy system. I understand that the objective would be to expand home production in order to save imports, an objective with which I certainly would not disagree. I do not think that any sensible person would disagree with it. British Governments, mainly previous Governments, have given undertakings to Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and other countries about their access to our markets for foodstuffs. The House knows what they are. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Anglo-Irish free trade agreement. In addition there are, for example, the Anglo-New Zealand trade agreement and our agreements with Denmark and others as part of the negotiations upon which E.F.T.A. was founded.
If our obligations are to be removed or the agreements are to be modified, we shall have to conduct negotiations with that object in view. Hon. Members opposite have recognised this, and the right hon. Gentleman has said that trading agreements will have to be re-negotiated as appropriate. He has said that it is vital to have the co-operation of our overseas suppliers before implementing changes. He has not, however, indicated how this co-operation is to be achieved, nor did he do so today. This is a very important matter for the Government, certainly for any Minister of Agriculture. International relations are bound to affect the pace at which we could carry out any major change in our agricultural support mechanism, if we decided that it was desirable. It is only right to recall that the E.D.C. Report said that it excluded consideration of our international commitments and resource costs. The whole
778
House will recognise that what I said is true for the present and any other Government.
When I began, I described in general terms the progress made by British agriculture in recent years. I said that it was a success story, as indeed it is. I attributed part of that success to the methods of agricultural support we have adopted since the 1947 Act. I said that in asking ourselves whether the time had come for change we should be open-minded. Hon. Members opposite have committed themselves to variable levies. I have no objection to a system of variable levies, if I can be satisfied that it is a better system than the one we have now. But I shall need to be satisfied beyond a peradventure of doubt that that is so.
It might be possible, by the management of the market, to raise prices to levels that would enable the British producer to get from the market a return equivalent to that which he now gets under our guaranteed price arrangements. It might be possible to go further, and by raising prices still more to replace the existing range of production grants by higher returns from the market. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that this was his Party's policy. This apart, we have the basic proposition of the Opposition that we should set out to transfer the cost of support from the taxpayer by raising prices to the consumer.
The right hon. Gentleman has recognised that there would be difficulties to overcome. He may have forgotten that, if he were ever in a position to implement his proposals, he would be Minister of Food as well as Minister of Agriculture. He must bear this in mind. In that capacity one must carefully consider the repercussions, particularly on the less well-off sections of the community, and more generally on our social and economic policies. These are very big issues. For some commodities in which we are basically self-sufficient some of the problems may not be so great as for those commodities of which we shall have to remain substantial importers. Even so, there would be problems in maintaining prices of entirely home-produced commodities.
The right hon. Gentleman has argued that the great advantage of that system is that revenue from levies can be used

779
to offset the disadvantages of higher consumer prices. I can see this. But he also seems to assume that prices can be raised so that greater resources will be available for investment by agriculture in further expansion of production. But the real problem is one of resources, not the mechanism by which they are provided. It is either naive or disingenuous to suggest that if one ceases to identify support costs by allowing them to be diffused, one thereby escapes the problem. One does not; one creates a newer and more difficult problem. In agriculture, apart from the resources made available by the industry's increasing productivity, resources must come from the Government, the consumer or a combination of the two. There is no other source. In the national interest, no responsible Government can avoid considering what these resources should be.
Therefore, whilst I am not opposed to change—on the contrary, I believe that good reforms are necessary, and I am prepared to accept the challenge of change—we should not approach it like a bull at a gate. I want a thorough explanation of the advantages. I want to know the disadvantages. I want to consider how, and to what extent, they can be overcome. I want to know how the new arrangements would fit in with our objectives for agriculture and the wider needs of the economy. This is what we must now consider and, therefore, I think that the debate is very timely.
I said that agriculture is a great industry with a proud record. The policies of successive Governments have contributed to this. Over the years agriculture has contributed to the nation's economy. An industrial society like ours sometimes tends to think of farming as an industry apart from the rest. This is wrong. The farmer should rightly be seen as the manager of an important business, and he is running it with increasing skill as a manager. The farm worker is doing a job no less vital to the nation. With all his skills, he is equivalent to any worker on the shop floor of a factory. They are supported by the research workers, advisers and progressive ancillary industries. Technology and improvements in management and structure have made, and will continue to make,
780
substantial advances. Our agricultural industry can stand comparison with the best anywhere, and it is one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, in the world. That is what we are really talking about.
This is my first major debate as Minister of Agriculture, and I want very much to underline these points. It will be my aim to see that progress is continued. If changes in methods of support are necessary to assist in this progress, they would be right. Within our system there is room for plenty of flexibility, and this we can exploit. But change simply for its own sake is of no value. The future of this great and progressive industry must be our first consideration. It is on that basis that I shall approach my task.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. John Brewis: There are three factors which make the debate very timely, and for that reason I agree with what the Minister said just before he sat down.
First, there is the massive balance of payments deficit which the country has been running for at least three years. Much of it is made up of the very heavy import bill indeed, particularly since devaluation. The second factor is the agricultural N.E.D.C. Report on how imports can be saved, which is a most interesting technological document. The third is the flooding onto our market of imports from overseas countries to which the right hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient attention in his speech.
There have been two fairly lengthy speeches, and I want to keep my remarks short, and so I shall just deal with two commodities which are important to my constituency. The first is potatoes and the second milk.
I think it will be readily conceded that in this country we can produce as good potatoes as anywhere in the world. We need no imports of main crop potatoes, and they are usually banned from 1st August unless by reason of scarcity we need a few imports. Together with this we have acreage quotas to ensure that the supply is kept reasonably in line with demand, and a guaranteed price of £14 10s. a ton. We also produce good early potatoes. There is no reason why we should not supply the British market
781
with home-grown early potatoes in the months of June and July, but we allow unlimited imports.
My eye was caught by a passage in one of those documents which all Members of Parliament receive and generally throw into their wastepaper basket. It is a passage in a Spanish newsletter:
"Palma de Mallorca … Wages of between 900 and a thousand pesetas a day are now being paid in the fields around the town of La Puebla on this island to workers engaged in the task of harvesting spring potatoes, which are to be exported to England."
We do not need to buy potatoes from Spain. We can grow them perfectly well here. Yesterday I received a telegram from my constituency saying:
"Situation critical. Field prices down to £7 a ton. Ban all imports."
That was from the early potato growers. What they are getting for this crop, which needs expensive fertiliser and a great deal of cultivation, is less than half the guaranteed price for main crop potatoes.
This is not the end of the matter. I see no reason why we should be buying potatoes from Spain, from Egypt, of all places, and from Cyprus. The ones from Cyprus are dumped on the British market, because they are consigned to anybody, not a definite merchant. This is particularly so in Glasgow and Cardiff. The potatoes are put on the market at any price that the market will fetch, and as a result they depress the price of the home crop. The Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board, Mr. Rennie, said last week that if those lifting crops could regulate supplies to market requirements prices could be caused to get firmer. That was rather laughable. It is simply not true when supplies are flooding in from, particularly, Cyprus.
There is a quota for home grown early potatoes. The farmer cannot grow as much as he likes. One can see the acreage on the Ayrshire coast dropping gradually but significantly every year while the acreage in Cyprus is going up and up. I appeal to the Government to look into the problem. They are interested in regional development and have done a great deal to encourage it, but on the other hand they so often give it a knock on the head. This is an industry which is particularly important to remote areas such as Cornwall, Pem-
782
brokeshire and Wigtownshire. The policy of unrestricted imports is just doing down the regional policy.
I am sure that I shall be told that there is some reason under G.A.T.T. why nothing can be done about imports of potatoes. If there is no provision under G.A.T.T. relating to the binding of imports of potatoes, I see no reason why the main crop ban should not be extended from August to July and even to June.
If we are to have talks with our main suppliers, let us say firmly to the Cypriots, "We will take your potatoes up to, say, 31st May, because some people will want to buy them then and they will not be competing with home supplies, but we do not want them dumped on our market in June and July at present because we can quite easily produce potatoes for ourselves at that time." I see no reason why the Cypriots should not accept this arrangement. They have the right climate and they will get better prices than previously.
I turn to milk. Recently the dairy products market has been the butt of all sorts of foreign imports at ridiculous prices. The prices have often been given. I take milk powder for a start. This is an interesting modern product in that it is very useful for many manufacturers in this country and also helps with world food programmes overseas because it has very good keeping qualities. We can easily supply all we want for our home market from United Kingdom production and Irish and Commonwealth production. But, once again, our production has been going down. In 1961 we produced 25,500 tons, and by 1967 the figure was down to 23,000 tons. This has an effect on my constituency. We have a Nestle condensed milk factory at Dunriggit, and it is putting off workers. We are losing much through the foreign dumpers of dairy products. A new factory is being opened in Stranraer this month for making milk power. Princess Margaret will be opening it. The future of such projects in remote areas must be very problematical when we allow milk powder to come in at the dumped rates at which it is coming.
About 10 days ago the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board sent a telegram to the Secretary of State for Scotland about milk powder, saying that

783
a licence had been given by the Board of Trade permitting the importation of 5,000 tons of Belgian milk powder, and the price was believed to be £56 a ton, compared with the Belgian home price of £180 a ton. He said that we produced quite enough of it at home and that this licence makes matters more difficult and that it is surely within the terms of our agreement that immediate action should be taken. As the Secretary of State for Scotland will be winding up the debate, I shall be very grateful if he will tell me what is meant by the phrase that within the terms of our agreement immediate action should be taken. As far as I know, no action has yet been taken to prevent the dumping of milk powder or the dumping of cheese.
The cheese situation is very much more serious than the Minister of Agriculture gave us to believe. It is only now that British cheese is normally coming on the market. It will undoubtedly meet a bad market and the price will be very low. For example, France is subsidising cheese to the tune of £200 a ton, and Holland is subsidising it to the tune of £250 a ton. The effect on the pool price of milk is likely to be a 1½d. drop, rather more than the increase given in the last Price Review. This will be an extremely serious matter to dairy farmers, whose costs are continually going up.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I put a question to the hon. Gentleman? He is a neighbour of mine, and our problems are the same. Does he think that the situation will be much worse if we go into the Common Market?
Mr. Brewis: No. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the prices of dairy products will be controlled at a much higher level in the Common Market. I do not think that what he suggests will be the case.
I do not think that the provisions for bringing in anti-dumping duties, even including the new measure which came before the House a few weeks ago, are sufficient. There have only been about three orders in the last three years. There are many different kinds of cheeses and in each case one would have to establish the cost of production and whether material damage was done, etc.
784
I think that Britain is at the crossroads of agricultural policy. I believe that we are mesmerised by the G.A.T.T. The Treaty was arrived at in different circumstances, when food was in short supply, and I think that many of its provisions are negotiable. In our very sad debtor position at the moment, there may be one bright side in that other countries will be wanting to help us get out of our difficulties, particularly when it is understood that this will only effect something like a 10 per cent. increase of production at home and that we shall still be an ample market for imported temperate foodstuffs if an agreement within G.A.T.T. is made.
The last Government, at a time when the import position was nothing so severe, was able to come to agreements on bacon sharing, minimum prices for cereals and butter quotas, which have been extremely helpful to the country. Agreements of this sort could be reached again.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On potatoes?
Mr. Brewis: Yes, on potatoes, too. I was sorry to read the evidence given to the Select Committee on Agriculture by a distinguished representative of the Board of Trade. I thought his attitude defeatist and that, in many cases, he did not seem to know what could be done. On the question of dumping, he said:
"We are unhappy about it but do not see much we can do about it."
That is not good enough for the fanning community. He then said:
"In agricultural matters subsidies tend to be so common that the rules which normally apply to industrial goods do not always fit."
One should try harder than that to protect the agricultural community and if the anti-dumping procedures are not suitable, as I think is the case, we must go over to a system of import levies, as has been suggested by this side of the House.
I want to see the Ministry of Agriculture taking a much bigger part in these affairs. Negotiations on food matters, particularly with foreign countries, are better not left to the Board of Trade. Many of these negotiations could be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture to be fully responsible and answerable not only to the consumer but to the farming community.
5.44 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: It is with some trepidation that I intervene for the first time in an agricultural debate. Some of my hon. Friends have asked me how many fanners are in my constituency. Of course I have none. It is a highly industrial constituency. But I am within a stone's throw of some very beautiful farming country in Staffordshire and Shropshire and have, from time to time, had occasion to have very good relations with the Staffordshire N.F.U. and I feel, as my right hon. Friend said, that what affects the agricultural community affects us all.
I therefore want to say a few words about something which appears to be running through the debate as a theme. It is the whole problem of the balance of payments and import substitution. The balance of payments has concerned us all for many years and it seems that there are three ways of dealing with it. First, we can do what we have been trying unsuccessfully to do—unsuccessful in that it does not bring the required results —and that is to cut down on consumer demand and on investment, and therefore on imports. But we find that, by cutting down on investment, we damage other things because of the unfortunate backlash on the economy. Secondly, we can impose import quotas. Thirdly, we can produce more goods at home instead of importing so many of them—import substitution.
Import quotas can be imposed in various ways and on different kinds of goods, both manufactured and agricultural, and they have the advantage of flexibility. They can be used selectively. Import quotas are allowed by G.A.T.T. and our agreement with the rest of the European Free Trade Area. Where there are balance of payments difficulties, there is no difficulty about import quotas. It is clear that we can control imports much more easily than we can increase exports. But I think that import substitution is the most effective way of dealing with the problem and this is what the Labour Party put forward in its 1964 and 1966 election manifestos. We said in 1966:
"Intense efforts are now being made to replace those imported products which British industry can produce competitively."
786
It is clear that British agriculture is an industry which can make a considerable contribution to the economy by this means and by 1972 it can make a real impact on our balance of payments problems.
The N.E.D.C. Report has been mentioned. It came to my hands quite by chance and it is this which persuaded me to speak in the debate. The Report should be read by every hon. Member. It is fascinating and shows that a rise of £345 million or 17 per cent. in annual gross output or £185 million or 22 per cent. in net output is possible by 1972 over the 1967–68 figures, and that further increases could follow.
This means, therefore, that, in a few years' time, we could look forward to a net import saving of £200 million per annum across the whole range of agricultural production. This includes cereals, livestock, meat, poultry, horticulture, flowers, bulbs, nursery stock and many other things.
I was interested to see in the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture, published last week, that the N.F.U. has confirmed these figures and supports them. It is anxious to have the opportunity to go ahead and expand productivity in this way. Of course one understands that, if one is to have increased productivity, investment is needed to back it up. This means that there must be improvements in the technical side of farming and in marketing efficiency, expenditure on better drainage, improved fertiliser application, and, of course, more research into agriculture generally —above all, the speedy application of the results of the research.
This problem does not only apply to agriculture. It cuts across the whole of industry. In the building and civil engineering industry, about which I know more than I know about agriculture, the results of research take perhaps 15 to 20 years to be applied. I hope that this time lag is not the case in agriculture. If we are to intensify research, we must have more graduates to do it and this means that my right hon. Friend must make approaches to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that there is a rapid flow of biology and agriculture students through our universities, so that the

787
industry can carry on the research necessary and ensure that its results are applied.
At present, half our food and feeding-stuffs requirements are imported at a cost of £1,600 million per annum. Some things cannot be grown here and we have to import them, but that total includes almost £1,000 million worth of food from the temperate zone, and that is where there are possibilities for substitution.
Unfortunately, part of the problem is that in the 1970s we shall need more food, because, unless something is done on the lines of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) a few days ago, remarks which caused some concern among a minority of hon. Members, we shall endure a considerable increase in population. It has been estimated that from 1966 to 1972 there is likely to be a 3½ per cent. increase in population, a considerable increase over a short time, and along with that increase there will be a rise in incomes needing another 6 per cent. in food production. Of course we all eat too much and we could all do with cutting down on our intake. It would be jolly good for the economy and jolly good for our waistlines.
The Report makes it clear, and my right hon. Friend made much of this and was right to do so, because it is backed by the evidence, that agriculture has proved itself to be a highly productive and highly efficient industry. Net output per worker over the past ten years has increased by an average of 6 per cent. per annum, which is stupendous. If we could get that sort of increase, or even half of it, throughout the economy in British manufacturing and in the exporting industries, we would not be in our present economic difficulties.
Agriculture has shown the nation what can be done by the application of up-to-date methods and the introduction of mechanisation, and that is the need in many manufacturing and exporting industries. It is much cheaper to use imported labour from countries abroad than to invest in the capital machinery needed to step up productivity. This is part of the difficulty and part of the legacy from the period of the 1950s when the party opposite was in power with which we have had to contend. 788
Experience has also shown that in agriculture productivity increases rapidly when output rises rapidly, so that proposals for a faster increase in net output would generate even greater productivity. There is an enormous incentive to all of us to support agriculture. Of course, increasing agricultural productivity will not solve all our balance of payments problems and I am not even remotely trying to suggest that it would, but it would certainly make a splendid contribution.
With the increased backing which we have had for the £, which has given us greater flexibility to do much more in certain areas of the economy, surely agriculture is an area where we can do more in terms of import controls and physical controls on the imports of certain goods which we can produce beautifully ourselves. It is scandalous that we should import foreign cheese masquerading under British names. What the heck is imported Cheddar? Cheddar is a splendid English cheese and Caerphilly is a marvellous Welsh cheese which I like very much. We import very much which we could produce ourselves. Why do we have to import celery from America and pay dollars for it? Why do we import strawberries from America and pay dollars for them when, with a bit of investment in horticulture, we could produce early strawberries ourselves and not need to spend dollars?
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give support and backing to this Report from the Economic Development Committee on this subject of import substitution in agriculture. He would help the fanning community which, I am convinced, is anxious to serve the nation as well in the future as it has in the past.
5.55 p.m.
Sir Clive Bossom: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) will continue to come to our debates on agriculture and that she will continue to support the British farmer as she has this afternoon and to press her right hon. Friend to give British farming a greater share of the market. I hope that she will also continue to press her right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to give more money for research which is also greatly needed.

789
I feel that the Minister lost an opportunity today to give agriculture a new policy, or at least a fresh approach. He could have given our farmers some new guide lines. He could have told them what the future held for them. Why is he so timid about change and why is he being so cautious? Most members of the agriculture community, as he will find, are very reasonable people and are willing to give the Minister a fair hearing. He starts in his new office with a "clean slate", which is something nowadays. He has; been in this office since 5th April, and I would have thought by now that he could have got to grips with the problem and produced a Mark II policy and brought it to this House this afternoon. If he is to get anywhere in the next few months while he is still the Minister of Agriculture, he must be bold; unfortunately his approach this afternoon was far too timid.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that I should have produced a new policy for agriculture after being the Minister for only three months?
Sir C. Bossom: The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had a long time in the office. Surely there is some form of continuity in the office and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could have produced a new policy after three months. We should not have to wait for changes until the next Price Review, because the last Price Review clearly showed that we must change from the present system. This year's Budget virtually cancelled out any financial help which we had had from this year's Price Review.
Last weekend, I met the executive of my National Farmers' Union in Herefordshire. They are sound farmers who know their job. Yet these farmers are frustrated and feel themselves to be in a strait-jacket under the present system because they cannot expand as they must. Above all, they have no confidence in the future and, what is worse, feel that there is no future in farming for their sons. That is why they want a change.
It was interesting to discuss with them the findings of the Report of the "Little Neddy". Surely the Minister must agree that it supports Conservative agriculture policy as put forward at the last elec-
790
tion. The Conservatives feel that we need a workable policy which could give a real stimulus to increased production. This policy would apply whether we went into the Common Market or not. At the moment, due to a change in the French Pime Minister, I think that our chances of entering the Common Market will have to be put into the deep freeze for some time, but in the end it must be the right and proper policy to get into the Common Market, given the right conditions.
Surely the Government want to save on imports, as they must, while at the same time raising the annual growth output. We believe that a levy system would permit this. As the "Little Neddy" report states, this is technically possible. The Minister has only to study the levy system in the Scandinavian countries. I know that they are smaller countries and have different problems, but the system works there and those countries have even managed to finance their research institutions from the levy.
The Minister said that a levy system would mean that we would have to renegotiate our international food commodity agreements, but we will have to do that soon anyhow.
I hope that during the next few months we on this side of the House will be able to convert the Minister to our system, and convince him that it will work and that it is the best one. Something that is worrying the entire industry is that, if we cannot get confidence and stability, there will be a real drift from the land. This can be seen now, Soon there will be a serious manpower shortage. The annual rate of farm workers leaving the land is accelerating. The drain of vital manpower can only be stemmed if farmers are able to pay their workers a fair wage compared to their industrial counterparts.
Wages must be increased for skilled manpower, or these young men will not be attracted or, what is worse, will not remain on the land. Farmers must be able to make a better profit. It is absolute madness to attempt to restrain agricultural incomes by the restraints of the present prices and incomes policy. This has come out clearly in the last few months.
A problem that I have had in my area, and which I have continually brought up with the Minister's predecessor, is

791
foot and mouth disease. I repeatedly brought to the notice of the former Minister the fact that the Government's policy of allowing beef to be imported from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic simply does not make sense. It is madness, dangerous and far too great a gamble. Time goes quickly but we should not forget that nearly 500,000 animals, worth £26 million, were lost in the past few months. The entire farming community hopes for great things from the Northumberland Committee. I hope that it will give a clear guide on what should be done.
I also hope that the Minister, who is a reasonable man, will act on the Report, and not pigeon-hole it. He should begin on the right foot by reversing the present policy. All of his experts are advising and pressing him to do so. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has advised him to do so, and these people know what they are talking about. We hear that Prof. David Hughes of Liverpool has submitted a report to the Northumberland Committee, asking for a ban to be imposed. In the meantime, if there is a resurgence of this terrible disease, the Minister must take charge immediately. No matter how great the pressures may be from his right hon. Friends at the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office, he must impose a ban. I hope that he has already carried out a complete review of the standing emergency orders in his own Ministry. During the last epidemic, the chain of command was, many of us felt, wrong. It took too long for the Ministry to get organised.
We must wait and see what the Northumberland Committee will suggest. I do not want to prejudge it, but the majority of my farmers would be very much against a programme of vaccination, as they are by no means convinced that this is the complete answer, or is 100 per cent. fool-proof. They do know that it would be extremely expensive. A great deal more research is needed. Even operating a policy of vaccination, in the Argentine, as the Minister knows, there are 5,000 cases of foot and mouth annually. Vaccination would aslo kill a very profitable and valuable export market in an area like my own.
When does the Minister expect the Report of the Northumberland Committee
792
to be produced? The entire country is interested in it, and if he can give any indication it would be helpful. Will it be before the end of this year? I hope that when the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I believe is to wind up, addresses the House, he will expound on the Government's future policy a little more than the Minister did when dealing with the control of imports. What is the Government thinking of altering the quota for applies and pears, bearing in mind that a bumper harvest is forecast?
The Minister must attempt to explain how the Government's policy of farm amalgamation is to work when the Chancellor is squeezing out a Capital Gains Tax which only encourages fragmentation of agricultural holdings. The fanning community wants to give the Minister a fair chance, and time to find his feet. He was thrown in at the deep end on 5th April, but he missed a chance this afternoon by not being able to produce a Mark II policy. I am sure that he must have some new projects in his Ministry. He must make the restoration of confidence his main goal, because only then will this industry have a profitable future and the real stability we all want.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I would agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) that confidence and a forward-looking policy for agriculture is required. I am not as convinced as he is that the policy put forward by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) would necessarily have this effect at the moment, unless a number of queries in the minds of the farming community, and the community generally are answered. I propose to put these questions to the right hon. Gentleman during the course of my speech.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on his very able speech which put the situation in an admirable way. I feel that we are now in a period when the whole rôle of agriculture in our community may be changing. The change will not be drastic, but it will be a change of emphasis, over a number of years, which will make a definite difference. It is part of the whole process by which this country is readjusting to the end of a world rôle, a worldwide overseas trade to primary-producing countries, with a

793
constant inflow of cheap food. It is part of the process by which Britain is once again becoming a Europe-centred Power, trading primarily with other manufacturing countries, principally in Europe. The other side of this development is a great concentration on supplying our own food.
It is going back on the policy which we followed since the repeal of the Corn Laws, 120 years ago, when our industrial position made us the workship of the world. We must treat the current change in our position as a slow change in emphasis towards a new rôle in our policies. I fully understand the position of the Minister. While he wants to make this change, and head in this direction, a number of complicated points, in international relations, domestic support, the whole attitude and structure of the farming community, which have to be handled simultaneously, are extremely complex.
I will mention a few. The whole point is that we have an efficient industry, but one which is in a peculiar mental state. This is because it has become efficient over the last 15 years but has found that it has increased production at a time when its real income has not risen. One has, therefore, a combination of manpower flowing out of the industry, increased capital, and markedly improved, higher, productivity. This is despite Government policy of either party. It happened while Governments of both parties were not intending an expansion; it happened because of technical changes because of the need to produce to make up for lower guaranteed prices and because of the increase in efficiency within the industry.
This was the situation, and we are left with an efficient industry but one in which, because of the lack of increase in real income, there is a problem of confidence. The farming community now realises that its rôle may change in coming years. It welcomes this, but it is not sure how, or what methods are to be followed, and it is looking for a lead. The problems that we have to face are the difficult ones of how much expansion we are to go for and what it would cost, what will be the effect on the balance of payments and on the structure of the industry? These are the inter-related problems which we must try to solve. There is an example of the difficulties
794
that will be encountered in the experience we have had of the selective expansion programme in which we have been engaged from 1964 going on to 1970.
It is true, as the right hon. Member for Grantham says, that on one or two items in the selective expansion programme, principally wheat and livestock production, the targets are not being achieved. There are special reasons for this. I was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis that he thought that this was due to lack of monetary incentives and confidence, because there are also technical factors. One technical factor which has been mentioned was the foot-and-mouth problem and the replacement question. There is the conflict between slaughtering calves for consumption and keeping them to add to herds, thus increasing the total number of animals. There is the problem of disease in cereals which is peculiarly heavy. I was surprised to see that up to 20 per cent. of the cereal crop suffers from disease and therefore productivity is lower than was expected.
I should have thought that it was fair to mention that in achieving the targets of the selective expansion programme there are technical problems as well as incentive and capital problems. If that is admitted, it casts light on the question whether we can change to a rate of expansion which the N.E.D.C. Report suggests would have to be faster than the rate we are achieving and faster than the original targets of the selective expansion programme. This is why I was surprised when the hon. Member for Leominster said that the N.E.D.C Report demonstrated convincingly that this was technically possible.
I feel that the N.E.D.C. Report worked on a set of technical assumptions that break-throughs in crop and type variety and yield which had taken place in the last 10 years would continue at the same rate and that problems like the incidence of disease would be tackled. It makes a series of optimistic assumptions that they will be dealt with at the same time as the problems of capital and labour input. I should have thought that the Report was a little optimistic on the side not merely of the Governmental approach to the industry, but of what is technically possible.

795
I turn to the other factors in agricultural expansion, one of which is the question of incentives and the problem of capital in the industry. There is a most Interesting situation concerning incentives. Hon. Members opposite have come down decisively in favour of an alternative form of incentive and agricultural support. I am open to any argument of this kind, and in certain cases I should find it attractive. I should like us to do without production grants in some cases because of the costs and difficulty of administering them. The Conservative Party, however, has decided in favour of a system of variable import levies plus production grants as the best method of coping with the situation.
I should like to put forward a few points to see whether hon. Members opposite can answer them. Theirs seems to me to be a half-baked or an inadequately worked out scheme which does not induce confidence in the farmers. Members of the N.F.U. in my area view them with considerable alarm. The right hon. Member for Grantham said that a minimum import price scheme has the very serious disadvantage that if we set a minimum import price we invite all those supplying this country to put up prices to that level and, therefore, we should have to pay through the balance of payments a considerable amount of money, perhaps more than we need pay, in import prices to foreign suppliers.
A great deal depends on the extent to which this country is in a powerful bargaining position in certain commodities. In cereals, for which there is a world price and of which we are not a major buyer, there may be very little effect. On the other hand, when we are a major market for the product in question there is a selling monopoly position and with a minimum import price system we may have to pay considerably more than we should have to pay with an open market system.
The right hon. Member for Grantham said that if we move away from minimum import prices to a levy system we evade this problem and the money paid by the importer in levy goes to the British Exchequer. I have grave doubts about this in all commodities. If we set a threshold price, we invite our foreign
796
suppliers to increase prices to that threshold price. If one is an importer and has to pay the price plus levy to get it to the threshold, there is no incentive to bid down the price. The importer has to pay the same in the end, however much he might succeed in whittling down the price in bargaining with our suppliers. Why not let the price rise? Why not be a soft negotiator? The nearer one is to the threshold price, the less one pays in levy. A good deal of leakage of money from this country would go back to the foreign supplier in this way.
Alternatively, the right hon. Member for Grantham may say, "You have a fixed levy on imports of this kind". But if there is a fixed percentage levy there will still be the problem of dumped goods from abroad being brought to this country at a price which, plus levy, will still under-cut the British market in glut seasons, when foreigners want to get rid of their produce for the sake of making some money, if not the full price.
I am worried that if this were done there would be drastic fluctuations in British market prices. What bothers me is that if we close off the British market and say that the price level is what the farmers get, if there is a good yield during the year, down goes the price. This leads to market fluctuations, as in France and other countries which have followed this system. In a good producing year, the bottom falls out of the market level price.
Mr. Godber Mr. Godber indicated dissent.
Mr. Mackintosh: If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees, he should have dealt with this point. There is evidence of this from other countries. It worries our own farmers, and it is very hard for hon. Members opposite to argue that they want more stability in the British market and then go simply for an open home market on price levels, this being the sole source of return to the farmer.
I am sorry to stress this point, but when the parties are divided about the method of agricultural support hon. Members opposite owe the agricultural community a full explanation. I cannot speak for the Select Committee on Agriculture, but no doubt it would welcome evidence in detail from the right hon. Gentleman about how his scheme would

797
work, because so far no agricultural economist has been able to spell it out in detail. It is a plan which has not been published or brought before the agricultural community. As far as I can see, it would cause considerable worry in its present form if this type of question remained unanswered. I do not say that it cannot be answered, but it should be answered.
Having said that about the proposed Conservative system of agricultural incentives, my feeling on Exchequer aid is the reverse of that of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to lay more stress on guaranteed prices. The production grant system often warps the pattern of agriculture. It was a good thing to develop when we tended to play down the amount of Exchequer support. I now feel that in terms of confidence it is the end price which matters to farmers. Many of them would prefer an end price rather than a mixture of sources of aid —so much for drainage, for water supplies, this sum for sheep and the next for winter keep—and one must bear in mind the extra costs of administration involved in such complex grants.
Nevertheless, if we are to have the expansion which we have been considering under the selective expansion scheme or under the N.E.D.C. Report proposals we need to put into the industry £230 million worth of capital and about £110 million per annum. This is a matter of resources. It is a technical and social problem how the resources are to be found. I agree that it is a matter of technique, but the techniques which we have at the moment, although cumbersome, to which I have some objections, offer, on the whole, a more certain method of getting the resources into the industry than the techniques advocated by the right hon. Member for Grantham.
On the question of inputs one input which worries me considerably is labour. Hon. Members will have noticed that the the N.E.D.C. Report points out that the outflow of labour from agriculture is proceeding at a rate faster than that forecast in the National Plan and at a rate which, if it is to be combined with the output objectives, would mean a 9 per cent. rise in the productivity of manpower, and the Report frankly doubts whether that would be possible.
798
This is true. It seems to be particularly troublesome in parts of the country where they are facing an outflow of labour faster than the emphasis which we wish to put on agriculture would permit or justify. The only reason for that, I am afraid, and we must fact this, is that agricultural wages have for too long lagged behind the average wage in the rest of the community.
I have been surprised about this, because the agricultural wage is taken into consideration in the Annual Price Review. We know that there is no guarantee that the full wage increases will be returned to the industry in terms of costs, but if we have a guarantee from the Government that at future reviews the cost of wage increases would be reimbursed to the industry in toto this would help us to achieve a higher level of agricultural wages, particularly when we are moving to a period of expansion in the manufacturing industry where other employment opportunities are available. It would be a pity if we drained the skilled labour off the land to such an extent that we were not able to expand our agricultural industry as we would wish.
There is one other problem I would mention on this, because it is a real worry to hon. Members from agricultural constituencies, and that is the question of the tied cottage. I do not think that any of us now wants the abolition, as such, of the tied cottage. I recognise its function. The real headache comes, and particularly in Scotland, because of a number of local authorities which interpret the present housing regulations in such a manner that they will not contemplate putting an agricultural worker on a housing list till he has received notice of eviction and will not consider him for inclusion on a housing list in the normal fashion.
While they take this attitude they put a very heavy burden on the agricultural industry and even stop men wishing to come back into the agricultural industry from contemplating this, because a man wants a little security. When a man changes his job he looks around for a house, and, similarly, if a man is leaving the agricultural industry he needs a little time to look around before leaving his tied cottage. The answer to this is a guarantee to farm workers that they will

799
not be evicted till they have found other accommodation and a corresponding guarantee to farmworkers who wish to change their occupation that the local authority should consider their names in the normal fashion, on their application for inclusion in the housing list.
I think that this would get round the feeling of discrimination against farmworkers in this matter, the feeling that they are in a peculiarly bad position, and, at the same time, retain the tied cottages for certain types of remote occupation where a house has to be offered with the job.
So much for labour input. It is a matter, as so often is the case, of housing and wages. I now come to a technical problem. As I say, I think that the N.E.D.C. was a little optimistic about this question. I have mentioned the matter of disease in cereals. In general, it becomes clear from a study of the N.E.D.C. Report that the most careful technical operation will have to be done if we are to get this very large expansion of agricultural production off the same acreage. An increase in total acreage under agricultural production is not contemplated. Yet there is to be an increase of 3½ million tons of cereals to come from 1·7 million more acres under cereals so that the extra livestock will have to be reared on 1·7 million fewer acres of grassland. It means a tremendously greater concentration on the proper use of grassland and intensive production of animals.
If this is to happen there has to be an improvement of the farms at the lower levels of efficiency up to the level of those at the highest rates of efficiency. It also means structural changes in the agricultural industry, and the emphasis on larger units will have to continue.
All this leads us to the question of what the Government's immediate policy should be. How should they tackle the immediate questions? A point mentioned in the Report and by so many hon. Gentlemen is that the industry is caused unnecessary alarm and worry by periodic dumping of foreign products. We have had this again and again. Nevertheless, I think that it is my duty to repeat this. It does occur and it knocks the bottom out of the industry
800
over the short period, and it happens to people who happen to be marketing at that time and cannot market at any other, and it affects them very seriously.
We investigated this in the Select Committee on Agriculture. The attitude of the Board of Trade was entirely appropriate to manufacturing industry, but not to the agricultural industry, for it was pointed out that the Board will not act till damage has occurred. The procedure is that people have come to the Board and say, "I have been damaged. Do something about this." Till this happens the Board will not act. This means, of course, that the antidumping procedures are far too late for those who have seasonal crops and who have been damaged at that point and who will not be able to recover or return to that position till the next year or the year after that.
Therefore, I would hope that we would devise a procedure not merely for action against dumping when it has occurred, but when we get reports from our commercial attaches abroad that it is about to happen. Then action can be taken in time before the stuff gets here; when we know there is a glut in a foreign country, we can be ready to act.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Member know how many of these commercial attaches there are? There is a tremendous paucity of them.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to the hon. Member. The fact is that I was a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture which investigated this question. He will notice from our Report that we were alarmed that in Europe there is only one—in Brussels; and there is not one in Paris. Commercial attaches are extremely thin on the ground. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
We want an end of dumping and we need an attempt to renegotiate our international agreements, and here there is need for positive Government action. Under these agreements we promised Commonwealth countries we would not supply an increasing share of our own market, but that is just what we are now proposing to do.
In addition, the Government will need to take a more positive rôle in such an

801
expansion and to look at the distribution of government assistance. For instance, if we are increasing the incentive for the production of pigs and of pigmeat, there might then be a shortage of factories for curing and processing pig meat. This would require Governments grants for building such plants and perhaps an advertising campaign to counter the Danish advertising campaign and the housewife's preference for Danish bacon. Otherwise, there will be difficulty in expanding output to the optimistic level suggested of 50 per cent. of the pigmeat and bacon supplies we need being produced in this country. In cases like pigmeat and bacon, the Government will have to step in with a more positive programme and help to switch resources to the appropriate points to get this expansion.
The real problem for the Minister in making a change of the overall kind I have described is whether he decides to make, as it were, a single impressive announcement—"Here we go: we are going to renegotiate our international agreements; we are going to increase agricultural wages; we are going to change our support policy and our pattern of grants now", or whether the Government should do this bit by bit, year by year. After all, this level of expansion is a technical problem whose costs cannot be fully estimated. We do not know how much the incentives would cost or the precise impact and effect which it would have on import saving. Whether we should tackle this year by year, or whether we should have a single major shift of policy, is certainly a problem I find very hard to answer.
In terms of confidence, a major change would be better. In terms of costs and of not wasting resources, the bit-by-bit approach would be better. But whichever one of these courses we follow we must congratulate the Minister again on his approach, and in the next year or two, I hope, we shall see confidence spreading in the farming industry and developments taking place which will amount to a major change in our attitude to agriculture in keeping with this country's rôle in the modern world.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. Marcos Kimball: I think that none of us on this side of the House would quarrel with the open-
802
ing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), when he analysed the changing forces which are affecting agriculture at the moment. I only wish that he had been as accurate in the middle part of his speech and about the agricultural policy put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). Had he really studied that policy he would have realised that in addition to the levies the Conservative Party would retain the present system of deficiency payments to give the agricultural industry the security and the protection from the foreign fluctuations in prices which, he said, would follow from a change in this system.
Mr. Mackintosh: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) explicitly denied that he would retain deficiency payments.
Mr. Kimball: I had always understood that deficiency payments would be retained during the transitional period.
Mr. Godber: Perhaps I might intervene in this cross-current of discussion and say that my hon. Friend is right. I have always said that during the transitional stage deficiency payments would remain. It is only at the end of the transitional stage that deficiency payments will be phased out.
Mr. Kimball: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
I think that most of us on this side of the House wish the Minister well in bis first speech in a major agricultural debate. We wish him well personally, but I think that we are all disappointed with his performance today. The speech hardly matched up to the challenging situation which the Minister said he would begin to unroll for us.
The Minister posed a lot of questions in his speech, but he never attempted to answer them. We could have told the Minister what causes the drift from the land at the moment. It is simply that the agricultural community, under the present Government, cannot afford to pay people more to stay on the land.
I felt that the Minister, in his speech, represented the small farmer who will not change his system in time and will not

803
see the changes in market forces until it is too late and the bank manager has almost foreclosed on him. I hope that the Minister will not bring to his new Department the mentality of many small farmers in the country today. The Ministry of Agriculture is the one Ministry today that really needs sound business management and sound business judgment for the future course of the industry. I feel that the Minister brings that old-fashioned conservatism and resistance to change that we find so strongly embedded in the traditional supporters of the Labour Party.
I will be brief, but I should like to look for a moment at the present position of the industry. Up to three weeks ago the countryside looked better than it has done for many years. However, since that time the hay harvest has been practically spoilt by the wet weather. The trouble with modern mechanised farming is that it is very good at handling a hay crop when the weather is reasonable, but it is not very good at making better hay under bad conditions. Driving round the countryside one sees that a great deal of the harvest is flat.
I am sorry that the Minister, or one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, was not able to visit the Rothwell Research Station, in my constituency, earlier in the week. The Ministry was very ably represented, but I think that the Minister would have been impressed to see how many of the new varieties that have been developed in North Lincolnshire have stood up to the present bad weather and high winds. But what does a flat harvest mean to the agricultural community? It means a great deal more expense in getting in the harvest when the profit margins of the farmers are already badly squeezed.
I find, going round the countryside, a tremendous feeling growing up that there is an enormous gap between what the Government does or does not do, what is said in Whitehall, and what the position really is in the countryside as we find it and as we know it. There is a tremendous feeling that Whitehall is out of touch and behind the times concerning conditions in the countryside.
At long last we have had an announcement by the Minister about what he
804
thinks the minimum import prices will be when he announces them next week. We shall have to study those figures to make a proper assessment of them. While we have been waiting for those figures to be announced, practically every fanner has been telling the Ministry that French wheat is being dumped in this country at £22 a ton when the farmers in France are paid £40 to produce it.
There has been chaos in the potato market. We are also threatened with the collapse of the cheese market, with subsequent repercussions all the way along the line for dairy farmers.
I think that it is fair to compare the present vacillating attitude in the Ministry of Agriculture to the robust attitude we saw in 1964 when the then Minister of Agriculture dealt with the dumping of Russian barley on our home market. I appreciate the position over dumping from the E.E.C. countries which have this bogus high price level for their agricultural produce. But I do not understand why the Minister has to be so feeble about dumping from Iron Curtain and Communist countries. Surely the object of those countries in selling goods in our market is to raise a certain amount of sterling. If only it can be explained to the Communist countries that the workings of a capitalist economy are such that we would prefer them to sell their goods here at a higher price, enabling them to raise more sterling for less goods, than continually trying to dump in our markets. The Russians eventually understood this over the dumping of their barley.
Both sides of the House have agreed so far that the present position regarding anti-dumping legislation is too slow and too ineffective. One has only to look at the excellent work which has been done by the Farmers' Weekly in always warning the farming community and the Government about the early effects of dumping—butter oil in February, 1967, and Austrian powdered milk in March 1968. The only solution to this problem is that put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, namely, that we must have a full-scale policy of import levies with the great advantage that the levy money can be used to stabilise the home market when necessary.

805
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend said that we would not deal with eggs and the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs. I am impressed that the really big and responsible egg producers in my constituency appear to welcome that Report. There is obviously the problem of the small producers of eggs. The answer to them must be that they must get together in small co-operatives to try to compete with the bigger producers. I hope that the Government will endorse the Report of the Reorganisation Commission which gives the efficient egg producers the chance to go ahead, because they seem to have confidence in the Report.
I was interested in what the Minister said about potatoes. It is fair to say now, with hindsight, that the potato growers made a great mistake when they refused to accept the higher levy suggested by the Board of £5 an acre. Had they accepted it, that money could have been used to help develop the home market for potatoes. Of course, one needs to spend a great deal of money on a thumping good advertising campaign to persuade people to eat more potatoes. That would have been a very rewarding way of spending the levy.
I was interested in what the Minister said about the need for the potato producers to develop processing plants in this country. I can show the Minister a very advanced one in Crowle. This is the way that the potato growers will have to move. The emphasis so far has been on presenting the raw potato more attractively to the housewife. It looks as though the market in future will be for manufactured and processed potatoes. This point is well proved by the enormous sudden demand to import processed potatoes.
I am sorry that we are not to have any View from the Minister about the Meat and Livestock Commission. We on this side of the House disagree with the size of the levy which is being imposed by that Commission at the moment. The Commission is asking for much more than it needs. Faced with the fact that the levy to the Agricultural Training Board is extremely unpopular among the farming community at the moment, it seems the wrong moment to impose on the industry a bigger levy than is needed to help the Commission. However, I understand that we will have a chance of
806
voicing our concern on this matter in greater detail next week.
Finally, I think that all on this side of the House welcome the Report of the "Little Neddy" on agriculture. I had hoped that we would get from the Minister a little more than an assurance that he was going to take note of that Report. Mention has been made of the section of the Report dealing with the import saving of about £220 million a year, but as I see it the greatest difficulty lies in the capital injection into the industry which that Report envisages. It refers to £230 million of fixed capital expenditure, and another £110 million of working capital. This money will not be forthcoming until there is more confidence in the future. That confidence will be brought about by better prices, by security, and by an import policy. I very much doubt whether the Board of Trade will agree to these precious capital resources being injected into the industry at this time.
If the Minister wants to find more capital for the industry, I hope that he will look carefully at some of the capital grants that he makes. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to wind up the debate, because I think that we ought to look carefully at further investment in marginal land schemes. Most private investors like to invest their money only in good land, and it seems a wrong use of capital to go on pouring it in to marginal agricultural production schemes, often destroying by the process of farming something which the rest of the community would like to keep as it is for recreational and other purposes. We should look carefully at marginal agricultural production to see whether the investment in tourism, and a change of use of the area would not be a much better use of our resources than is the case at the moment.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I am extremely interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps he will give an example of what he has in mind.
Mr. Kimball: Under present reseeding schemes the Government pour out large sums of money for people to reseed the hills. The Government have not solved the problem of how these pastures should be maintained. In Scotland, one can

807
find numerous examples of tremendous sums of money having been paid by way of grant to reseed pastures which have now returned to molinia and rushes. That is the sort of investment which we should reconsider.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Bert Hazell: I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he reviewed the progress of agriculture during the past few years. My right hon. Friend has undertaken a major task. Previous Ministers have found it very difficult to solve the industry's problems. Nevertheless, I am sure that we all wish him well in his new office.
We devote a good deal of time in the House to agriculture in its many facets, and it is right and proper that we should, because, in spite of all the criticism which has been, and will continue to be, levied against the agricultural industry, the fact remains that it is still our largest industry, and its production has impacts on the community as a whole.
In an industry which has been subject to change throughout the years, I suppose it is natural that one should review the system which has operated over the past few decades to see whether it is serving the needs of the community and those associated with it in the best possible way.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) set out the Tory concept of the future pattern which should be applied to British agriculture, and from time to time we have read in the farming journals the opinions of those who have expounded the levy principle. I have yet to be convinced that the implementation of a levy system will solve the problems of our home market. There is no doubt—and indeed the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this—that the operation of a levy system will cause the cost of living to rise substantially. I am not sure that any party would be willing to go to the country at the next election and advocate a substantial rise in the cost of food.
I was particularly interested to read in the Farmer and Stockbreeder a short while ago the opinion that
"the levy system is a non-starter."
808
I think that the writer of that article is on sound ground. However, this is the policy being advocated by the Opposition, and my right hon. Friend has said that he is willing to consider methods of dealing with the problems confronting the industry.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will think very carefully before he agrees to any form of levy system. I am sure that within the ranks of his party he will find a great deal of opposition if he introduces a system which bears heavily on the cost of living of those who are in receipt of low incomes, pensioners, people on fixed incomes, and so on. However much the industry may say that the consumer ought to pay the full cost of production, the fact remains that people in this country would not welcome the idea of paying the full cost of home-produced food. They have become accustomed to some support to keep the cost of food at the lowes possible level, and any major departure from that principle would not be welcomed by a large section of the community.
The industry is subject to a good deal of buffetting. I am thinking of the effect of the disease which hit it earlier this year, and now we are finding our cereal crops badly affected by the weather. I went down to Norfolk this morning and saw some of the havoc which the wind and rain have caused to many of our cereal crops. Unless there is a considerable change in the elements, the harvesting operation will be very difficult. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). It is true that the method of harvesting is not the old-fashioned one in which I used to take part, where one had to slog hard to gather in corn that was badly laid and twisted, but even with the most up-to-date combine harvesters which we now operate thousands of acres of crops will be extremely difficult to gather in. I think one has to recognise that the industry is somewhat uncertain about its future. Nevertheless, so far as I can see, the N.F.U. does not welcome the scheme put forward by the Opposition as a means of solving its problems.
I was interested to note today that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not produced their green "cyclos". Usually when there is a debate on agriculture a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite wave

809
their cyclos in an effort to condemn the action taken by the Government. Today these documents seem to be missing, although I am certain that hon. Gentlemen have received copies of them.
It is not often that I agree with the cyclos, but on this occasion I agree with the statement which reads:
"So long as the British Government is not free unilaterally to apply measures of import control the practical consequences of abandoning the guarantee system in favour of variable levies or other import control arrangements would be to reduce the producers total return and, perhaps of even greater consequence, to increase the element of instability ".
That is the considered view of the N.F.U., as shown in the document that it has circulated to most, if not all, hon. Members. It is therefore clear that the fanners' organisation does not look with favour upon the levy system proposed this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Grantham. Hon. Members have referred to certain aspects of the "Little Neddy" Report on Agriculture. In paragraph 93 it states:
"Implicit throughout our proposals"—
that is, the proposals for expansion within the industry—
"is the need for sustained confidence among fanners and growers … Both fanners and growers are, moreover, becoming increasingly dependent upon market stability because of their increising specialisation …"
The cyclo circulated by the N.F.U. expressed concern that the levy system might increase the element of instability, and it is therefore difficult to see how the introduction of such a system would provide a means of achieving the objective of which the "Little Neddy" has said the industry is capable.
The Report points the way to increasing productivity and production on our farms. This is a continuation of the selective expansion policy that my right hon. Friend announced to the House a year or two ago. I see no reason why the industry should not be capable of achieving the objectives indicated by the Council, but the task will not be easy to accomplish, as will be realised only too well by anybody with a practical knowledge of the industry.
One of my hon. Friends indicated that, in respect of cereal production at least, perhaps the best method of achieving the objective was to create a break-through
810
in controlling the fungus diseases that have so much effect on our crops. No fewer than 20 per cent. of our cereal crops are lost as a consequence of fungoid diseases, and that is a very important factor. There is no easy solution to this problem. The Research Council is considering the question at home and similar bodies are studying it overseas. In time methods will no doubt be found of controlling or eradicating this disease, but in the meantime the losses continue.
Reference has already been made to the manpower position. Ever since I came to the House I have put forward the view that if we are to continue with a policy of expansion in British farming it will be necessary to halt or reduce the drift of our workers from the land. During the last twelve months the drift has not been as great as previously, but the outflow of labour is largely determined by general employment conditions. If there is a good demand for labour in industry generally there is a greater outflow of labour from the farms. In the last 12 months over 20,000 workers left the land.
My right hon. Friend has said that he may have to consider the manpower position. That will not be sufficient; something will have to be done about it if we are to slow up the outflow of labour. I am not sure that the outflow that has taken place has been as gainfully employed in its new work as it was when employed on our farms. Merely to look at the problem will not solve it.
Wages and earnings in agriculture still fall substantially below those which are obtainable for unskilled work in other industries, in spite of the fact that agricultural work is highly skilled. I have never been able to secure, at the proper place— across the Wages Board table—agricultural wages which fully recognise the skills and responsibilities that have to be undertaken by our men on the farms.
If my right hon. Friend is going to look into this matter he should provide a jolt in the right direction by suggesting that the claim of the farm workers which is shortly to be heard by the Wages Board should be sympathetically dealt with. If it were so dealt with it could help considerably to reduce the outflow of labour.
For some years British farm workers have been increasing productivity annually by about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.,

811
but in order to achieve what the "Little Neddy" has set out, if the exodus of labour proceeds at the same rate it will require a 9 per cent. increase in productivity, and that is a substantial increase to achieve. I have my reservations whether it can be accomplished.
When my right hon. Friend considers the manpower position I hope that he will realise that in addition to basic wages the question of a wages structure requires to be settled for the industry. Furthermore, the question of the cottage that the farmworker lives in is still an important one. My union has never said that it wants to see the tied cottage abolished. It recognises it as an essential part of a farm, where that farm is isolated. But it has said that before a farm worker and his family are threatened with eviction alternative accommodation must be made available. That is its policy. It is a humanitarian and practical line of approach, and if we could solve that problem we should be making a contribution towards retaining the skilled labour that is required if the industry is to achieve the objectives which have been set out for it.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) when he is talking about farm workers, their problems and difficulties. I cannot go far with him in his plea in respect of the wages negotiations which are now going on, but I have a great deal of sympathy with him on that subject.
I am also glad that both he and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) raised the question of the tied cottage. This problem has arisen in my constituency. It is full of difficulties. It was clear from what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North said that the problems in this respect have not yet been resolved. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian talked about cases in Scotland, and directed his plea in the other direction—to me. He spoke in terms of the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation quickly enough.
I agree that these difficulties do exist, and I hope that the Minister will note what has happened in West Derbyshire.
812
I have a farmer constituent who has dismissed a farm worker who lives in his tied cottage. The farm worker hopes to find alternative employment quite near. The ex-farm worker will not leave the cottage. The farm of my constituent was wiped out by foot-and-mouth disease soon after this dismissal, but it has now been restocked. The farmer wishes to replace in his cottage the farm worker who has left, by another one who is living seven to 10 miles away, but he cannot take possession of the cottage, and has taken the matter to the county court.
When we talked about this in 1965 we accepted that court procedure is the right way to do this, and the county court judge is charged with specific responsibility to bear in mind the farming circumstances Not once, but twice, the case has been before the court, and each time there has been a delay of six weeks given after the hearing. There has also been a long period of time in between the hearings. The case came up for the second time last week, a further six weeks delay was imposed by the county court judge and the case cannot be heard again until after the Hilary recess some time in the late autumn.
My constituent still has not obtained possession of his cottage. I ask the Minister to look at the problem. There are difficulties not only in finding accommodation nearby for the ex-farm worker, but also in seeing that the courts and judges understand the agricultural problems which arise.
An encouraging aspect of the debate has been that many hon. Gentlemen have been talking about the Conservative agricultural policy. Every hon. Gentleman who has spoken has mentioned the policy and questioned part of it; of course they should. The Minister spoke as if this were a policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) had announced only during the last few weeks. We were talking about this policy in 1965. We fought the 1966 General Election on it. We have improved and adapted it since then, but, basically, it is the same.
The questions asked by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian have been answered time and again. He mentioned the import levies and threshold prices and said that he thought this would encourage soft buying. He had

813
forgotten that it is not Government-to-Government buying. It is the United Kingdom private trader who buys in the foreign market as best he can, and he will buy at the best level he can in keen competition.
I am delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North that the N.F.U. has circulated information about the Conservative policy. Much discussion is going on with the N.F.U. and other bodies for the development of the Conservative agricultural policy, which, of course, will be put into practice when we return to power after the next election.
The lack of direction in the Minister's speech has been the disappointing aspect of this debate. He is an amiable man and he made an amiable speech, which was delightful to listen to, but he had only three things to say. He mentioned cereals, potatoes and cheese. One was profitable and the other two he was negotiating and could not say much about. That does not show tremendous drive and initiative and will not encourage the agricultural industry along the lines of his own selected expansion plan or, indeed, along the lines of agricultural import saving put forward by the "Little Neddy".
I was astonished by the paucity of information in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. We have no idea what are his feelings about co-operation, or the Cereals Commission. Is it working satisfactorily? Is he happy about the way in which the Meat and Livestock Commission set about its task? Is he pleased with the way in which the industry is shaping up and in the amount of new capital formation? By the way, here his figures were wrong. Is he pleased about the way in which capital formation took place last year in the industry? He has mentioned none of these topics.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham in supporting the "Little Neddy" Report that the basic factor is the degree of confidence within the agricultural industry. "Little Neddy" may agree the broad objective of the selective expansion policy. But the Government have not even achieved that, so it is unlikely that they will achieve the spectacular
814
expansion which is argued in the "Little Neddy" Report.
There are factors to which the "Little Neddy" Report does not pay sufficient attention concerning their proposed expansion, such as disease, international agreement. I return to the fact that if the agricultural industry is to expand, if production is to expand, confidence is necessary, confidence that there will not be tremendous upsets and market fluctuations. Equally, capital must be available. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said that capital came from the Government or from the consumer. I do not think that he meant quite that. There are other sources of capital as well. The return on capital invested in agriculture at the moment is in the region of 2·7 per cent., including land, equipment and stock.
I have been trying to discover a more accurate figure. The research division of the Library of the House told me that the statistical departments have not yet managed to find a way of calculating accurately the return on capital. The Select Committee met on 10th April to hear evidence concerning the acquisition of capital, the accruement of it and the return on it. The Committee was informed by the right hon. Gentleman's Department that statistical information and documentation were not available. An approximate return of 2·7 per cent. is obviously too low; it is a derisory return compared with the return on capital invested in other industries.
If we are to expand along the lines laid down in the survey it is absolutely essential that we should get on with it as soon as possible. This cannot be done under the existing system, which is why hon. Gentlemen opposite have been talking about the Conservative agricultural policy. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, under the existing guarantee system £25 million a year extra will be needed in subsidy. This is to say nothing of the increase which will be needed if any fluctuations or difficulties arise.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, nobody is more difficult to get money out of for agriculture when there are difficulties than the Treasury, particularly for deficiency payments. So this will not happen under the present system. There

815
was a faint ray of light when the Minister said that he would examine once again the agricultural policy put forward by my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends on this side. Expansion hinges to a large extent on, first, confidence; secondly, on the capital available not only from within the industry and from the income which is reinvested by farmers, but also the capital which is available from the Government and from banking and other sources; and, thirdly, on whether the physical resources—stock machinery, etc. —are available in time. Those are the three factors. But, above all, any possible expansion depends to a large extent on a reasonable control of imports.
A factor which is inherent in the Conservative agricultural policy is that there should be an import control by import levy to solve the problem of dumped agricultural produce. We have been trying to get a better system for a long time. In the days of a Conservative Government, we had the same difficulty of dealing with agricultural produce dumped in this country. But I suggest that we were far quicker in dealing with it than the present Government are, and that is the root cause of the difficulties facing our potato and cereal growers.
Our early potato growers, especially, have had an extremely difficult time of it, not only in the part of the country which I now represent, but that which I used to represent in the West Country. I understand that they have received as little as £10 a ton for new potatoes. That would be understandable if it was due only to climatic conditions, but when one has to compete with climatic conditions and dumped cheap imports from Cyprus and Egypt, one begins to think that something has gone really wrong, particularly when imported potatoes are coming it at a price below that paid by their Government for home produce.
We must have strong import controls. If the Government are not prepared to turn over to an import levy system, which would do away with the necessity for other dumping controls, I ask them seriously to look as soon as possible at bringing in a quicker system of control in imports. Imports from the Eastern bloc countries are not difficult, because they are mostly on quota, but a large
816
number of products such as French wheat and early potatoes from Cyprus and Egypt should be controlled much more quickly in the interim period before the Government change over to our system.
I am not quite happy with the Minister's announcement about the new minimum import prices for cereals. He announced only a 9 per cent. rise in the M.I.P.s, whereas devaluation has resulted in a difference of 16·2 per cent. It is a pity that he has not raised them to a higher figure as he has for wheat which is rising by 11 to 12 per cent.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's announcement about cheese, he accepts that damage is being done to the milk products industry, and that there is difficulty and that any expansion is jeopardised by the state of the dairy industry at present. However, it is a little weak to say that he does not want to talk about it because he is engaged in negotiations. He should come to the House at the earliest opportunity and say what kind of negotiations he is conducting, what he intends to do, what controls he intends to put on, and when. That should be done at the earliest possible moment.
In the debate so far, there has been no mention of agricultural exports. When he was Minister of Agriculture, the present Leader of the House formed the British Agricultural Export Council. I hope that the present Minister is giving that body directions to go out and get trade for this country. We have highly-qualified technical people and one of the most developed agricultural industries in the world. I hope that the Minister is directing the Council to go out not only to the Iron Curtain countries, but to the Middle East and Africa to get us trade, because that is its job, and it can do it well. It is an important way in which we can help the starving nations.
In Nigeria, for example, agricultural experts have an enormous amount to do once the fighting ends, and I hope that the Minister will direct the Council to get on with its job in that country, too. It is equipped for it and, in the same way, the agricultural industry has the equipment, in terms of machinery, technical knowledge, stock, seeds, and so on. However, directions are needed from the
817
Minister, and it is to be hoped that we will at last begin to build up our exports to those countries which will not only help them and their hungry people as well as helping our own industry, but will improve our standing in the world and carry out some of the tasks which we would have been carrying out in the world had it not been for a Socialist Government.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I intervene briefly in this debate with no trepidation, despite the fact that I do not represent an agricultural constituency and am not a farmer. I do so because the people in my constituency eat.
The debate so far has been of great interest, because it has not had the usual measure of political points made from the other side of the House. Instead, we heard a number of very good suggestions, and the debate was extremely interesting until the contribution of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), which seemed little more than a political speech. It rather spoiled the debate.
The hon. Gentleman chided one of my hon. Friends with the fact that he made reference- to the Conservative policy for agriculture. He pointed out that this marvellous policy had existed since 1965. That is becoming almost a hardy theme of hon. Members opposite. It would seem that everything that we discuss is the subject of a brand-new policy which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite produced in 1965—not in 1952, or 1954, but, suddenly, in 1965. I am coming to the conclusion that the year 1965 will be as important in Tory Party annals as 1922.
One way in which the Government can help the agricultural industry is to get ordinary people to understand not only the problems of the industry, but its achievements as well. I do not believe that it is sufficiently realised at every meal time that most of the food which appears on our tables comes from the efforts of our own farmers and agricultural workers. Ordinary people do not understand and have never had explained to them what is meant by complicated matters like levies, Price Reviews, the rôle of marketing boards, subsidies and the rest of it. If people had these matters explained to them, instead of
818
simply dismissing them because they appear to be so complicated, automatically they would develop an interest in the agricultural industry.
I do not believe that this great industry is getting the credit to which it is entitled. It is a magnificent industry, and it has made great steps forward in the past decade, especially during the last four or five years. Speaking to friends who are farmers, or who are interested in the industry in other ways, I am told that, despite all the faults of the present Government, they have done many good things. Not being a farmer, I have had to look at some of the good things, and I understand that many of them are extremely good. For example, the encouragement of amalgamation of small farms is apparently getting slowly under way and is a boon to the industry. It was pleasant to hear hon. Members opposite saying that they were interested in the industry and wanted to see this carried on. I am not trying to make any political point— —
Sir Cyril Osborne Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth) rose—
Mr. Molloy: In a moment.
I understand that the new Farm Improvement Scheme, which was introduced in 1967 by this "wicked" Labour Government, has also proved of great benefit, not only to the large farmer but to the small farmer, and that these two things alone have proved very helpful to agriculture.
Sir C. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman really advocating, on behalf of his party, that all the small farmers should be driven out of business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This is what he is claiming. In my constituency, there are many small farmers who say, "Do not let the big chaps swallow us up". I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating, on behalf of his party, that the small man should be driven out.
Mr. Molloy: All I will say in answer to that is, "Do not be so daft". I know a number of small farmers who, because it is now possible for them to amalgamate to various degrees, know that their financial and land resources can aid the country better than hitherto. There is no terrible plan to drive the small farmers out. I do not believe that this country

819
could exist if we were to adopt the attitude of some hon. Members opposite that we can survive with the "dog and stick" farmer.
I also believe that it might be necessary to have even closer liaison between the industry which provides the equipment for farmers and agriculture itself— perhaps by collaboration between the Government and the unions. But closer integration and examination is needed and should, if necessary, have some support from the Government. In the end, the country itself benefits.
It is sometimes assumed that people in towns and large conurbations are not interested in agriculture. Of course, they have a massive interest when there is a shortage of some food, but they should not arrive at the frontiers of understanding only when there is some desperate shortage. Therefore, we should try to acquaint people not only with agriculture's problems, but with its undoubtedly magnificent achievements. If this can be done, something else might follow.
The need has been mentioned to attract young people to the scientific and technological aspects of agriculture, and this is true. I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider the possibility of making known to our youngsters in fifth and sixth forms at comprehensive and secondary modern schools—not only in the universities, but at this level—the possibility for achievement which can come from studying to make a contribution on the technological and scientific side of agriculture. This aspect has not been altogether neglected, but it has been somewhat overlooked.
The industry faces a problem which probably no other industry has. In large coal mining areas there is a mining community, probably within a small area. The same applies to the steel and motor industries. Hundreds of thousands of people are involved in the industry in a comparatively small area. This does not apply to agriculture. It has suffered from this for a considerable time, because the people concerned have been demoted in the order of priorities when they should not have been—not only by successive Governments, but because of the attitude of mind of ordinary people. I plead with
820
my right hon. Friend to consider a scheme whereby youngsters at school, in no matter what industrial area, could be given the opportunity not only to know their own local industry but to learn of the opportunities and advantages in agriculture.
I have seen some of the efforts of British agriculturists in other parts of the world, as have other hon. Members, probably, particularly in visits to former Colonies, when we see the material as well as financial aid which we are giving and the sort of British equipment which is being produced and for which they are very grateful. There should be a much closer link between some of the developing countries and our own agriculture. Some sort of link may exist, but I do not believe that it is broad or firm enough or that the passage of information is free enough.
Our agriculture compares more than favourably with any in the world. Two-thirds of mankind is starving tonight. When we are talking about the problems of British industry, we should try to consider this aspect so as to resolve these problems—not only to aid our balance of payments and feed our own people, but because a thriving agriculture here could, at the same time, make a massive contribution to alleviating world hunger.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: Agricultural debates are something of a ritual and have, I suspect, rarely helped the cause of British farming. There is probably more cant per column of HANSARD on agriculture than on any other subject. It seems to be traditional that spokesmen for the farming lobby should come here and beat their breasts for the votes they can get out of them. Perhaps it has not been so bad today as in the past, but this is a tradition. Many hon. Members indulge in the wilder fantasies of the expansionist lobby without any relation to realities.
Farmers have not been very well served by their representatives in this House, whose aim has been largely to convince local committee men that they have real muck on their boots. I come from what would be called an agricultural constituency, but I have no muck on my boots and I will not pretend to have any. It is not for nothing that the Sunday Times

821
referred to agricultural debates in this House as taking place in "a half-empty chamber, full of axe-grinding experts".
I intend to set out the expansionist case in a realistic fashion. I want to confine myself to the case for expansion and will take, first, the world case. We are, after all, dealing with the largest single social, political and economic problem of the next 25 years. The world population is increasing by about 165,000 people a day, and by the end of the century we shall have 6,000 million people to feed, 75 million of them in this country. The Food and Agriculture Organisation recently estimated that world food production would have to increase by as much as 4 per cent. per annum to cope.
Apart from the basic problem of feeding starving people, there is the question of where we shall get our own food supplies from in this situation. We can choose between two alternatives. We can assume the continuance of world surpluses and cheap food bargaining through our inability to conquer the distribution problem, or we can assume that the distribution problem will be solved. If we make the first assumption it follows that it would be a waste of money to develop our own relatively high-cost industry. If, on the other hand, we assume that we shall overcome the world's distribution problem, we shall shortly find ourselves bidding in a more competitive and expensive market for our food.
In my view, we should make the second assumption, and we are vulnerable as the world's largest food importer. In 1967 we imported over £1,560 million worth of agricultural produce, and that was a quarter of all imports. If we deduct the one-third of tropical products, it is still an awful lot of food to have to buy in a competitive market in which the terms of world food trade have turned against us.
I turn now to our own situation in Britain. Historically we have bought our food in the cheapest markets because we were the first country in the Industrial Revolution and we could sell our manufactured goods easily. We were a monopoly supplier of manufactures and we dominated the market. Moreover, we had a plentiful source of cheap food from the Empire. It made good sense to sell manu-
822
factures dear and buy their food cheap. That is why we have reached a position of such dependence on overseas sources of supply.
But it is not so easy now. We have to recognise that the situation has changed completely. Others are competing in our manufactured goods markets, and world food will not remain as cheap as it has been in the past. It would be ridiculous in such a situation to cling to outdated doctrines which are no longer relevant. There are important consequences, too, for our balance of payments problem. As the E.D.C. Report on Agriculture has shown, one of the major ways by which we can solve our balance of payments problem is by increasing our own food production and thus saving imports.
The other political parties have at last accepted that. They tend now to talk rather earnestly about import saving and expansion as though it had been an article of faith for a long time. In fact, their conversion is recent. One has only to remember standard quantities, a system which could have meant nothing but restricted production or lower producer prices, or both. I believe that standard quantities put British production in a cider press which any Government could tighten at any time. That system is the very opposite of the policy of planned expansion which we have advocated in the Liberal Party. Do what it will to give off the authentic smell of the farmyard, the Tory Party can never entirely escape the charge that its past policy was a matter of paying the farmers less so that they had to produce more.
At a time when an angry National Farmers' Union was conducting a campaign throughout the country, a pamphlet published in 1965 by the National Farmers' Union said:
"From 1954 to 1964 successive Governments forced farmers to shoulder £168½ million in increased costs … Yet in the past 12 years, the farmer's real income has risen by less than 1 per cent. while that of the community as a whole has risen by 56 per cent."
Agricultural expansion has become all the rage, but expansion cannot be conjured out of the air. Devaluation has made it more desirable, and certainly more topical, but it has not necessarily made it more easily obtainable. The first truth which we have to recognise is that agricultural expansion has to be

823
financed from agricultural profits. This is as true for agriculture as it is for any industry.
We can raise the profits of agriculture only by reducing costs and raising productivity. Even in the past farming profits have not been sufficient to finance the expansion which we all want. This is why there has been a marked increase in bank borrowing and total farm debt. Now, the supply of bank finance for British agriculture is coming to an end. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not new."] It began some time ago, and over the past three years there has been little increase in bank borrowing by farmers. Farmers are no longer quite such a good proposition for bank managers, and even when they can borrow the money, they cannot always afford the huge burden of interest charges. We cannot, therefore, expect the necessary expansion to be financed from that source. That method of finance has reached the limit.
Can we secure the expansion through productivity? Again, this idea can be taken too far. If the productivity is of land through increased stocking, there is a problem for the agricultural scientist in such things as cereal disease. If it is a matter of raising the productivity of farm labour, there are other problems. In the past five years, the number of full-time workers has dropped by 114,000 to 345,000. There must be a level at which efficiency declines. In the South-West, for instance, experienced and well trained stockmen are in short supply.
If capital investment is to give full value, the quality and training of labour must be improved. There has been opposition in the countryside to the Agricultural Training Board, some of it, perhaps, a bit pig-headed, but the Government have not set out their policy clearly. I find incredible confusion in the minds of farmers in the far South-West about the exact purpose of the training scheme, and I hope that the Minister will soon set that matter right.
I suppose that the National Plan targets are almost unmentionable nowadays. The trouble with them was that they were never backed by the necessary capital, and it was not until the 1967 Review that an attempt was made to inject sufficient capital in order to achieve the target. At the half-way stage, we
824
are far behind the target set by the National Plan.
Unfortunately, the E.D.C. Report while welcome for its insistence on the import-saving rôle, says just as little as the National Plan about how to secure the expansion which we need. This is where I part company with the Minister. In my view, he is rather over-confident about the ability of agriculture to achieve the target. I am convinced that we have to change course.
My contention is that we have reached the end of the road with present agricultural policies. It is true that they have served us well in the past, but they will not serve us well any longer and we must part company with them. The Government inherited the present policy from the previous Conservative Government, but they should no longer persist in trying to build on the wreckage of past Conservative policies. The guaranteed price system cannot produce enough finance to promote the long-term expansion which is necessary. A great deal has been made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) of his contention that he, or some of his colleagues, invented the expansion policy in 1965. He did no such thing. Since we are in the business of swopping dates, it was our policy in 1963. We were the first political party to come out for it. We fought the 1964 election on it, and the hon. Gentleman whose speeches I had to read because I was opposing him, attacked my Liberal colleagues for advocating the very policy which he is now putting forward. In the Committee on an agriculture Bill in 1963 the Conservative Party attacked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) bitterly because of his determination to introduce the subject of levies.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was on the Government bench in that Committee, and I did not attack the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend for that. He did not understand what we were putting forward on minimum import prices and import levies. At that time I was trying to explain to him what that was all about. We were talking about import levies. We have progressed quite naturally from that to the policy we are now putting forward.
Mr. Pardoe: The Conservative Party always progresses too late towards

825
Liberal policies. That is a fairly natural progression, and I suppose that we persuaded them after a long time.
We want to see a managed agricultural market. This is now more necessary than ever. We should take the first step towards this in cereals, because we already have the tools to hand. The internal price level could gradually be rasied to eliminate the subsidy. Foreign supplies should continue to be bought as cheaply as possible, and the difference between the internal and imported price should be taken in a levy to offset costs, which may well have to be increased, such as extra subsidies to increase the price of beef to the beef producer. The next step would be to extend the managed market to beef production through the medium of the Meat Commission.
I regard marketing as absolutely vital to the future of agriculture. I may not have muck on my boots, but I have marketing expertise. It is the one sphere in which I have some specialist knowledge. We cannot hope to increase production unless we can increase markets, because at the end of that road all we have is a pile of rotting potatoes in a quarry.
I do not wish to discuss in detail the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the Ministry for only three months, and I have not had much time to throw eggs at him, but I have had some interest in eggs since coming to the House. I regard the Egg Marketing Board as a classic example of what happens when agriculture dwells in cloud-cuckoo-land. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for a debate on the Report long before he implements its recommendations. I ask him to beware of the siren voices of the N.F.U. and the Board, because they do not represent the views of the egg producers. There is a severe lack of communication between the Board and the producers. The Minister has asked for the thoughts of the producers to be put to him by 30th July. I hope that he will not rely on the report he gets from the Board as being in any way the views of the producers.
There has been a good deal of discussion in the debate about import saving, but what about exports? There is
826
a case for raising production for the home market, but there is also a case for increasing farm exports and giving farmers the wherewithal to do it. Imports saved are not necessarily a net saving. There is a balance of expenditure on imported fuels, feeding stuffs and machinery. Overseas sales of farm produce in 1967 amounted to £125 million, an increase from £90 million in 1960. That is not a very substantial increase. In farm machinery we are the world's leading exporter, selling two-thirds of our total output. But in relation to total farm sales, which amounted to £1,850 million in 1966–67, exports are very small beer—and our share of overseas markets is declining. Many of our competitors are geared to exporting their surplus, and have a positive export policy. Long-term planning would require a deliberate policy of producing surpluses for exports.
Mr. Peter Mills: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest, but I am a little concerned about what products we could export, and to what markets. Except, perhaps, for barley, I should have thought that it would be very difficult to expand our exports of farm produce, and I should be very interested if the hon. Gentleman could tell me what he wants us to export, and to what countries.
Mr. Pardoe: Since the Netherlands, Denmark and many of the Scandinavian countries, producing much the same sort of products as we do, can export not only to us—for we are not their only market— it is obvious that if we research the market there is scope for it. The British Agricultural Export Council, which I welcome, should now move into a more positive field of activity, selling abroad through advertising, sales promotion, market research in particular, sales missions and trade fairs. There is a market to be had. It is not very large for we can never match the major world food producers in this, but we could make a significant contribution to our balance of payments problem by going after what is there.
I should like to raise an incidental point about the aggregation of tax for farmers over three years. Several hon. Members have mentioned the stability required in farming. Farm income tends
827
to become very unstable because of bad-and good-weather years. The Minister could well take up the point with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if there is some way in which we could aggregate farm incomes over a period of three years, which would solve some of the farmers' tax problems.
We demand that agriculture be encouraged and allowed to expand to its fullest potential. This requires the establishment of long-term confidence, which can come about only through a managed market and a levy on imports. We recognise that if society wants the benefits that could accrue from increased production it will have to pay the fanners for this, and we are prepared to pay the bill. We have great confidence in agriculture, and we believe that the country should invest in its success.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Clifford Kenyon: We have all listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), but I wish that he had gone much further into the question of where we shall send our agricultural exports. He must be aware that only two or three years ago we began to export eggs and raised a storm on the Continent from the usual egg suppliers of countries there. It was pointed out that we were breaking our agreements with G.A.T.T. At the same time, we were exporting cattle to France, but that has been stopped. Wherever we try to export agricultural produce there is always something that stops us. There is an agreement or a country objects. We find that we are so tied up with agreements with one country or another that we just cannot export these things. If we did we should cease to export much of our manufactured goods.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: I wonder whether the hon. Member would agree with me that one of our major handicaps in the exporting of cattle to the Continent during the last six months or so has been the foot-and-mouth outbreak in this country. Yesterday, in Ireland, I met one of the chief exporters from this country and he happened to be buying for Roumania and Yugoslavia about 1,500 carcases a week, which would have been sent from this
828
country. It is a great handicap if we still import meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.
Mr. Kenyon: We hope that the scourge of foot-and-mouth disease will pass from this country so that we shall be able to sell our pedigree animals abroad much more than we have done in the last few months.
There is always a similarity about agriculture debates in this House. I have listened to a great number over the last 23 years. It has always interested me to find that whatever party is in opposition has always got solutions for the Government to put into operation, and whatever Government are in power always have to listen to the solutions that its members put forward to the previous Government when they were in opposition. The problem of agriculture is kicked about like a ball from one side to the other according to the political party in power.
One of the problems that have bedevilled every Government has been the dumping of produce. We have always had it. Potatoes have been mentioned today. How many times have we heard about early potatoes coming in and clashing with the lifting of our own early potatoes? How many times have we heard about dried milk being dumped here? How many times have we heard about cheese being dumped here? We have them all here. While our egg producers were producing all the eggs that we required, we had eggs dumped here from Denmark, the Netherlands and other countries.
How are we to solve the problem? We are the largest foodstuffs importing country in the world. Many countries pay for the manufactured goods which they take from us in the only way they can—with foodstuffs. It is not just a question of the dumping of foodstuffs. It is a financial question. I wish that the international financiers, instead of concentrating so much upon currency as they know it, would concentrate upon finding a way in which countries which need food could acquire it. It is estimated that half the population of the world are underfed. Why? It is because they have not the money to buy the food where it is.
Mr. James Davidson: I am sure that it is not so much

829
a matter of not being able to buy the food where it exists as their lack of improved seeds, agricultural implements and agricultural techniques. This is far more important to such people than the wherewithal to purchase food produced in other countries. They want to acquire the techniques and materials to enable them to produce the food themselves.
Mr. Kenyon: All the things mentioned by the hon. Gentleman require money, just as the purchase of foodstuffs does. It is a financial question, and it is time that the international financial people got down to the issue. The greatest currency in the world is not the currency of money; it is the currency of food. Food is the greatest currency because it can be accepted in any country as payment, whereas notes and coins cannot.
Where such countries require food, but cannot get it, I am certain that it is possible for the financial experts to devise a scheme whereby they can obtain it on a credit basis. Dried milk is one of the foods required. We do not need it. It is a tragedy and shame that at present we are having dried milk dumped here from the Common Market subsidised to the extent of £200 to £250 a ton. We do not require it; we have plenty of food.
All sorts of food—milk powder, eggs, bacon and meat—is coming here, but we do not require it. Yet there are countries which are crying out for it. The people there are dying because they cannot get food. It is a topsy turvy world. If only those who are so keen to watch the currencies and financial situations of other countries could find a means to enable such countries to acquire food I do not think that we should find it dumped on our shores, because it would be taken where it was needed. It is not only the maldistribution of food that is at fault; it is the financial situation as well. This matter should be examined. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend should bring it to the notice of the Treasury, or the Foreign Office, but something should certainly be done to change the situation. It would relieve our farmers because we should then be able to produce. We know that we can produce more, but what happens when we do? Only two years ago we increased our beef production, and then there was a flood of imports from Ireland and beef
830
prices fell. Whenever we increase our production of beef, sheep, eggs, or poultry, down comes the price. Before we can increase productivity that will have to be stopped. The farmer will not penalise himself by producing more if he gets a smaller return for his produce. But every time he produces more milk he brings the price down.
The situation is not settled by the "Little Neddy" Report. Anybody can say that we can produce more and more, but will the return that we get for it enable us to continue to produce? If that is not settled and the return continues to fall, production will fall. We can produce more pigs, but if we do we shall fetch the price down.
So it goes throughout all our commodities. Until we can get a stabilised price for everything we produce over and above what we are producing now, this will not be settled. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be carried away by these reports. They need a great deal of examination. Before he moves into implementing any of them, I hope that he will put before us his plans so that we can examine them and have something to say.
Before long, my right hon. Friend will have to deal with the Report on the Egg Marketing Board. I do not know what he intends to do about it. It is clear that if the Board is abolished hundreds of small egg producers will go out of business.
Mr. Pardoe: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Board has put out of business a large number of small producers during its 10 years' existence and that small producers have been showing their lack of confidence with their feet, so to speak, by reducing the number of eggs they put through it? They have no confidence in the Board.
Mr. Kenyon: The Board has also enabled a large number of small egg producers to continue in business. One of the troubles of the egg producers is that they have been able to sell their eggs at a higher price at the farm gate, etc., and through small shops. They have then dumped their surpluses on the Board. If the small egg producers have to deal with all the eggs they produce when prices are at rock bottom, it will not be long before they are out.

831
The Board should have been able to refuse surpluses from small poultry farmers who never gave it an egg when eggs were scarce. But there are many factors which need examination and I feel that my right hon. Friend, when he has examined the whole case, will put his plans before the House and give us the opportunity to examine them.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) relegated me to the background in his speech. He decried the "dog-and-stick" fanner. I have always been a "dog-and-stick" farmer and I am proud of it. If I could take him across some of the moors I shall go over during the Recess, I would take out of him some of the stuffing that he has shown tonight.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) had to say, particularly in his latter remarks about the Egg Marketing Board. The Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1967, stated:
"The United Kingdom is virtually self-sufficient in eggs and the objective under the selective expansion programme is to meet any increase in demand. This is well within the technical capacity of the industry."
I have a report here by Miss Audrey M. Chalmers of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture entitled, "The Economics of Egg Production in the North of Scotland ". She draws interesting statistics from the area and it is partly on those statistics and what she has to say that I base my remarks. On page 21, she says that imports are not helping the situation and she goes on:
"Normally, they constitute between 2 or 3 per cent. of total packing station throughput. Of late, however, imported eggs were coming into Britain when the market was already well supplied, at prices well below our own and depressing demand for home supplies."
If the reorganisation of the Board takes place and the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland agree to implement the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission, we shall be faced with a very grave problem in the more remote rural areas. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) begged the right hon. Gentleman
832
not to pay too much attention to the representations he would no doubt have from the Board and certain sections of the N.F.U. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to pay attention to those who advocate some kind of support for the small egg producers in the areas I have in mind, the important point being that, over the years, almost traditionally the small egg producer has played a considerable part in the agricultural economy of those areas.
Statistics available in "Scottish Agricultural Economics", vol. 18, published by the Stationery Office in Edinburgh, show that egg production in Scotland has been on the decline during the last three years. Total production has gone down from 558 million through 502 million to 488 million last year. These are the quantities put through the packing stations. But similarly the disposal of eggs at the farm gate has gone down from 385 million three years ago through 359 million to 356 million last year.
This shows obviously a steady decline in egg production in Scotland. It is not only a decline in the number of eggs sent through the packing stations, for there has been proportionately an almost equal decline in the number of those sold at the farm gate. If the figures of those sold at the farm gate in Scotland had not also declined, there would have been far more justification for doing away with the Board.
On the other hand the decline in production in Scotland is almost exactly the same as the figure of 2 or 3 per cent. which is the amount of imports we get in any one year. Therefore, in Scotland alone, the egg producers are quite capable of taking up the slack—the difference between our almost self-sufficiency and being self-sufficient. It could be said with certain justification that the 2 or 3 per cent. gap is negligible but I point out to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary —and I hope he passes this on to the Secretary of State for Scotland—that many a mickle makes a muckle.
I appreciate that the Government will have to pronounce on these proposals for reorganisation and that no doubt we shall then have a chance to debate them, but it is right to warn the Government about what will happen on certain aspects. To abandon the Egg Marketing

833
Board without adequate checks and balances, I say quite categorically on the advice which I have taken and from what I have seen for myself in my constituency, will be a mortal blow to the small egg producer in areas such as mine.
It applies equally, I am persuaded, to South Devon as to Banffshire. Such areas, particularly the upland areas, are of necessity areas where small farms are more prevalent than are large farms. Traditionally, as I have said, these small farms depend more or less on the sale of eggs. On non-dairy farms, the farmer's wife is the person who looks after the poultry and who sells the eggs and on a small farm which has no employed labour she does a useful job to which she is well suited.
In Scotland, over the last three years, egg production has been 6·3, 6·2 and 5·6 per cent. of total farm output in the country. These are large figures. I do not know what amount of this production is due to the small egg producer. In the Report it is stated:
"We are doubtful about the wisdom of the Board's system of fixing margins for remunerating packers and the Board's arrangements for reimbursing packers' costs in transporting eggs over 30 miles".
The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not now present, knows as well as I do that in Scotland vast distances have to be covered by the egg packing lorries. It is essential that money should be given in some way so that the eggs can still get to the market, and 30 miles is a very reasonable minimum distance. There is not only the long haul from the farm to the packing station, but the equally long and often much longer haul from the packing station to the point of disposal. It will, therefore, be essential for some kind of subsidy to be paid, perhaps in the form of a transport subsidy, if the small farmers are not to go to the wall. In many areas, and I know this to be a fact in my own constituency, the amount which a farmer's wife earns from the sale of eggs, even though she may not be very efficient or economical, is often the difference between a profit and loss in any one year.
The Report argues that the seconds scheme has worked against the interests of producers. I do not agree. If the seconds scheme had not been brought into effect, the price which producers
834
have been getting recently would not have been as high. The seconds scheme has hardened the price of other grades.
If the small producer is to be squeezed out like a pip between the fingers and thumb of the Government and the new authority, two things are essential. First, there must be a fairly extensive interim period between the change-over to the new system and, secondly, the small producer must be given generous and realistic compensation, if for no other reason than that those who have been using the battery cage method will not be able to sell their battery cages, because there will be no market for them. Whatever scheme is put into operation, a levy will obviously be required, and I suggest that in future that levy should be at the hatchery stage and not at the production stage.
I am not persuaded that in the interests of the country at large we shall be better off with fewer and bigger egg producers. I hope that the Government will give due consideration to all that is said in this and future debates and to representations from outside the House and that they will consider the small egg producer in the social environment if nothing else, because unless something adequate is done for them, small egg producers will be put out of business.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I endorse what many hon. Members have said about the serious problem this year for the growers of new potatoes. Many new potatoes are grown in South Ayrshire and it is my duty to convey to the Minister of Agriculture and to the House the disquiet which has been felt during recent weeks about the importation of new potatoes from France, Cyprus and Israel. When ships have arrived in Leith or Glasgow, the market has been upset and Ayrshire farmers have suffered the economic consequences.
This is not a new problem. It has been a problem ever since I became the Member for South Ayrshire, 22 years ago. At about this time of the year, representations are made by farmer constituents and the mode of the representations is an indication of the seriousness of the problem. If farmers write letters, they are exasperated; if they send telegrams, they are infuriated; but when a
835
Scottish farmer has a long conversation over the telephone, the position is desperate.
This situation occurs entirely irrespective of party. Hon. Members who have been here long enough will know that I frequently questioned Conservative Ministers about this problem year after year and that I never got a satisfactory answer. During the troubles over Cyprus, there was a big importation of Cyprus potatoes in July because there had been a strike at Famagusta.
The Ayrshire farmers paid the penalty for the Government's policy which resulted in the Famagusta strike. Ayrshire potatoes had to compete with Cyprus potatoes, which arrived late. I do not know what the problem is this year, but foreign potatoes are arriving and causing concern among my constituents. It is very difficult for us to think of this problem without also thinking of those who have to buy the potatoes. It is the Government's business to be just and fair. The present Government are as fair as any other Government. I do not want to be too critical, but I would like some assurance that this problem is being looked at carefully, from week to week and day to day, so that the grower of new potatoes in Ayrshire may have a fair deal.
They do not want a great deal of priority, but they ask that their economy should be considered. The economy of that part of Scotland depends upon the new potatoes going to market at a certain time; other crops which follow are also affected. I hope that, under the Government's guidance, we will try to find a constructive solution which will be of help in preserving the new potato economy in this part of the country. It is a traditional one—it was there before Cyprus entered the Commonwealth. Will there be some hard thinking to develop a plan so that the farmer will have a clear idea of what he can expect to sell in the market in two or three years' time?
There has to be planning, and I hope that we will make another attempt to solve this problem. We will never do it unless we have international agreements on markets, and plan the whole of the agricultural production of Europe and North Africa as a whole. I know
836
that that will be difficult. I do not expect to see it done in one year, but that is the direction in which we should be moving. Producers all over the world should know exactly what they can plan, in a world perspective.
One subject which is rarely mentioned in this type of debate, perhaps because it is a four letter word, is "rent". Because it has only four letters hon. Members opposite are always fighting shy of it. I have been looked at with reproach, as if I were mentioning something indecent, when I ask about the rent being paid by the small farmer. The small farmers are worried about this problem. Perhaps it has escaped the observation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in recent years in Scotland there has been a tendency for farm rents to rise. This is also the case in England, and I would welcome the appointment of a commission to inquire into the whole business.
I have suggested that this matter should be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, and I do not know why this was turned down. It was said that this would be considered in fixing prices in the Annual Review. When one considers the obscurity of how this can be negotiated in the Price Review, the problem becomes baffling. People who know most about farming in Scotland, the writers to the Scottish Farmer, always return periodically, as do the branches of the National Farmers' Union, to the question whether rents are too high. They have produced a prima facie case for an inquiry into the rise of rents over the last five years.
Another question which I asked, and which was regarded as indecent, was whether, in view of the plight of the small farmer, both sides of the House could not agree to landlords fixing a moratorium in rents during the economic crisis. The silence that greeted my suggestion on that occasion was deafening.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Coal Board has recently circulated all its tenant farmers, announcing that there is to be a triennial increase in rents?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not see that the black business of coal makes a white for the farm industry. If one goes to Lord Robens, he would say, "Look how rents have risen in the private sector".

837
That has been the argument of the smallholding farmer. They follow the example of the private landlord. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the small farmers had grievances about rent long before the Coal Board was ever thought of. Whatever the criticisms we may have of the Board, I submit that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was irrelevant to my argument.
If the hon. Gentleman will give me the particulars, I will go to Lord Robens and say, "You are following the example of the landlords and charging your farmers too much rent." If he says, "No, I am in favour of high rents," I will make my criticism of him during a debate on the activities of the Coal Board. That is a black red herring.
I do not prejudge this question. I know that some landlords are in great poverty. I know that they have had difficulty in making ends meet—some of them cannot go to Ascot, and some are no longer seen at functions in the City because they can no longer afford to come to London. But I saw a page of photographs of Scotland's 20 biggest landlords in a paper called the Sunday Mail with which hon. Members from Scotland will be familiar. I still have that picture in my memory. I do not wish to mention the names, but some of the faces would be recognised by hon. Members.
I wish to be just to the landlords. I do not wish to impoverish or liquidate the landlord—at least, not on this occasion. I do not want landlords to be treated as they were treated in the Soviet Union, because that would only create another problem. I do not believe in liquidating the landlord. I want, not a Royal Commission, because it would take too long, but a commission of inquiry to investigate by how much the rents of the poor fanners who have figured so much in the speeches of hon. Members opposite have increased.
Before we trim our policy, we must get the facts. I should like to know who owns the land of Scotland in 1968. We do not know who owned it 50 years ago as a result of the famous book by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland. I should like to know how much the landlord is taking from agriculture.
Mr. Peter Mills: I am listening with interest to what the hon. Gentleman is
838
saying, but surely he is being most unfair. Certainly, in the South-West of England landlords are co-operating with tenant farmers and are on the best of terms with them. I have not had one complaint. If it were not for the active co-operation between landlord and tenant, many farmers in the South-West would not be able to continue. You are being unfair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of being unfair.
Mr. Peter Mills: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say, through you, that the hon. Gentleman is being unfair.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: All that I wish to know is the facts. I am not prejudging the issue. I wish a committee of inquiry to be set up to consider the view of Mr. William Young, Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, who has alleged that the price of milk per gallon could be reduced if the farmers had not had to pay increased rents. That is the allegation of this gentleman, who knows far more about the South-West of Scotland than even the hon. Gentleman. All that I ask is that the figures in the Milk Marketing Board be checked and analysed and the whole question investigated so that the House may know the facts, whether the landlord takes too much and what the remedy is. I fail to see how that is being unfair. I cannot see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's interruption.
Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman would not.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I submit to the House, such as it is, that I am making a reasonable, rational statement.
Mr. John Nott: May I suggest that rather than ask for setting up a commission to consider rents, the hon. Gentleman should, when he has finished his speech, step across the Floor of the House, when I will hand him an excellent summary of the rise in Scottish rents which has taken place, published by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. The whole matter is set out in the greatest detail. Perhaps that will help the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is any need for a Royal Commission. All the information is contained in this excellent document.
Mr. Hughes: I shall be delighted to have that excellent document. If it is as informative as I wish it to be, I shall be able to form my own conclusions. It has not come to my attention that there was a concise, clear and factual analysis of rents in Scotland. I asked questions of the Secretary of State for Scotland about such a document and I understood that one had not been produced. I shall avail myself of any statistical material which I can obtain. I am always open to conversion on this point. I hope that it will remove from my mind all fears that the landlords have been exploiting the tenants of Scotland. I cannot say fairer than that.
If relations between the farmers of South-West Scotland and the landlords have been as harmonious as has been made out, why was it necessary to insert a certain Clause in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? I remember that when, in 1958, I was a member of the Committee of the House which dealt with the question of security of tenure for small farmers there was strong agitation by the farmers and serious doubt expressed whether the relationship between tenant and landlord was really so harmonious.
I know that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) labours under the delusion that the relations between landlord and farmer in Scotland have always been harmonious. I have pointed this out to him before—and he had not even read the poems of Robert Burns about tenant farmers in my constituency. Even today, whenever I pass the farm at Loch-lea, I recollect that this was where Burns lived and where Burns's father was driven to an early grave because of the landlord. I will not recite for the right hon. Member quotations from Robert Burns, but it is an historical fact that the relations between the farmers and the landlords have not always been so harmonious and friendly and sweetly reasonable as hon. Gentlemen opposite will try to convince me.
We know about what is called the factor's snash. If the English Members want me to translate that, or my hon. Friend the Welsh Member here, a factor is an agent who collects rent for a landlord and the snash is what he gets from the landlord if he does not pay the rent. This is part of Scottish history and runs right through it. I would not dream
840
of going back into Scottish history if I were not provoked.
However, I think that the time has come when we should question whether the landlord has a right to take so much out of the industry as he is doing. Indeed, I wonder how much of the money which goes into agricultural subsidies goes into the pockets of the farmers and how much the farmers have to pay out in rent. I would like an authoritative analysis of how much of the subsidies which the Government provide for agriculture goes to the landlords, and very often the wealthy landlords: I doubt whether they deserve so much subsidy from Government funds. Therefore, I should like to see these matters investigated.
I want to turn to another question, milk.
Mr. Peter Mills: Oh.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) laughs when I mention the subject of milk.
Mr. Molloy: Shame.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: A shame I think it is.
I would say a few critical words to the Government about their policy which has hurt the farmers in my constituency to some extent. As a result of the economy of cutting down the supply of milk to secondary schools a quite valuable market has been lost to the farmers in my constituency.
Mr. Peter Mills: Ah.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I had no support at all when I raised this before; I had no support at all from hon. Gentlemen opposite—except the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who said a few words by accident; and by accident he voted in the same Lobby as I did.
I believe that farmers who produce milk would welcome the end of the cut in school milk; and for this reason, that many of them depended upon the amount of milk they supplied to schools to cover their overhead charges for supplying milk at a reasonable price to the other consumers. I know that it is too late to do it this year, but when the economic crisis begins to ease I hope that one of the first things the Government will do

841
will be to restore the supply of school milk and enable secondary school children once again to get their bottles of milk as they did before we made these cuts in an attempt to appease the international bankers.
But in all these proposals, in which I have put the point of view of farmers in my constituency, I find no support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not seem to be concerned about putting the point of view of the farmer; they are more concerned to put the point of view of the landlord.
Mr. Peter Mills: That is not true.
Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would finish speaking perhaps some hon. Members on this side might have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did not understand the relevance of that intervention.
I endorse the opinions of hon. Members who have been arguing for planning of agriculture in such a way that we will have a prosperous agricultural industry which will enable both the consumer and the producer to get a fair deal without having to pay out so much to parasitical landlords and parasitical bankers, who are often the same people. Therefore, I ask the Government, in planning the future of agriculture, to recognise that we need to produce more food. The country would welcome a decrease in food imports. There is a need for an agricultural industry which will enable people to live on the' land in such a way that their standard of living will continue to rise, thus encouraging them to remain on the land instead of flooding into the cities.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: This has been a very wide-ranging debate indeed, but the matter about which I wish to speak has not been referred to by any previous speaker. This is not surprising, because it is a matter that applies particularly to Wales, although it has wider significance and may become of great importance to other parts of Britain. It concerns the Rural Development Board in Wales. It will be agreed that as people's understanding of the Rural Development Board in Wales increases, so their opposition to it in-
842
creases. It is now the burning issue in agricultural life in Wales.
This Board is essentially a mid-Wales Board. The great social problem of agricultural Mid-Wales is depopulation. Indeed, it is the greatest social evil in Wales generally. It has become clear that this Board, instead of trying to solve the problem, will actually exacerbate it and increase the rate of depopulation in rural Wales. This has been made clear by the way in which the Board was defended recently at a hearing in Aberyswyth. The Permanent Undersecretary, when asked by Mr. Dewi Watkin Powell if the conclusion he drew was that the policy involved was certainly not going to halt the process of depopulation, answered in the affirmative. When asked if the net result of the scheme would be to cause a certain amount of rural depopulation, the hon. Gentleman answered that over a short time it probably would.
It is, therefore, understood that this will cause more depopulation. I submit that deliberately to create more depopulation in Wales is as reprehensible as deliberately to create more unemployment there. I suggest that the consequence of depopulation flows naturally and almost inevitably from the whole concept of the Board, which seems to be mainly to get rid of the small farms.
The Government said in their White Paper, published three years ago, that they wished to see far greater speed in this matter and they were anxious to change farm structure in that direction. This cannot be done without changing the social pattern, and for the general purpose of farm structure farms have been divided into three categories, those which require fewer than 275 standard man days of labour per year, those requiring between 275 and 600 standard man days, and those requiring more than 600 standard man days.
It is on the third category and only that one, that the Government seem to smile. Their favourite farms are in this category. These are the upper class farms, and they are given accolade of being "commercial units". Class distinction is said to be more prevalent in England than in most countries, and here it is firmly embedded in the Government's farm policy, with their lower, middle, and upper class farms.

843
I divide them into classes because that is how the Government have divided them. The lower class farms are run by working people such as road workers, transport workers, farm workers themselves, and busmen. These are the people whom the Government seem to want to get out. These small holdings provide their tenants with a great interest in life, and also with a supplementary income. Remove this interest and this income, and many of these people will not wish to remain in the rural areas. They will drift, as so many others have done, to the owns, and thus increase rural depopulation.
One would have thought it right to assume that the reason why this Board is being established in Mid-Wales—and this may be the prototype of a number of boards—is that the proportion of very small farms in Mid-Wales is greater than in other parts of Wales. In fact, the reverse is true. The proportion of small farms in Mid-Wales is smaller than in the rest of Wales.
In Radnorshire, in the heart of the Board's area, 44 per cent. of the farms require less than 275 man days labour per year. That is lower than the proportion in England as a whole, where the figure is 48 per cent. The highest figures are to be found in the Minister's own constituency, in Anglesey, where the proportion is 75 per cent., and Caernarvonshire, where the figure is 71 per cent., but these counties are not included in the Board's area, and yet it is in these counties that there is the highest proportion of small farms.
As for the commercial units, those requiring more than 600 man days labour per year, in Radnorshire there are 28 per cent. of such farms. In Montgomeryshire and Merioneth, the figure is 22 per cent. In Anglesey, it is only 7 per cent., while in Caernarvonshire the figure is 11 per cent.
What are we to deduce from those incongruities? Are we to deduce that the Government's intention is to include Anglesey, Caernarvonshire, and other counties in the Board's area to secure the speedier disappearance of the small farms? Or is this just another example of the Government's illogicality?
844
Part of Carmarthenshire is inside the Board's area. In the part inside the Board's area 49 per cent. of the farms require fewer than 275 man days labour per year. This is similar to the proportion in England as a whole. Outside the Board's area, the figure is 55 per cent. Inside the area 18 per cent. of the farms require more than 600 man days. Outside the area the figure is 13 per cent.
The truth of the matter is that farm structure is not at the heart of the problem at all. There are many pressures which have been forcing small farms out of existence, without the Government stepping up the pace. In future these pressures will tend to be felt more severely by the larger farms, by those farms which are called commercial units. I think that agricultural policy in Wales should be directed to the encouragement of the family farms, those which require fewer than 600 standard man days labour per year.
These are the economic backbone of our traditional way of life, and these are also economically more productive per acre. They have proved their survival value in very adverse circumstances. As labour difficulties mount, and they will, it is sane policy to strengthen this big group of family farms by ensuring for them a proper return for their labour and their outlay.
One thing that the great body of Welsh farmers badly need is reassurance and confidence. They want to be sure that the Government appreciate the rôle of agriculture. There has been much talk of agriculture as a business. Agriculture is a business, but for most farmers it is not just a business; it is also a way of life, and the Government should show some appreciation of that fact. Its importance is not only economic but social, and in Wales that aspect should never be underestimated.
Farmers want to know in what direction farming is moving, and what its future will be. They want stability and security, and in this matter the Rural Development Board is doing immense harm. In the eyes of many farmers its policy creates a feeling of insecurity and instability outside the Board's area as well as inside it. To many farmers this scheme seems half-baked. Its implications were not thought through before the Government appointed the Board.

845
The Aberystwyth inquiry showed that the situation inside the Board's area was not known to the Government. There has been no comprehensive review. The Government now talk about having one, after the Board has been formed. There was no review beforehand. This was admitted at the inquiry, when it was said to be due to an understaffing of the Ministry in Wales. There has been no statistical survey to discover the difficulties of amalgamation, or to balance the respective claims of agriculture and forestry within the Board's area. The Ministry was driven to rely upon statistics which were about 14 years old to support its case, as is clear from the transcript of evidence given at the inquiry
The conclusion is that the Board was formed to solve the problems of a large area in a certain way before the nature and extent of those problems were exactly known.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member has made a number of groundless charges. Does not he agree that the North Pennines Rural Development Board is now in the process of being set up, and that opportunities are being given for objections—and that there are no objections from Welsh areas of the character to which he has referred? Does not this indicate that the objections are political ones, fanned by speeches such as he is now making?
Mr. Evans: Welshmen could draw a Very different conclusion. They could draw the conclusion that there is more intelligence and alertness in Wales, and that the Welsh are more aware of what the Government are trying to do. If the Minister will have a little patience I shall go on to refer to the kind of opposition that there is in Wales.
First, I want to give one illustration of the falseness of the claim that the Board would greatly benefit Welsh farmers in respect of grants. I refer to the question of electricity supplies. Of the 800 properties in my constituency which are within the Board's area no less than 770 are already connected with a mains electricity supply. There is no need for a Board with compulsory powers to connect the remainder of those properties. The most valuable grants are for tourist purposes and I suggest that these should
846
be made available through the Tourist Board and that the Board should be made responsible for their administration.
The inquiry at Aberystwyth has brought to light administrative weaknesses of the Ministry of Agriculture in Wales, which are mainly due to under-staffing. These should be remedied. All Ministry staff should be made responsible to the Welsh Office, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Labour Party in its programme before the General Election of 1964. The opposition of the community in the Board's area to their inclusion in the area is overwhelming. Of all the county branches of the two farmers' unions, only one is in favour of the Board. This is no wonder, when one considers that no farm in the area can be sold without the consent of the Board, which would mean that there would be virtually no more sales by auction, and when one considers the nature of the compulsory powers of the Board.
The Minister is not responsible for the creation of the Board, he has inherited it, but I suggest to him that the Rural Development Board scheme should be dropped forthwith, thereby cutting public expenditure at the inquiry in Aberystwyth. This has already cost the Government £13,500 up to 27th June, in addition to the great expense to which it has put objectors to the Board. These objectors include the vast majority of the people affected by it.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. John Nott: I rise to speak briefly on behalf of the small farmers, of which I have a great number in my constituency in West Cornwall. I do so with particular concern, because, as has been mentioned several times in the debate, the mainstay of the small farmer in West Cornwall is very largely horticulture, particularly potatoes, and milk. Both these activities are seriously threatened by imports.
May I briefly, however, make one or two general personal points about agriculture before referring to the small farmer. I have not spoken in a full agricultural debate since I became a Member of the House, although I have asked many questions on behalf of my agricultural constituency. I find it difficult to speak in these debates because of the length of the speeches, such as the speech of the hon.

847
Gentleman opposite to whom I listened with great interest. If he had done a little more homework, he could perhaps have truncated his speech on the subject of rents.
I have been looking at a document which relates to farm rents in Scotland. The document quite clearly states that only 2 per cent. of the agreements on farm rents in Scotland were settled by arbitration during the three years leading up to 1966. Far and away the major proportion of farm rent agreements between landlord and tenant were settled perfectly amicably. I have yet to meet a farmer who is not prepared to extend his acreage because of the present level of farm rents, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has either.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not want to truncate the hon. Member's speech, but, as he pointed out, he lives in North Cornwall and does not understand the position in South Ayrshire.
Mr. Nott: I was referring to the document about Scottish farm rents, which has nothing to do with Cornish rents.
Too much has been said over the last few years about the problem of structure in agriculture. I am sure that this is an important factor, but I am convinced that the small farmer in my constitutency, farming intensive early land on a 60-acre holding, can make a good living and has a great future on his family farm. We hear far too much discussion about productivity per acre in terms of labour input, but the small farming output per acre is extremely high.
A statistical survey of the farms in the West Country published by the Universities of Bristol and Exeter shows that the Cornish dairy farmer has an output per acre of £69, against £43 for Devon and Cornwall generally, £46 for Dorset and £36 for the Bristol area. If one goes through all the farms in the West Country, one finds that the output per acre of small farms in Cornwall is considerably higher than that of larger farms in other parts of the West Country. Indeed, when one turns to the figures of output per acre in the country generally, one finds that on small farms of under 93 acres it is considerably higher than in larger farms. That is a factor which
848
is not mentioned often enough in our debates on agricultural matters.
Potatoes give rise to a constant problem. It is one which has been recurring year after year, and I can see the difficulties in solving the problem of imports of potatoes from Commonwealth countries like Cyprus. I understand that one of the recent difficulties is that it has become more difficult for Commonwealth producers to sell their crops in West Germany and in other E.E.C. countries and, therefore, we tend to get more new potatoes from the Commonwealth than hitherto.
However, one of the problems this year has been in the shape of imports from Spain. I believe that there should be a system which enables the tariff on early potatoes to be varied more flexibly. The 9s. 4d. tariff goes on on 15th May. I can see no reason why it should not be varied and brought in a fortnight earlier if conditions in the home market make it necessary. Perhaps we can be told whether studies have been made in the Ministry of the possibilities of varying the tariff so that it is applied more flexibly. I believe that it is really the Plant Health Regulations which shut out early potatoes from Spain on 20th May rather more than the tariff, but certainly, if the tariff were shifted back a fortnight earlier, it would make a substantial difference to Cornish growers getting their potatoes to market.
I am aware that this year was very bad for local conditions and that our early potatoes from West Cornwall, owing to weather conditions, only came to market at the same time as those from Kent and Lincolnshire. But I have some figures of imports, and it is clear from them that they were very high this year. One way of overcoming these large imports from non-Commonwealth producers of potatoes would be by a more flexible application of the tariff. In addition, producers of potatoes in the country have to organise themselves better to supply the canners and manufacturers of potato crisps. These are two huge markets which should be supplied to a much greater extent by home producers than at present.
Passing to one or two other comments made in the course of the debate, one hon. Gentleman opposite talked at some

849
length about the appalling problem of poverty in some parts of the world, in spite of: agricultural surpluses in the Western world, and he asked why international financiers did not give some thought to solving the problem.
I do not know how international financiers spend their time, but I read my newspapers and I know that the problem is under constant study all over the world. How is one to solve the problem of the lack of currency on the part of the poorer nations to buy the agricultural surpluses of the Western world? It is very much a financial problem, and I do not see that it is susceptible to easy solution. Certainly I do not agree with the solution towards which the hon. Gentleman seemed to be moving, namely, an increase in barter transactions, bartering food against such items as wheelbarrows, manufactured goods, and so on.
That is no solution to the grave international problem which worsens year by year. The solution must lie in an increase in international liquidity which will enable the poorer countries to buy the surpluses of the Western nations. The answer certainly does not lie in charity and in the giving away of surplus food production by the Western nations to the poorer nations. That would merely make them dependent on our agricultural output, and that is not a long-term solution.
However, this is obviously one of the graver problems of the latter part of the 20th century. I also wish that the international bankers could come up with a solution, but it seems an insoluble problem, because the poorer nations just have not the currency with which to buy our surplus production. I have always believed, as a businessman and someone who has very little knowledge of agriculture, that a basic change in attitude towards agriculture in this country could, more than anything else, contribute to a revival of our national economy.
I regard it as a fundamental importance to our national recovery and the things which stand in the way—they have been mentioned—are, first, the present support system for agriculture. We must go over to a system of minimum import prices and variable levies. Second, I am convinced that a change of attitude in Government circles is neces-
850
sary. The attitude of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, although it made perfect sense in the 19th century when our commercial strategy was utterly different, makes none today.
When we consider our balance of payments with almost every food producing country in the world, we see that we are in heavy deficit with practically all of them. In our trade with Denmark and other countries, we have a huge deficit. This argument, which we have heard again and again, that our international agreements prevent us from cutting down on imports from these countries because we would lose manufactured exports as a result is a myth fostered by the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade to support their activities in Government circles. Our balance of payments with almost all these countries is in heavy deficit, and they cannot blackmail us. The boot is on the other foot. We must take a much more strenuous approach in Government circles to this problem.
Lastly, there is the tremendous problem of lack of capital, which is primarily a problem of farm incomes, because farming must be financed out of profits, which clearly are not great enough now to make agriculture more efficient. But there is also a serious problem in regard to the institutions which finance agriculture. I am never convinced by the claim of the joint stock banks that the farmer can get all the money he wants from them. There is the problem of mechanism and the fact that we need medium-term institutions to help with the financing of agriculture.
The Westminster Bank, Barclays and others have been moving around the periphery of this problem of operating schemes to help with the medium-term financing of agriculture, but our institutions in this sphere are not as well developed as they are in Europe, where, through co-operative arrangements, there has been a different system of financing medium-term agricultural demands to that in this country. This is also a field in which further thought is needed.
Once again, I appeal for the small farmer. His output per acre, in Cornwall at any rate, is higher than practically anywhere else in the United Kingdom, yet, somehow, it is always considered

851
that, because his productivity may be low —it is low in terms of man hours per output—an amalgamation of farms or revision of farm structure lies at the root of our agricultural problems. I do not believe that it does. The small intensive producer, particularly on good early land, can provide an enormous service to the national economy and should receive more encouragement than he does at present.
With those elongated rather than truncated words, I will give my right hon. Friend the chance to wind up the debate.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Michael Noble: It has been a most pleasant debate, and I am in many ways delighted that I was able to let my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) take part for the first time in a debate on agriculture. I thought that he showed great promise, and my only small reservation is that he said so many things so well that he took out of my mouth several of the words which I was hoping to say. However, that will serve to shorten my speech.
It was an exceptional debate also because it was the occasion of the first appearance in a major debate of the Minister of Agriculture himself. He is not with us at the moment, but I congratulate him on having made his debut in a speech of far more clarity than we were used to receiving from his predecessor. Although there were points in it with which we did not entirely agree, we thoroughly enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's first speech and look forward to hearing him on many other occasions.
The debate was unusual for another reason for those of us who regularly sit through our discussions on agriculture. We had two powerful contributions on the theme of agriculture, one from the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), the other from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), both speaking from the Government benches and representing entirely industrial constituencies, and both speaking with great eloquence on the importance and success of agriculture in the quality, quantity and price of food which their constituents so obviously enjoy. It was a pleasant change. I have for long been keen that hon. Members
852
from industrial constituencies should understand the problems of agriculture so that we should not have permanently, so to speak, and in a way which I know the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would like to keep permanent, a battle between the country and the industrial areas. We have heard his record so often—I for ten years— that I can prompt him if he stops for a second.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) opened the debate very well and put to the House the key problem facing agriculture today when he said that devaluation had enormously increased both the opportunity for new agricultural policies and the need for them. In addition, this country has in the past few months and years had imposed upon it a heavy short and medium-term debt, and this makes the need for agriculture to make the largest contribution it can to the solution of our balance of payments problem all the more important if we are to survive. This island is not at the moment, thank goodness, threatened by U-boats, but we are threatened by a serious economic siege. Agriculture, once again, therefore, has to play a vital part in our survival.
A good deal of the debate has concentrated upon the valuable and interesting Report produced by the "Little Neddy" on agriculture. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), in a fluent and excellent speech—I shall come back to some of his points later—asked whether the Minister would do right to make a major shift in agricultural policy immediately or to tackle the problem piece by piece as the situation developed. In my view, those are not true alternatives. After listening to his speech, I am certain that the Minister knows and accepts that there must be changes.
At one point in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that, because the success of agricultural policies over the past 12 or 15 years had been considerable, we should not lightly change. But I remind him—if he was not particularly interested in those days in the agricultural scene—that 14 or 15 years ago, when we went across to the deficiency payments system, the farming community, in its usual conservative way.
853
was furiously against it and was certain that the: system from which we were changing was far better. Now, however, once they have got used to it and understand it, they accept the deficiency payments system as, apparently, perfect and tend to doubt that changes should be made.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I have always been interested in the agricultural scene throughout the years, and I have participated in the debates on agriculture since I became a Member 17 years ago.
Mr. Noble: I am delighted to hear it. I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman taking part in debates when I was doing so, but I have been doing it for only 10 years. In view of what he has just said, he will certainly remember that the farming community was very much against changing to deficiency payments, and therefore he will realise why change needs a little care if it is to be put over to the farming community in the most effective way.
It is absolutely essential that the Minister should give agriculture a clear and definite lead now. That is why I mean that to take a major shift and to do it bit by bit are not necessarily two alternative proposals. A clear and definite lead that change is in the air and will happen is needed. Then the change can be carried out bit by bit as the Minister finds the problems amenable to the various solutions he has in mind. If we have his acceptance, as I hope we shall, that the policy outlined in the "Little Neddy" Report is right, it is essential to say so now, so that the farming community can start going ahead with its thinking and planning. It is a five-year programme, and if we have delay month after month it will not properly be under way for 18 months or two years, because there is always a planning stage before one can move. The Minister should start his international negotiations now and not wait for a future date when they may be urgent and difficult to carry out.
Two problems have clearly emerged from both sides of the House. The problem of dumping is in some ways perhaps, a minor international problem but is irritating because it happens for short periods and causes short-term problems in one sector of the industry. There is also the much more important long-term 854
problem of how best to negotiate treaties with the supplying countries to give the British farmer room for the expansion needed if the Government are to accept the "Little Neddy" policy. Those negotiations should be started now, so that once the planning for the expansion is ready the way is clear in international negotiations.
Next, the Minister should start to look seriously, as I believe that he has, at the suggestions that my right hon. Friend and the Conservative Party have outlined as alternative methods of producing the finance that agriculture needs. I do not claim, and I do not think that any hon. Member claims, absolute certainty about such new methods. The one thing that I and most of us on this side of the House are certain about is that if we are really going for expansion as outlined by the "Neddy" Report, and perhaps further, the old system will run into tremendous Treasury difficulties. Perhaps for that reason alone, a new method must be found, and I hope that the Minister will look seriously at ours.
Then, and I think that this is the third priority, it is absolutely essential to look fairly carefully at how capital is to be obtained for the expansion. I know from my experience and that of many of my friends that in spite of what the Government tell us that they have told banks about money for agriculture, it is exceedingly difficult for farmers to get capital from banks or any other source for immediate expansion programmes. If that is so this has to be looked at immediately. Perhaps some other new method, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives suggested, may be needed for the medium or longer term if money is to be available for these plans to get under way.
Next, it would pay the Government well to look carefully at the extent and scope of the present plans for research and development. I have had a certain amount of experience going round many research stations on different agricultural projects, and I know how far ahead a great many of our research scientists are. But I find that there is an enormous gap between what is being done at many of these research stations and what is being done on the farms. I know that there are agricultural colleges which pick up some of this research and do some

855
research on their farms. I know that there are technical officers, agricultural officers and all sorts of people wandering around different farms and saying that things of this sort are happening if one goes somewhere to see them. But this is not, I believe, the same as having definite development projects, which in many cases would at least partly be sponsored by Government money, where new ideas could be developed in the same conditions and with the same sort of surroundings and with the same type of workpeople as would be putting them into operation on a normal farm. It is a very important part of spreading the knowledge which is necessary from one research station to a vast number of farms that may be able to benefit from it. This is the gap at the moment in our scientific research.
On the same broad theme—the point was made in respect of crops by the hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian and Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell)—there is a considerable health problem. I believe that more money can profitably be spent by the Government on looking at disease problems in crops and also health in livestock. My right hon. Friend referred to foot-and-mouth disease, the terrible plague that occasionally descends on us. I agree with him about one of the steps at least that the Government ought to take to minimise that risk coming again. I know that the Government are starting on the brucellosis eradication scheme, but there are also a vast number of minor ailments and parasites, internal and external, that affect stock, sheep and so on. Representatives of a vast number of firms are going around the country—I get my fair share visiting me at the weekend—offering one specific or another to cure a disease that they think one's sheep may be afflicted with. But there is no equivalent to Which? to which one can go as a consumer and say "Which of this vast range of products is likely to do the most good to my sheep or cattle?" The result, I believe, is that a vast number of farmers are pumping a vast quantity of stuff down the throats of a vast number of animals at the wrong time of year, or perhaps it is the wrong stuff. A good deal more information is needed for the ordinary run of farmers in order to make certain that they are using
856
the most effective medicines at the right time.
Before I pick up one or two of the points made in the debate, I should like to mention, particularly as the Secretary of State for Scotland will be winding up, one topic in the Green Book which seems to have been rather badly neglected—the question of sheep. With the exception of my right hon. Friend, no one has mentioned them in the debate and, as hon. Members know, it is this particular line of agricultural production with which I have been connected most of my life.
I do not believe that this Report does anything like justice to the potential development of sheep production in this country. I accept that, in the past, there has not been a great deal of change or development in sheep production. For that reason, in particular, I believe that today is an opportunity of making some very big changes. The technical knowledge is rapidly becoming available. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has visited places in Scotland. One hon. Member mentioned the Hurley Research Centre, which is doing some extremely interesting experiments in sheep and grass. I know that the technical possibilities of expanding sheep production are almost unlimited. Of all the livestock animals, sheep have the great advantage of needing least in the way of imported feeding-stuffs.
The Report says that the knowledge and the materials exist to increase substantially the level of production and that, on the higher ground, this could be achieved without diversion of land or food, and I agree. It says that, if a million of these high acres were devoted to sheep, there could be an increase of 300,000 lambs a year by 1972. That is a fiddling target. If we wanted to, we could produce that in Argyll alone. I do not say that it would not be a major effort but that is the scale of the target in the Report. It would merely put our sheep production back to what it was in 1966 before it dropped in 1967.
I and most of my farmer friends interested in sheep would certainly not accept that our target and contribution towards solving this problem should merely be to put back by one year the production of sheep over the next five. I believe that we can do much better and that we will do much better if we

857
can get the necessary support. I accept that there might have to be a little international negotiation because the New Zealand Government feel that they have a proprietary right to our market—which view we as sheep farmers often find a little difficult to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) drew attention to the extent to which France and Holland subsidise their cheese exports to this country. This is just one example. I beg the Minister to realise how galling it is for farmers continually to be told, when they question the level at which foreign countries can subsidise the goods they send here, by whichever Government are in power, "We are unable to do anything about it because we are a trading nation". As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said, this is a 19th century idea. If we were trading at a profit with these countries there would be some merit in it, but often we are not and as farmers we resent having our hands tied behind our backs in favour of some international obligation entered into by the Government, quite often in a different situation, with the Government blandly saying that they cannot change it now. They must change it now.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian asked about the Opposition's policy. One of his questions was about threshold prices. I know that my right hon. Friend would be delighted to discuss this with him but it is rather complicated an issue to take up now. He asked whether the various production grants might not go altogether. His aim, I think, was to get the whole of this into the end product. This would be perfectly satisfactory if we were dealing with farmers all of whom were selling things at that stage, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in parts of his constituency and certainly in mine there are many people who do not have fat lambs or cash crops to sell.
Mr. Mackintosh: I was thinking particularly not of regional grants but of special grants, fertilisers subsidies and things of that kind, which might well go on to the end price.
Mr. Noble: I accept that in certain limited ways that might be true.
I was delighted to hear from him and, with slight variations, from the hon. Mem-
858
ber for Norfolk, North that the old battle about the tied cottage is won or lost, according to which way one looks at it. Of course, everybody accepts that if it is humanly possible, alternative accommodation should be provided, but, unless one has a series of caravans to be hired out, in many districts it is impossible to give alternative accommodation for five or six months and bring in the new person who is to do the work. I am glad this subject has left what might be called the black and white party battle and that the approach to it has become much more sensible.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian wondered whether grassland could be improved in order to pick up the slack from the 1·7 million acres having gone into increased arable land. I am perfectly certain that it is within the competence of farmers developing their grassland and I am not at all worried about that. It will need more fertilisers and more push behind some of the more old-fashioned farmers. Robbie Burns would find it difficult to achieve it, but I do not think that modern farmers would.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who?
Mr. Noble: It is all right; the hon. Gentleman can go back to sleep again quite safely.
Although I did not hear him, I understand that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that the Liberals were parting company from the Government about the present support system. Although this does not altogether surprise me, it seems a little odd after the Liberals saved the Government's life at the end of the prices and incomes debate the other day.
Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Noble: I cannot do so; I have only two minutes left.
Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman should not make stupid assertions like that without giving the opportunity to answer.
Mr. Noble: The Liberals love making points of this sort and being able to back everything both ways all the time, and occasionally they must allow people to deal with the sort of nonsense they talk.

859
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff made a point to which the Secretary of State for Scotland should pay attention, although it was not entirely relevant to the rest of the country. The egg problem will be serious in much of the North of Scotland and to many small farming areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take as much trouble as he can to brief himself thoroughly about the Scottish position and will consult the Minister of Agriculture before they decide how to develop their egg policy.
This has been an interesting debate. I very much hope that the Government will be able to give a clear lead to the expansion programme envisaged by the "Little Neddy" and will take the action which is necessary. The farming community is fully able and willing, given the necessary lead, the necessary capital and the necessary help in research and development, to play a major part in the balance of payments battle now before the country.
9.35 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): This has been an unusual time for debating agriculture, but an agricultural debate is welcome at any time. Sometimes the date when it is held governs the nature of the debate. We usually have one just before the Price Review, and then the claymores, and the Sassenach equivalents, are drawn.
This has been rather a quiet debate, and it is none the worse for that. It was probably prompted by the publication of the important Report of the Economic Development Council for Agriculture. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) suggested that everyone in the House should read it. I hope that everyone has read it.
Despite the fact that it was prompted by this, everyone has taken the opportunity to raise a number of important points. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) mentioned a matter, also raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). Frankly, I was grateful for his remarks. His entire speech dealt mainly with the egg position. I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) referred to this, too. I was sorry that when he spoke, the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) was not
860
present. He thought that the egg reconstruction business was wonderful, for the big man.
There is no doubt that the changes taking place in egg production have created certain problems. We would be very foolish if we lost sight of the contribution to the egg needs of the country by these small men, and the benefits that have accrued to them from the marketing scheme. I will certainly take into account the remarks made tonight, together with any representations received from interested parties before we arrive at decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eal-ing, North (Mr. Molloy) spoke about education. This was a good point, but he probably under-estimates the amount of information that there is about farming in secondary schools. There is certainly a great deal in those that I know. I am sure that careers officers in the schools are aware of the prospects available, on the technical and academic side as well as the practical side of agriculture.
The subject of foot-and-mouth disease was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. There was a rather grudging point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leo-minster (Sir Clive Bossom), who criticised the slowness of the Departmental machine in dealing with this matter. This contrasts with everything that practically everyone else has said, inside and outside the House. Justified compliments have been paid to the work of the Department. We have lessons to learn in any outbreak like this, but I do not think that we should pitch our remarks about what was done in such critical terms as he did.
As to the compensation scheme, I hope that the industry can agree on its contribution. The industry benefited from higher milk prices, and it is reasonable that it should contribute. The £ for £ scheme was placed before the industry on that basis, and albeit reluctantly, was accepted on that basis. The temporary inability of the industry to provide its share has not changed the Government's view about the necessity for this scheme to be on a £ for £ basis.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), whom we are always glad to hear in these debates, referred to
861
the question of new capital formation and criticised the Minister for quoting an inaccurate figure. He quoted from the Report of the Committee. They are probably both right. In 1967, investment in fixed assets, buildings, and so on, was £188 million. That is the figure which the hon. Gentleman banks on, but he must remember that an additional investment in stocks and work in progress was about £48 million. Therefore, the total new capital formation was over £200 million, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be careful about getting a proper break-up of the figures.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is a small point.
Mr. Ross: It is a small point—I did not want to raise it—just a matter of a few million pounds.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman was wrong.
Mr. Ross: No, I was not wrong.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough does not seem to like small men. He thought that the Government should stop wasting money on the regeneration and reseeding of hill land in Scotland and suggested that it was much better that this land should be used for recreational purposes. I tried to discover what kind of recreational purposes he had in mind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Grouse."] I know that the hon. Gentleman has certain interests in Sutherland, and I am sure that it was not a golf course of which he was thinking.
Does the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) agree with the hon. Gentleman? I am sure that he does not. If there is anything for which there is plenty of scope in the Highlands, it is recreation. There is, however, trouble about the public getting access to it because of the attitude of certain people who own the land. We might put that right with the Countryside Commission. The suggestion that we should stop regeneration and re-seeding and leave the land to the deer is not the kind of thing that we expect to hear in the House, even from a Conservative—and an Englishman at that— in 1968.
It is for the individual farmer to make up his mind about the 50 per cent. grant for improvement available under the Hill 862
Lands Improvement Scheme. The Highlanders and Scotsmen whom I know who get only a 50 per cent. grant realise that they have to pay the other 50 per cent. and they are not wasting their money. They have to find the other half themselves, and that is fairly adequate safeguard to ensure that they do not undertake improvement of land from which they cannot benefit. One of the heartening things about some of the work done is what small farmers who are fighting and struggling for a living are able to do to improve their farms.
The question of early potatoes and the import of potatoes and its effect on the market has been raised. There has been an element of exaggeration in this matter. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who has a very important function to attend in Scotland tomorrow and has, therefore, gone to catch his train and has apologised for his absence, suggested that imports were flooding in and that there were shrinking acreages of early potatoes in Ayrshire. We must beware of exaggeration of this kind with the kind of crop with which we are dealing. This is not the first time that this has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who represents an area which produces very fine early potatoes, has raised this matter time and again. We should not get it out of perspective.
In the nature of the business, new potatoes must be something of a speculative crop. Last year was a very good year. The weather has much to do with this matter. It has more to do with our difficulties about potatoes than the question of imports, although I admit that imports are greater this year than last year. This year the weather took a hand and the earliest crops from the South-West of England—I think that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) admitted this—and the West of England and Wales overlapped with the Eastern counties' crop. There was a long dry spell and then there was rain, and then there was heat, and not only did they overlap but the yields, when they came, were very heavy, and it was this which led to the difficulties, added to the fact that there was an increase of as much as 7,000 acres in the planting of first earlies, and with that heavy crop this led us into difficulties.

863
Matters could be very different next year; and we must keep to the fore the housewife's interest. She looks for a supply of early potatoes irrespective of what the weather is, and that means, in the spring months, Mediterranean potatoes.
There could be great difficulties in changing this long-established trade, especially in Cyprus. Let me remind hon. Gentlemen that that is a Commonwealth country, and so it is not quite as easy to apply there restrictions which one could apply elsewhere. It is not so easy, then, to apply the closure of the market at a relatively early date such as the end of May. If the trade were closed suddenly, what could become of those arrangements made between our importers and Cypriot growers? They were not made a month or a fortnight previously, but they were made very much earlier. If it were decided that, in any event, the British market would close to imports at the end of May the housewife might have to pay a very much higher price.
Bearing that in mind we are faced, in respect of early potatoes, with one of those seasonal difficulties which are not something entirely new. We could not— and this is my reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives—take unilateral measures and make arrangements, however attractive they might seem, for one sector, looked at on its own, because, clearly, this would have very considerable repercussions over a very much wider field.
As to cheese, I think that it was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West who asked me to explain everything that the Minister of Agriculture was doing. My right hon. Friend said that this matter was being handled and that he did not want to say any more now. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department, and it is a little naïve of him to ask me to say everything that my right hon. Friend is doing, for if I were to do so that might hinder rather than help.
On the question of dumping generally, there are matters which take us by surprise, some of them, and on which we shall require to take action. We have been impeded by the anti-dumping legis- 864
lation. We now have a new Act which, I think, gives us far better powers, and we hope that we shall be able to take quick, provisional action in the future.
The question has been raised—this was the right hon. Gentleman's point at the start—of the expansion and the amount of expansion and the effect of the N.E.D.C. suggestion. The Government are for expansion and have been for expansion, and we are not afraid of change. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who suggested that farmers were afraid of change, and instanced the attitude of farmers in 1952–53 when we changed over to deficiency payments. That was when the farmers had to deal with a Tory Government. The farmers have had the benefit of the Act introduced by the Labour Government, an Act which gave them, for the first time, guaranteed markets and guaranteed prices, and what they have had in mind is what they had to suffer in the past.
That is the reason for any unwillingness by farmers to have a spurt of freedom—because they know that the House has let them down in the past, when they had to suffer. They have had the benefit of years of stability, and I am perfectly sure that they have got confidence in this Government to ensure that that expansion and support will be continued. I think that this was implicit in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh).
The hon. Gentleman said that we are not getting on fast enough with expansion. I am the first to admit that expansion does not come the day that it is declared. Investment comes first. The results in production come later. If the hon. Gentleman considers the support which has been given by the Government to agriculture it compares very favourably with what was done under the previous Government.
This is reflected in the forecasts of net output. The Index of Production is reflected by a net output rise in Scotland in 1967–68 from a forecast figure of 109 to 121, about 11 per cent., despite all the anxieties occasioned by the foot-and-mouth outbreak in England and the gale damage in central Scotland. In many respects 1967–68 was a successful year
865
for Scottish fanning. Yields of cereal and potatoes reached record levels, as did yields of milk and eggs. In other words, expansion.
There are clear signs of continuing technological progress in the industry and, subject to the weather in the current year, I see no reason why the net output on farms should not move forward.
The trend in the United Kingdom— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have a whole debate to himself in the Scottish Grand Committee, despite the lack of interest in that Committee by the Liberal Party these days. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to be so pessimistic in his outlook and proclaim his lack of confidence and declare that the farmers feel the same way. This is not so.
What are we asking the farmers to give up? Let us get clear the kind of support we are giving to the agricultural industry. Deficiency payments and production grants have been running at just under £300 million a year. Added to that there is expenditure on agricultural research of another £15 million a year, and another £15 million a year on the advisory services and development. Far from neglecting agriculture, we have given it tremendous support. This means cheaper food for the housewife. It does not all go in income to the farmer. As a result of what we do, he has to plough back a great part of that income into the modernisation and maintenance of his share in the industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to give this up and swing over to variable levies. He admitted that one of the first things that would happen if we did that would be that food prices would go up. He is prepared to accept a figure of 6 to 7 per cent. as the increase, in present conditions. If we are to finance further expansion it means further moneys to be added, so that means further increases in prices.
I think that the fanners are sufficiently adventurous. When considering the N.E.D.C.'s suggestion they said that it was not a question of yes or no, or one or the other. Even they suggest that there could be a blending of the two systems to get a managed market.
866
In 1963–64 the Tory Government introduced minimum import prices. They said that that was the way to deal with cereals, which included standard quantities. Hon. Members opposite now come along and say, "This is not right; we have changed our minds again about that", and they ask us to make up our minds immediately on a very important matter.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better look at this scheme again to see whether it meets the needs. I ask everyone to look at this N.E.D.C. Report with realistic eyes. It is not purely a question of the technical ability to do the thing. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian was the only one who questioned whether they were right in their technical assessments. I should not go as far as that.
What must be appreciated is that one goes from the technical assessment to the capacity of the industry, to the question of the processors and the distributors in the industry, to the consumer, to the market assumptions which have to be made, to the financing, to the effect which this will have on prices, and the effect therefore on imports.
That takes one right into the complicated international developments which would necessarily arise from our traditional and historic position. It may be that we should look at this position. It may be that we should make changes, but I do not think that there can be the massive announcement about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but which he did not support. We have to see how we go. We have to go into the matter very carefully before we depart from a system which has been proved, and which has benefited the farmer, the agriculture industry, and the consumer.
I know that the contribution made to Scottish life and prosperity by the Government's support of agriculture is considerable. We hear people shouting, "Where has Scotland's money gone?". Last year, £61 million was ploughed into Scottish agriculture, and that was not the the first year in which it was done. It has been done since the war. The result is that we have a far more prosperous and confident agriculture industry than

867
we had in the old days, which far too many farmers tend to remember. We can with confidence go on with our existing programme and examine what has been put forward by the N.E.D.C. and then take practical steps to bring about the
868
expansion which they see possible up to the years 1972–73.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTOR VEHICLES (DRIVING TEST FEE)
9.58 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 1968 (S.I., 1968 No. 947) dated 17th June, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be annulled.
This must be one of the most remarkable Instruments to be laid before the House during this period of the present Administration. The first indication we had that it was to be made was on 21st February when the right hon. Lady, who was then the Minister of Transport, said in a statement to the Press that she was reviewing the possibility of increasing the driving test fee from £1 to £1 15s.
It so happens that by the time we come to discuss the Regulations to put the proposal into effect the right hon. Lady is no longer the Minister of Transport but is responsible for the Government's prices and incomes policy, where rumour has it the norm is that no price increase should, if possible, be more than 3 per cent. I would have thought that an increase from £1 to £1 15s. rather violated that norm. This is a proposal, originated by the Minister who is now responsible for the Government's prices and incomes policy, for a 75 per cent. increase in the cost of the driving test. The House will want to know why, in complete contradiction to their own prices and incomes policy, the Government are bringing forward an increase of this proportion.
To justify such an increase the Government must argue that they believe that motorists taking driving tests should, in the form of this fee, meet the full cost of such tests, in which case they will have difficulty in arguing that all the other taxes and fees obtained from motorists should not be used for matters benefiting the motorists. As we know, that is not the position.
Another objection to the Regulations is that it is yet another example of this Government's showing considerable hostility to the motorist. It is yet another increase in the cost of motoring. I would have thought that the Government would
870
be sufficiently satisfied with the enormous increase that they have made in the taxation of motorists without demanding this increase.
The House should be made aware of exactly how much extra the motoring public is being forced to pay, as opposed to what it was paying when the present Government came into office. In 1964 the total revenue from the main forms of taxation of the motor vehicle owner— that is to say, petrol, motor vehicle licences, Purchase Tax and income from driving test fees—amounted to £778 million. Since then the cost of the motor vehicle licence has been increased by no less than £10 a vehicle; the tax on petrol has risen by 1s. 2d.; the Purchase Tax on a motor car has been increased by 50 per cent. as compared with the rate operating in 1964, and in this financial year, instead of raising £778 million from the motorist the Government will raise no less than £1,561 million.
The total taxation burden on the motoring public has doubled in the three-and-a-half years of this Government yet, not satisfied with this, they have decided to impose a 75 per cent. increase in this fee. We must know from the Parliamentary Secretary the reason for this decision. The only reason given is that the current total income from fees for driving tests is not sufficient to meet the cost, and that the deficit currently runs at the rate of £500,000 per year in respect of the cost of administering the driving tests.
The increase proposed will much more than cover this £500,000 deficit; indeed, it has been predicted that by early in the 1970s the deficit of the past few years will have been made up and the Fund will be running into a surplus. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to assure the House that the moment the Fund runs into a surplus in respect of the cost of driving tests he will reduce the fee so that the Fund is exactly in balance. Will he do this?
Secondly, I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what justification he has for saying to people who take the driving test in 1969 that they must bear the deficit for those who took the driving test in 1967. I can see no justification for that. It is not a policy which the
871
Government pursue with the railways. If, for example, the Government decided that the fares of 1969 should meet the accumulated deficit of British Railways over the past few years, the fare increases would be even more crippling than those now advocated by the Government. This is a new theme of the present Administration. Not only do they intend to increase fees and taxes to meet the current running cost but they intend to increase them to levels to meet past deficits and then to go into a future surplus position.
There can be no justification for being this mean with the motoring public for, as I said, the Government will get nearly £800 million a year more from the owners of motor vehicles than was being obtained when the Government came into power. To introduce a squalid little regulation to add yet another cost to motoring can only reflect a basic hostility to motoring on the part of the Government. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary mutters to himself "Nonsense". He will have some difficulty in persuading the motorist that a Government who have doubled taxes in three and a half years have a friendly approach or, if that is what the Parliamentary Secretary describes as a friendly approach, the motorist must hope that the friendliness will cease forthwith and that a more hostile attitude will prevail.
Not satisfied with that, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a Question recently put in the House, stated that there would be no change in the scope of the driving test. Had the Government announced that after careful consideration they thought that, in the interests of road safety, there was justification for increasing the scope of the driving test and they would therefore make an additional charge, that would have received the sympathy of both sides of the House. There is considerable concern that the driving test is rather narrow in its scope. For example, the learner driver is not even allowed to go on to a motorway, and is in no way tested on whether he has knowledge sufficient for him to drive competently on a motorway. I have always expressed concern that no lessons on night driving are given to a person learning to drive a motor car, and there are no means thereafter for him to be 872
tested in his or her skill at night driving, which requires a different technique.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the scope of the Prayer on the Order Paper.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am arguing that if the Government wish to charge 35s. a time they should give a rather better test than they give at present. It is reasonable to argue that for 35s. a person could be tested on motorway driving and driving at night.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now relating his remarks to the Prayer; he was not doing so before.
Mr. Walker: In relating my remarks to the Prayer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give further consideration to the possibility of widening the scope of the driving test, and of seeing that, within the cost of the original test of 35s., there is a provision that for the first year the licence provided if the test is successfully concluded is but a probationary licence and at the end of the first twelve months, if an offence has been committed or an accident has occurred, a further test is given to make absolutely certain that a person is suitable for a full driving licence.
It is with regret that I have to comment that the Government have done nothing imaginative to improve the scope of the driving test and therefore justify the extra charge. This is yet another additional burden upon the motorist, it is a burden which is more than is necessary to meet the current deficit, one which will eventually mean a further surplus of income to the Treasury, adding to the economic surplus which is being obtained as a result of the colossal increases that have taken place through taxation of the motoring public. It is for these reasons that I commend this humble Address to the House tonight.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) gave us the latest of his variations on a well-known theme, if he will excuse me using that phrase. Not only on these Regulations, but on many more, he has consistently tried to make a case proving that my Government are anti-motorist. I am a motorist

873
at times and at other times a pedestrian, but I hope I speak as neither tonight.
He described this as a squalid Regulation, a new tax on motorists. If he wishes to maintain his reputation for strict accuracy, he will agree with me that this is not a tax on motorists but upon pre-motorists, those who are not yet motorists but hope to become so. Part of his case falls down on that count. He surely cannot argue that it is unfair for those who wish to take the driving test to meet the full cost of that test at any one time. He may be on more sound ground when he argues that the cost of the test should vary from time to time to meet the particular amount of money needed by the Ministry to conduct the tests. It may be that instead of having to fall behind in costs, running up a deficit as it were, one should have a more frequent variation in the cost.
No one would disagree that it is time the Regulations were reviewed and revised. They have been in operation for five years and I doubt whether there is any area of activity which has changed so much in that time. It may be that every hon. Member will have different ideas as to what Amendments should be made. These Regulations and Amendments simplify and clarify the existing Regulations.
I have looked up the massive tome in which they are enthroned. If I went into any part of them I would be out of order, and I will limit my remarks to a passing reference. Part III of the 1963 Regulations deals with testing competence and fitness to drive. Section 12(2)(a) and (2)(b) talks of "without danger and with due consideration." That should be the aim of us all, from whatever side of the House we speak. I would ask my hon. Friend how far he thinks these present Amendments do anything to improve upon this objective of competence and fitness to drive without danger and with due consideration.
So far the Minister has not been able to explain what he thinks the Amendments will do. We have had newspaper reports and comments about safety and efficiency. I had heard, contrary to what the hon. Member for Worcester said, that the suggested fees will not meet the full costs, over a long period. It would seem that the Amendments
874
could have been put forward by a Treasury Minister as ably, or with the same justification, as a Transport Minister. I would like my hon. Friend to give us his reasons for including mowing machines, bringing the cost of a driving test for a mowing machine up to 35s. from £1. I do not know whether he has any figures available about the number of people who are tested on such machines, but I drive a fair number of miles in a year and I have never yet seen anyone being tested on a mowing machine. Is it really worth while testing the number of operators of mowing machines cutting road verges?
Next we have tests for pedestrian-controlled vehicles, and I gather that they are the one-man operated milk floats which one sees in our cities. How many of those tests are carried out, and could they not be tested without their having "L" licences? Then we come to invalid carriages, and it occurs to me to ask why these have been included. Are they the old wicker-basket type of vehicle with a two-stroke engine which one still sees occasionally, and, if it has been necessary for administrative reasons to include them in the group which is to pay an increased fee— —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting out of order. The driving test fee for invalid carriages is the only one not to be increased in the Order, and, therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can discuss it.
Mr. Ogden: The point having been made, perhaps in one way or another we can have the answers to the social security points.
If the cost to the Ministry of a test is not balanced by the cost to the person taking the test, it would appear to be much better to do a much more simple exercise than balancing the figures five years backwards and five years forwards. The proposals, however necessary or desirable they may be, do nothing to increase safety or efficiency. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say why the amended Regulations do not cover those points. If the object is to get value for money by increasing the cost from £1 to 35s., why not put it up to £2?
I have to declare an interest at this point. It is many years since I took my

875
first test. It so happens that it was on a motor-cycle. It must be the only time that a member of the public has failed a test not for failing to stop at a light but because he lost the examiner. I have a green rejection slip saying that I failed because of my faulty navigation. To take a test on a motor cycle, one is told by the examiner to drive up the road, turn left for three streets and then return. However, to do that in our city is extremely difficult, and it is the easiest thing in the world to lose one's examiner. I did, and I failed.
It occurs to me that these amending Regulations may lead to a review of the whole driving test system and that the new fee of 35s. will give would-be drivers the opportunity to take a real test. Surely it would be simpler to ask a person being tested to drive from point A to point B, so ensuring that he gets value for money.
These Regulations will simplify matters, but I hope that very soon we shall have further, wider and more helpful Regulations.
10.18 p.m.
Sir Clive Bossom: I appreciate the reason for reviewing the present fee. It has remained unchanged for the past 11 years. But what worries the ordinary motorist is that there is a ever-widening gap between the income from motoring taxation and Government's expenditure on facilities relating to the use of motor vehicles. I understand that recent taxation increases alone expected to produce more than £200 million revenue in the coming year. The motorist will not get value for money out of that.
I understand, too, that there are 2 million driving tests each year. Increasing the fee by 15s. will produce an income greatly in excess of the amount required to meet the current deficit, which is said to be just over £500,000. I see that the Minister does not agree with that. Perhaps he can correct the figures if I am wrong.
How do the Government propose to help the motorist from the extra revenue? Will it be used to improve the testing service with mechanical auto-testers. If it is not, the increase is not at all fair.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I approach the matter in much the same spirit as that adopted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), having in mind the need for motorists to drive without causing danger and with due consideration for others. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the tests and to consider whether the large increase, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has rightly drawn attention, is justified. My view is that it is not justified unless we hear from the Parliamentary Secretary a detailed explanation of how the extra money is to be used and in what way motorists are to benefit from it. We are concerned lest it will all be lost in the Exchequer. We know how parking meter money is now going elsewhere. It is likely that other moneys raised from motorists in the future will not be used for purposes connected with roads and the driving of motor vehicles.
If the increase is to go through, there must be improvements in the test and in the teaching of drivers. The scope ought to be widened. If matters are improved in the way which I suggest, perhaps the increase, though large in proportion—75 per cent.—will nevertheless be justified.
I take, first, the form of application which a would-be test taker in the London area has to complete. I imagine that it is the same elsewhere. I obtained this copy of the form this morning. It is a complicated document and on it one finds, for example, item (k) which tells one that the would-be test taker has to turn right-hand and left-hand corners "without dewiring". At the bottom of the form, one finds that this applies only to someone driving a trolley vehicle. There cannot be many people taking tests in trolley vehicles nowadays, and it seems obvious that the form could be brought up to date and simplified considerably.
At the head of the form is an important note:
"If you have not read the pamphlet DL 68, 'Your Driving Test', please do so. It will help you".
So indeed it does. But there are a number of ways in which the pamphlet could be brought up to date.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a driver, too, and I share the hon. Gentleman's

877
anxiety; but tonight we are deciding merely whether the fee should be increased from £1 to £1 15s.
Mr. Berry: I am arguing that if the fee is to be increased certain improvements should be made, and I am making suggestions for improvement which, perhaps, would justify the increase. If I may pursue the matter for a moment—and hope for the best, Mr. Speaker—the first point I make is that there is no reference in the pamphlet to indicate that there are cars on which the gears do not have to be changed manually. I do not know what proportion of cars today have automatic gearboxes, but a good many do, and the number is increasing all the time. There is no hint in the pamphlet that anyone may take a test on a car with an automatic gearbox, and I suggest that, perhaps, 1s. of the increase could be used to put that matter right.
There is a reference to direction indicators and the need to give indications in good time. That is all to the good, but the time has come when the Government ought to take into account—perhaps another 1s. of the money could be used for this purpose—the need to have flashing indicators on all cars. One cannot go back over too many years, but seat belts have recently been made compulsory in cars produced after a certain date, and, in my view, flashing light indicators are of great importance, too.
The use of seat belts has become important in driving today. But there is no mention in the pamphlet of seat belts. Since the Government have rightly made such an important point of using seat belts when driving, I should have thought that another shilling of the increase could well be used on mentioning them.
Mr. Peter Walker: I must remind my hon. Friend that we are praying against the increase.
Mr. Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope to leave at least 6d. at the end in order to support the Prayer against the increase.
I am also concerned about the use of hand signals. I know that they are important, but since all cars today have indicators and brake lights, I believe that too much play is made of the use of the hand signal in driving tests.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a price on hand signals or he will be out of order.
Mr. Berry: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps 6d. for hand signals, in order to leave myself something in hand in case I find some more points later on.
Many times when following a learner driver I have very much wished that he or she had had both hands on the wheel and not one stretched out of the window.
There is quite rightly mention in the pamphlet of crossings and what one should do at halt signs, but halt signs are now almost entirely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Price or no price, it is about time we returned to the regulations, which raise the fee from £1 to £1 15s.
Mr. Berry: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have emphasised strongly enough that there are grave omissions in the way in which drivers are prepared for their tests. If they are to pay more for them, they should be better prepared to pass them, as we hope they will.
I hope that the Minister will take note of my suggestions. It is wrong that there should be no mention of the give way sign. Making such a mention would be another way of using the money. There is no mention of roundabouts, but their use should also be part of the teaching system. If people are to pay more, these things should be included. Certainly the question of driving as learners on motorways is important, and part of the increase should pay for its inclusion.
I have given a number of reasons why I think that the tests are not yet quite right. If their price is to be increased more detail should be gone into, and more points should be covered.
I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that I make these points constructively. It is my wish, and I am sure that it is the wish of all of us, that as we have more drivers, driving more cars on more roads we should have even more safety.
10.28 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am sure that the House welcomes, as I do, this opportunity to debate

879
the Regulations. At one time or another in our lives the driving test affects most of us, and it is right that the House should interest itself in matters of general public interest, whether or not they are regarded as important national issues.
Before answering the various points which have been raised in the debate, I should like, for the benefit of the House, to put the matter in its proper perspective. We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about the size of the percentage increases under the Regulations. I accept that expressed as a percentage of the existing fees the increases, if viewed in solitary state, can be made to seem large. But in monetary terms they are relatively small, 15s. paid once or twice in a lifetime.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) flogged the issue of the Government milking the motorist, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) corrected him, those concerned are the motorists of the future—the day after they pass their driving test. So it is not fair to say that on this issue we are milking the motorist. I do not accept that we are as a Government milking the motorist. The hon. Member should do his homework. We have not increased taxation by 100 per cent. this year, as he suggested—nothing of the sort. I know that he will tell us that the taxation figure has doubled, but we are not increasing taxation per motorist by 100 per cent. If vehicle ownership is steadily increasing, clearly taxation must increase also. The hon. Member ought to take this into account.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the number of motor vehicles has gone up anything like 100 per cent. in the last three years?
Mr. Brown: Certainly not, but I suggest that the hon. Member should try to keep his balance. He is getting well off balance on this issue.
All the tests are being increased by 15s. with the exception of the small number which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby questions—a matter of 300 tests on motor mowers, farm implements, and so forth that, in the main, are used off the highway, but, nevertheless, are used for not more than six miles on the highway per week. That
880
is the type of vehicle that comes into this category. It involves only about 300 tests per year. The fee is being increased as my hon. Friend said, from 2s. 6d. to 35s. Again we have to bear in mind that there has been no increase in this fee for over 30 years, and it is now for sound economic reasons that it should be increased to the standard fee for the driving test.
Hon. Members should also remember, as I said earlier, that most people take the driving test only once or twice. Very few have to take it more than three times, although when I deal with my correspondence week by week I have one or two cases, which are almost engraved on my heart already, of people who tell me that they have taken it 20 or 25 times and how unfair examiners are.
I want to examine the issue of the percentage increase a little because the hon. Member for Worcester made much play of it. I remind hon. Members opposite that the Conservative Government in 1956 increased the fee not by 75 per cent. but by 100 per cent., from 10s. to 20s. and by 1966–67 the accumulated deficit was £1·3 million as against the present figure of £2·265 million. The deficiency on the year 1966–67 was only £300,000. Last year's deficiency was £900,000. Clearly, if we are to talk pro rata we have a good case for increasing the test fee on economic grounds by much greater than 75 per cent.
Mr. Peter Walker: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's figure of £900,000 for last year when in an official Ministry of Transport Press notice on 27th June it was stated that the deficit currently was £500,000. If it was £900,000, it should be put in.
Mr. Brown: The Press statement said that it was "more than £500,000". If it had said just "£500,000" I should have had to look into the information department in the morning and find out why that was said. I might well do so.
I now deal with the reference to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. There were derogatory references to her keenness on the prices and incomes policy and so on. She is no more keen than any other member of the Government on the prices and incomes policy but we all clearly believe that it is the correct

881
policy for a successful future for the country, and that is why we are pursuing it.
There has also been criticism on the ground that here the Government are increasing prices while urging others to keep prices and incomes down. The Government's White Paper "Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969" does, of course, do just this. But it also recognises that, in certain circumstances, increases may be necessary. This is one. The increases made under these Regulations are fully justified by the criteria set out in paragraph 16 of the White Paper.
In spite of every effort to keep costs down and to improve its efficiency, the driving test organisation is now costing the taxpayer more than £900,000 each year. Last year it was £907,000. This is wrong in principle and cannot be allowed to continue. Why should the taxpayer at large subsidise the 2 million people who choose each year to take the driving test? Ever since the driving test began in 1935, it has been the policy of all Administrations, including those of the Conservative Party, that the cost of the test should be met by fees. If we seek to prevent any increase in the cost of the test or to have a smaller increase, how can it be done within the prices and incomes policy? The answer is surely that of increased productivity. But are hon. Members arguing that? The only way we can increase productivity in driving tests would be by reducing the time per test from 45 minutes to, say, 30 or 25 minutes.
Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, suggest that we should make the test more stringent and thereby severely increase costs and, on the other hand, that we should increase productivity and thereby reduce the stringency of the test. It must be either one thing or the other.
Sir Clive Bossom: We could also have mechanical auto testers. They are very expensive but would be much more efficient and could be combined with the human tester.
Mr. Brown: That seems to be a valid suggestion. I cannot answer it off the cuff but I will look into it. I would think, however, that the initial capital
882
cost would call for an increase in the test fees to cover it. I assure the House that the increases we are making are not more than are essential to meet over a reasonable period the deficits which have arisen and would continue to rise if the fees remained unchanged.
There have been suggestions of referring the increases to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. As I have said, in monetary terms the increases are small, and only once or twice in a lifetime— this is worth repeating—do people take a driving test. So there is no question of the increases having an effect on the cost of living as such or in general economic terms.
Reference has been made to the accumulated deficit. Indeed, some play was made of it in the debate. The increases will enable us not only to make good the current deficit but also to recoup the accumulated deficit which has arisen. The increases are intended for just that purpose and I do not make any bones about it.
Let us consider a little more closely the proposition advanced by hon. Members opposite and its consequences. Do they suggest that the driving test fee should be increased by Id. or 2d., or even 6d., every time a deficit is likely to arise? That would have to be done at frequent intervals if their objections to losses on past candidates being met by increases in the fees of those taking the test in future were to be met. Are the Opposition seriously suggesting that we should make small increases at frequent intervals, consulting each time all the interests concerned, as we are obliged to do by Statute, and printing amended forms, with the inevitable consequence of the public sending the wrong test fee, with all the additional work and staff which that would entail?
The hon. Gentleman made a number of references to D.L.68, the driving test pamphlet, which, I am pleased to say, he has taken the trouble to read. I wish that all candidates for the test would take the same trouble, for we might then have not so high a rate of failure. The pamphlet is currently under revision, and there will be some amendments and I assume that some of those which he has suggested will be embodied. However, little as he likes the reference to trolley

883
vehicles, trolley vehicles are still operating and this pamphlet has to have national application.
If the test fee were to be amended regularly to cover the current deficit, the administrative cost would more than eat up the pennies and twopences and, therefore, the Government's proposal is the only way in which we can cover the deficit. We do not propose that this increase should be a form of revenue for my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. The hon. Gentleman said that we would have a great surplus, but in fact in 1970–71 we shall have an accumulated deficit of more than £2 million.
Mr. Speaker: It will help the reporters in the Gallery if the hon. Gentleman will speak a little louder.
Mr. Peter Walker: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that in 1970–71 there will still be an accumulated deficit of £2 million. I have a letter from the Ministry of Transport saying that the deficit will be cleared by 1971. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is now a deficit of £2,300,000 and that there will still be a deficit of £2 million in 1970–71 and it is, therefore, impossible for this letter from the Ministry of Transport to be accurate.
Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the letter which he had earlier this year from the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of what I have said. This is not a conversation between himself and the Opposition Front Bench. The Gallery and the Press reporters want to hear what he is saying.
Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The figures in that letter were calculated before the latest pay awards and the S.E.T. increase.
Furthermore, when the increase in fee was proposed in 1967, we had expected to recover most of the accumulated deficit by 1970–71. The main reasons for the deteriorations were that we budgeted for the increase becoming effective from 1st January of this year, whereas it did not come into effect until 2nd July. We thus lost six months' receipts at the increased rates, a loss of £800,000.
Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful for that explanation, which I accept. Could I ask the hon. Gentleman to see that when in future Regulations of this sort are laid, and the Ministry has issued information only a few weeks before which becomes out of date, it will inform the House of this?
Mr. Brown: It is a fair request, and I will ask my right hon. Friend, and the Department, to give it consideration. It is fair to make the point that when we are framing a Press statement we do so in the light of events at that time. If we are overtaken by events we will reconsider it.
Mr. Ogden: The information that there will be a continuing deficit is of concern to both sides of the House. I was hoping that we could argue that there would be a surplus, used to increase the efficiency, the "rightfulness", of the test.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What we do with the surplus does not arise on this Prayer. We are deciding whether the fee should be increased from £1 to 35s.
Mr. Ogden: I would suggest to the Minister that costs should be increased, not by 15s. but more, to ensure— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot amend the Regulation, which raises the fee from £1 to 35s. There may be some other way of doing this—but not in this debate.
Mr. Brown: These Regulations only cover the increase in the fee. We have consulted interested organisations about certain proposals for amending motor vehicle driving licence Regulations and are now considering their comments.
It has been said that the motorist is being milked, and taxed too hard. I want to kill this idea. The inference is that the Exchequer should bear any accumulated deficit because the total taxes paid by the motorist exceeds the amount of Government expenditure on roads and other things to do with motoring. Most of us pay a variety of taxes, imposed by Parliament to service the Exchequer. The taxes paid by motorists are the same as those paid by any other section of the community—Purchase Tax, Income Tax—
Mr. Speaker: The Income Tax which motorists pay in common with other taxpayers is a very interesting subject, but it has nothing to do with the Prayer before us.
Mr. Brown: Petrol Tax, Excise Duty, etc.—they are all general taxes. It is a basic principle that there can be no hypothecation of the revenue derived from these general taxes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what Mr. Speaker is saying. We are debating whether the fee should be increased from £1 to 35s.. The Minister is bound by the same rules of order as the rest of the House.
Mr. Brown: I am sorry. I have been trying to reply to points made before you arrived in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I want to disabuse hon. Members of this idea that the taxpayer generally should subsidise the motoring public.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take notice of what the Chair is saying. The Prayer is against the increase in the driving licence fee from £1 to 35s. He must address his remarks to that.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply conclude by asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Prayer, or for the House to reject it.
Question put and negatived.

DUDLEY ROAD HOSPITAL, BIRMINGHAM (EAMMON LINDEN)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Price: I want to raise the question of the death of a 3½ month old boy, the son of a constituent of mine. I raise it not because I feel that this sort of case should necessarily be publicised in this way in the House, but because I think that the circumstances which surrounded both this child's death and the subsequent events raise important principles about the administration of the hospital
886
service to which I feel the Ministry should pay very close attention.
Perhaps I could first outline very briefly what happened. Mr. and Mrs. Linden have eight children. On 13th April, when the youngest was 3½ months' old, they took him to the doctor and the doctor put him on penicillin, but that general practitioner did not indicate that he was seriously ill. He got worse and two days later the doctor sent him to hospital, where he died later that evening.
On 22nd April, there was an inquest. Mr. Linden was not legally represented at all. I shall come to this point later. One reason why he was not legally represented was that he had no reason to believe that he needed to be legally represented. The coroner's verdict was death by misadventure, and the cause of death was given as acute potassium poisoning while suffering from bronchopneumonia.
At the inquest, Mr. Linden was overwrought and, as a result, at the inquest, there was no contact between those people representing the hospital and Mr. Linden and his family. One of the points I want to make is that from the point at which this child died onwards there was far too little contact between the hospital authorities and the family.
There had to be the child's funeral. Mr. Linden, who, as I say, had eight children, was unemployed at the time, and had to sell all his tools, his one remaining asset, to pay for the funeral. His wife became ill. I am glad to say that she is getting better now, but his wife had a very long period of great illness. The result of this death, in my opinion, caused far more distress subsequently than it need have done, and this is the point I would like to raise this evening.
I want basically to make to the Parliamentary Secretary two points, but before I do so I should like to emphasise what I said at the beginning, that I do not do this is any sense of hostility to the medical profession. I would like at this stage to pay tribute to the work of the doctors and nurses at this Dudley Road Hospital. I have seen for myself some of the very good work they have done, and I am not blaming anyone individually. If I am blaming anything I am blaming the system, and I think that it is here, in

887
Parliament, that we can do a great deal to tidy up the system and to make it work a great deal better.
My first point is that the events following this child's death indicated a serious lack of social awareness in the hospital service. This is a point to which attention has been drawn recently by the Royal Commission on Medical Education. The situation is such that, after a death of this kind, especially when it happens to a family of this kind, there ought to be some kind of support forthcoming from the hospital service for the family. But, of course, particularly when a death has occurred, there is the legal position to be considered. Naturally, both the doctors and the nurses do not feel that they can come out and explain all the facts when they have perhaps the threat of legal action hanging over them.
I accept this. But I contend that it is the Minister's job to make sure that in every hospital there is somebody available—whether the doctors or the nurses or somebody else—first, to explain what has happened; secondly, in a case like this, to explain to an individual affected by it what his rights are in advance of any inquest or inquiry which takes place; and, thirdly, to inform and help him with all the social support which the community, not just the hospital, can provide.
I contend that the right people in the hospital to do this are the medical social workers—the people who used to be called almoners. I hope that the Minister will do far more in future to strengthen the force of medical social workers. I understand that there are less than 20 medical social workers in the whole of the Birmingham region. If I am wrong about that, I will be pleased to be corrected by the Minister.
One of the losses which resulted after the Second World War, when the administration of the hospitals was separated from the cities which previously ran them, was an integration between the social workers of the city and of the hospitals. This has not yet been made up. I understand that the Seebohm Report is to be issued the week after next. That will talk about the personal social workers of the local authorities. I hope that the medical social workers will be integrated into that whole net-
888
work of personal social workers so that we can have an integrated network of social workers covering the whole community.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will come to the subject which he wishes to raise on the Adjournment.
Mr. Price: I am trying to put some of the points which I feel arise from this death, but I will come more quickly to the point.
The second point on the events subsequent to the death is that, where a death like this occurs, clearly the individuals concerned want to be legally represented. When the Minister wrote to me about this case he said that at the inquest Mr. Linden was not legally represented and he could have been. But in this case he had no reason to believe that he needed to be legally represented.
I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about the procedure of hospitals. When a hospital knows that a mistake has occurred, is it the duty of the hospital to inform the relatives that a mistake has occurred and that it will be necessary to have legal representation at the inquest and the inquiry which follow? I think that it is hard of the Minister to imply that it is the negligence of an individual not to be legally represented when it is only the hospital that could have told him of the need for it.
The third lack after the death was, in my view, the fact that Mr. Linden and his family felt that no information or help came forward from the hospital. When I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister subsequently, he said that it was not the job of medical social workers in a hospital to take the initiative in helping, and that it was not their job in this case. I was told that they would have given help had they been approached by the family.
That is a most unrealistic attitude, because many families, and particularly fairly humble families of this kind, could not possibly know of the existence of people like medical social workers at the hospital. I urge upon the Minister that it was very much their duty, in particular, to identify cases like this and to take the initiative when, as in this case, a child dies.

889
The Minister put it to me in the discussions which I had with him that hospitals cannot support every family in which a death occurs, because hospitals are places where people are dying all the time. That is, in a sense, their stock-in-trade.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow):I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will refine that remark, because hospitals have a very great curative job to do.
Mr. Price: Yes. I would not wish to misinterpret any attitude on the part of the Minister. I withdraw that. It was, however, put to me that the incidence of death in hospitals is such that it would be very difficult to erect a social work service to support every family in which it occurs.
When a child in a family dies in circumstances of this sort, particularly when an accident has occurred, it is a traumatic shock quite out of all proportion and of an utterly different order than when an elderly person dies, when death might be expected. It is the duty of the hospital to erect a social work service to look after families in which that occurs. I will be very interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about that, too.
I have talked about the support which, I feel, the family needed after the death, but did not get from the hospital. I suspect that it might have been the same in any other hospital. I do not blame this hospital particularly. The second aspect which I would like to raise is the accident itself. According to the coroner's report, the accident occurred because the child, who was ill at the time—although the parents certainly did not feel that he was as ill as was made out at the inquest, although I do not want to argue about that—was injected with a solution of nearly 10 per cent. potassium chloride instead of 0·9 per cent. sodium chloride. In some way, that accident occurred.
In every hospital when nurses are trained there is a drill which every nurse is taught which should make protection against accidents like this foolproof. What makes me slightly unhappy about the case is that at the inquest, where evidence was given by the student nurse
890
who collected the drug and the sister and the doctor who administered it, the implication seems to have been that it was the fault of the student nurse that the accident happened.
I should like the Minister to tell me what the Ministry is doing to make sure that the 8-point drill which every nurse should go through between the time she selects a drug from the drug cupboard and administers it to a patient is followed. There is a great deal of grapevine talk about hospitals. Some is idle chatter, but a lot is true. I am told that hospitals adopt one of two attitudes to this matter. Some follow the drill about drugs in a military way, while others adopt a far less serious attitude
A year ago I raised a question on the Adjournment about surgical accidents in hospitals. The Ministers made some very encouraging remarks about the sort of drill that should be followed there. I look forward to receiving from my hon. Friend some engaging remarks about what the Ministry is doing to make sure that this sort of accident will not happen again. I hope that the Minister will send out a circular to all hospitals emphasising once again that it is their duty to follow the drill exactly on every occasion a drug, however apparently harmless, is administered.
The argument that is often used is that this sort of situation arises due to a shortage of staff, or to the quality of staff. In my opinion, those factors make no difference to the case. The situation arises from the practices and habits of the hospitals, and I feel that it is the duty of the Minister not to be satisfied until he feels that every hospital is up to the same high exact standard in this matter.
I make no apology for raising this issue publicly, even though there is a school of thought which says that this sort of issue is best buried and forgotten. It is only by public discussion and publicity of matters such as this that the standards of our hospitals are raised. I believe that we have good hospitals, but the fact that this accident happened shows that in one or two respects they can be improved. They can be improved in the procedures they adopt for administering drugs, and they can be improved in respect of the facilities they offer for the social support of families. I

891
look forward with great interest to the help which my hon. Friend can give in those two respects.
11.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow):My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I were deeply shocked at this fatality and the sad conditions surrounding it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) is right to raise this matter and to try to clarify certain matters surrounding both the question of how the fatality occurred and the social services which are called into train in these cases.
The circumstances of the baby's death are, broadly speaking, those which my hon. Friend mentioned. The baby was brought in and admitted to Dudley Road Hospital at 7 o'clock on 15th April, Easter Monday, suffering from severe bronchial pneumonia. During the course of the treatment the child was injected with a 10 per cent. potassium chloride solution, instead of a solution of 0·9 per cent. sodium chloride, and in spite of immediate resuscitation measures the child died at 10.40 p.m. Those were the facts which were established at a coroner's inquest held on 18th April, when a verdict of death my misadventure was recorded.
My right hon. Friend has already pointed out to my hon. Friend that there has been this full investigation by the coroner into the facts of the child's death, and, of course, the doctor concerned and the nurses involved gave evidence. Mr. Linden was also present and I understand that he had the opportunity, which he took, to question the witnesses.
The regional hospital board take the view, which my right hon. Friend shares, that there would be no advantage in holding a further inquiry to investigate the facts. The doctor, the sister and the student nurse have already given their own frank account which part each played. If I may say so to my hon. Friends he, being the sensitive man that he is, will understand that for the members of the medical and nursing staff concerned this was a dreadful thing to have happened. The after-effects were
892
very noticeable in the staff concerned when the case was investigated.
I think that no further investigations into the facts are needed, but the Hospital Board rightly felt that, in addition to the coroner's inquest, there was need for an internal inquiry to see whether any further steps could be taken to minimise the risk of any similar accident occuring in the future. They therefore appointed an ad hoc committee of three people—the chairman of the hospital medical staff committee, the regional nursing officer, and the group pharmacist—to examine the hospital procedures with a view to achieving the greatest possible measure of safety for the future.
An apology is owing to my hon. Friend, because there was an implicit understanding that he would be notified about this internal inquiry and in the event he did not receive advice about it due to a failure of communications and to the fact that the hospital authorities involved were most anxious about this matter and wanted to carry out an inquiry while the facts were still clear in the minds of the people concerned.
The Report is being studied by the hospital management committee and the board, and my right hon. Friend awaits their comments on it. It is not, therefore, possible for me to say more at the present juncture than that the committee examined and reported on all the procedures connected with the storage, labelling, checking and administration of drugs at Dudley Road Hospital and the standing orders to medical and nursing staff.
It is the duty of all hospital authorities to see that drugs are safely administered, and for this it is necessary to operate recognised procedures. I should like to outline what these procedures are. A memorandum was issued in 1958 by the then Minister drawing the attention of all hospital authorities to the report of the Aitken Committee on the Control of Dangerous Drugs in hospitals and asked them to take steps to put the Committee's recommendations into effect. The Report of the Aitken Committee dealt comprehensively with all matters relating to the administration of drugs in hospital wards and departments. Appendix II of the Report suggested procedures for checking all drugs—not only dangerous drugs as

893
defined in the Dangerous Drugs Act— administered by the nursing staff.
I should like to read what this procedure is, showing the step-by-step check which was included in that recommendation:
"1. Read the prescription carefully.
2. Ascertain that the prescribed dose has not already been administered.
3. Select the drug required and check the label with the prescription.
4. Prepare the drug in the presence of a witness who should check with the prescription(a) the drug, () the calculation if any, (c) the measured dose, and (d) the name of the patient.
5. Take the measured dose and the prescription to the bedside, check the identity of the patient and administer the drug in the presence of the witness.
6. Enter the details of the administration in the appropriate record book …".
In commending the Report to hospital authorities, the Minister said that in his view checking in the manner recommended by the Committee should be a strict rule with regard to dangerous drugs and Schedule 1 poisons and where calculation or intricate preparation was required and that it was desirable on every occasion, though its rigid application to the administration of all medicines might not everywhere be practicable.
In the same circular the Minister took the opportunity of reminding hospital authorities of advice given in 1953 with regard to measures necessary to reduce the danger of the wrong solution being injected into hospital patients. In that circular, the Minister said:
"Evidence has shown that the commonest cause of a wrong injection is failure to read and check the label on the ampoule or container. Responsibility for this must always lie with the user. The person actually giving the injection should always check the label immediately beforehand."
The procedures which I have read are included in every nurse's training. Every doctor also learns that it is his responsibility to check any drug which he administers personally. The duty of hospital authorities is to ensure so far as is possible that the recognised procedures are carried out and that everything possible is done to minimise the risk of human fallibility and of momentary forgetfulness or carelessness in times of stress.
The internal Committee of Enquiry which I have mentioned will have been
894
considering whether there are any further steps that could be taken. I hope that I have dealt with the point concerning hospitals and nursing staffs.
I would like to turn now to the other point raised by my hon. Friend. Eammon Linden was admitted at 7 p.m. and his mother, accompanied by one of her daughters, was present at the hospital. When the child collapsed, the police were asked to contact Mr. Linden, asking him to get in touch with the hospital. This they did just before the child died. At the inquest, Mr. Linden said that the police contacted him at 10.30 p.m. It is customary for either a doctor or a nurse—a senior nurse—to break the news of a patient's death to the relatives, personally. When the child Eammon died, the consultant paediatrician himself broke the news to Mrs. Linden, who was still at the hospital. Afterwards, the night sister gave Mrs. Linden and her daughter a cup of tea, and looked after them until they left the hospital. I understand that they were taken home in the care of a neighbour, although the hospital would have arranged for them to be taken home.
So far as I know, Mr. Linden did not attend the hospital on the night of his child's death. The hospital authorities intended to express their sympathy in a more formal manner at the inquest, but there was an incident—a disturbance— at the inquest and there was no opportunity to express the hospital's sympathy. I cannot exactly blame Mr. Linden for this. He was over-wrought, and one has to understand the mental processes of a person subjected to this sort of investigation following quickly on the death of a child.
When the deputy secretary of the hospital management committee saw Mr. Linden some two or three weeks after the inquest, he expressed the hospital's regret. Mr. Linden told him he was considering taking legal action to claim damages for the child's death, and he was assured that if he decided to pursue this, all appropriate information would be given to him.
Mr. Christopher Price: What steps did the hospital take before the inquest to inform Mr. Linden that he might need legal advice and legal representation?
Mr. Snow: There might be a difference between my hon. Friend and myself as to where the responsibility lay for initiating any legal action. This is a matter to which I have paid particular attention, but, in certain circumstances, it is normally for a person feeling aggrieved at law to take the initiative himself. In tragic cases like this, and having due regard to the knowledge which a parent may have had about procedures, there is an element of doubt about who should have taken the initiative.
Unfortunately, Mr. Linden did not request the hospital to give any advice. We have given hospital authorities power to arrange and to pay for the burial of patients who die in hospital where the responsible relatives are unable to obtain a death grant and cannot otherwise afford to arrange for burial. The Minister has undertaken to consider most sympathetically an ex gratia grant in this matter. If Mr. Linden has details of the funeral expenses, then appropriate action will be taken, but it may be that Mr. Linden would like to write to my hon. Friend himself in this matter.
896
Mistakes which contributed to this death were human, but extremely rare. Hospital authorities always seek to improve their procedures in the event of a case like this and all matters are taken into the very fullest consideration.
It is for me to express to Mr. and Mrs. Linden the regret of my right hon. Friend and myself in this matter. I cannot say more than that we will see that Mr. Linden is treated in a fair manner. We are looking at the procedures now in the light of this event. There may be a weak link in relation to responsibility for initiating help. I do not accept that this is something which can necessarily be blamed on my Department, but we must try to legislate as far as we can for tragic cases like this.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building Programme, Reading
  School Building Programme, Reading
  Youth Service (Fairbairn and Milson Committees)
  Youth Service (Fairbairn and Milson Committees)
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
  Postgraduate Studentships (Rates of Grant)
  Postgraduate Studentships (Rates of Grant)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Laser Listener Devices (Security)
  Laser Listener Devices (Security)
  Court Fines (Arrears)
  Court Fines (Arrears)
  Shotgun Certificates
  Shotgun Certificates
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
PORTS
  Bristol West Dock Scheme
  Bristol West Dock Scheme
BOARD OF TRADE
  Factories (Assistance)
  Factories (Assistance)
  Industrial Development, South Yorkshire Area
  Industrial Development, South Yorkshire Area
  Special Development Areas (New Employment)
  Special Development Areas (New Employment)
  Peterlee (New Industry)
  Peterlee (New Industry)
  Industrial Statistics (Government Departments)
  Industrial Statistics (Government Departments)
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Industrial Development Certificates, Nelson and Colne
  Industrial Development Certificates, Nelson and Colne
AVIATION
  Pilots' Log Books (Departure and Arrival Times)
  Pilots' Log Books (Departure and Arrival Times)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order, 1968
  Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order, 1968
  Gibraltar (Manpower Mission)
  Gibraltar (Manpower Mission)
TECHNOLOGY
  Sonic Bang Tests
  Sonic Bang Tests
  Departmental Responsibilities
  Departmental Responsibilities
  NORTHERN IRELAND (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  NORTH-EAST REGION (DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES)
  NORTH-EAST REGION (DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES)
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW EMPLOYMENT)
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (NEW EMPLOYMENT)
  EQUAL PAY (DISCUSSIONS)
  EQUAL PAY (DISCUSSIONS)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY)
  MINISTERS' OVERSEAS VISITS
  MINISTERS' OVERSEAS VISITS
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Nationalised Industries (Pricing Policies)
  Nationalised Industries (Pricing Policies)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MINISTERIAL MEETING)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MINISTERIAL MEETING)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Joint Anti-Submarine School (Location)
  Joint Anti-Submarine School (Location)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Social Security Benefits (Expenditure)
  Social Security Benefits (Expenditure)
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Trustee Savings
  Trustee Savings
  Cinemas (Selective Employment Tax)
  Cinemas (Selective Employment Tax)
  Unilever (Dividends)
  Unilever (Dividends)
  British International Airports (Alcoholic Liquor)
  British International Airports (Alcoholic Liquor)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Greater London Council (Travel Expense Mileage Allowance)
  Greater London Council (Travel Expense Mileage Allowance)
HOUSING
  Housing Cost Criteria
  Housing Cost Criteria
COAL
  Opencast Mining, North Warwickshire
  Opencast Mining, North Warwickshire
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ex-Colonial Commonwealth Countries (Pensions, Grants and Loans)
  Ex-Colonial Commonwealth Countries (Pensions, Grants and Loans)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Departmental Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Departmental Ministers (Overseas Visits)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Redesigned Directories (Explanatory Leaflet)
  Redesigned Directories (Explanatory Leaflet)
SCOTLAND
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Temporary Education Building Work
  Temporary Education Building Work
WALES
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR TECHNOLOGY
3.6 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to the ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what matters the Advisory Council for Technology of the Ministry of Technology discusses and when a report of its activities may be expected.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Advisory Council on Technology meets to advise generally on the policies of the Ministry. Its proceedings, at which the Minister takes the chair, are necessarily confidential. Matters discussed include those of immediate interest as well as important long-term policy issues which involve the work of the Department. For these reasons, a report of the Council's activities would not be practicable.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I say that I find it disappointing? It confirms the impression—
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord should ask a question.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: Is the noble Lord aware that I find his answer disappointing? Will it not confirm the impression of quite a number of people who are deeply interested in the activities of the Ministry of Technology and deeply appreciative of the complexity and difficulty of the many
1080
problems it has to deal with, but who feel that it keeps too close to its chest the means by which it reaches its decisions? May I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think there is more merit in the arrangements which exist within the corresponding Council of the Department of Education and Science, the Council for Scientific Policy, which was established at the same time as the Ministry of Technology's Council, which has already issued two reports, and which has as a representative on it a member from the Technology Council? May I ask whether it would not be appropriate for this member at least to make a report to the Council for Scientific Policy?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was overdoing it a little. The fact that the two bodies were established at the same time does not necessarily mean that they exercise similar functions. The other Council has a specific obligation to report. The Advisory Council for Technology is an advisory body to advise the Minister, and I feel that the noble Lord has really misconceived its purpose. Having looked at some of the subjects that this Advisory Council has discussed, it is quite obvious to me that it exists to help in formulating policy and advising the Minister personally, rather than to issue independently arrived at views which could be the subject of a report. I assure the noble Lord that it would not be appropriate for this particular body to do so.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could not the noble Lord give us some indication of the subjects which this Council has recently been discussing?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have a very long list if the noble Earl wants to hear it. It has discussed such matters as the Government's industrial policy, the Ministry's research policy, the "Brain-drain" Report, international technological co-operation, public purchasing and industrial efficiency—all the kind of matters on which it is sometimes helpful for a Minister to get advice from those outside his Department. It is quite clear that this is the purpose of this particular body.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is great interest in these very

1081
important subjects, and that the noble Lord has made a good point for issuing a report?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has misconceived the idea of this Council. Surely it is possible for a Minister to appoint people to advise him. I think most of us would welcome the idea of Ministers' having some outside advice. But to require thereafter that they should report on the advice they give seems to me to be rather overdoing it. There are a great many reports in this field.
LORD CARRON: My Lords, as an exmember of the Advisory Council, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that if matters discussed were not regarded as confidential many of the advisers to the Minister from industry would not be prepared to speak as clearly as they do at present?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has strengthened the case of direct knowledge. It is quite correct.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would say whether the Minister ever takes the advice tendered by the Council.

PROPOSED EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
3.11 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: 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 what progress is being made towards the establishment of a European Technological Institute; whose advice is being sought; and what functions are envisaged for it, as distinct from those being performed by the existing technological institutions.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Govern-
1082
ment are still engaged in informal talks with other European countries. Discussions have also taken place with the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the National Economic Development Council. The Confederation of British Industry have also been discussing the question of industrial and technological co-operation with the corresponding organisations in other European countries. In the view of Her Majesty's Government there is some need for some machinery to concern itself with the analysis of the European market for particular products and the capacity of European industries to exploit the market opportunities and the examination of methods by which any deficiencies can be overcome, so that the European industries concerned can be made fully competitive in the world markets.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply? I appreciate that the establishment of this Institute is not possible at present, but may I ask him whether he could at the same time tell us a little of two other proposals which I understand are also under consideration, one for a European Institute of Science and Technology which is being promoted by the working group of the North Atlantic Assembly, and another for a European Investment Development Company, made by the European Public Enterprise sector? Could he assure us that effective means are available for coordinating the consideration of these proposals and for implementing them, if approved?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the question of investment is wide of the original Question, but if the noble Lord will put down another Quest on at some time we will answer it. So far as the project which is being developed under the North Atlantic Assembly is concerned, that is for an academic institute and as such is quite distinct from the United Kingdom proposal, which was for a technological centre which would have much more than academic functions and interests. So these two proposals are quite separate.

PRICES AND INCOMES BOARD REPORTS
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes have been made to them; how many of such reports recommended a lowering of prices; how many of such recommendations for lower prices have been implemented; how many of these recommendations for price reductions applied to the nationalised industries and what action has been taken by the nationalised industries concerned.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the National Board for Prices and Incomes has made 76 reports (including two general reports). Of these 40 related to prices and charges and in two of these price reductions were recommended. In one of these two cases a reduction in soap prices was made and in the other, Mallory mercury hearing-aid batteries, discussions are still taking place.
In 14 other cases, the Board's reports recommended that price increases be deferred or modified, and I am glad to say that action has been taken as recommended by the Board. The goods and services concerned in these reports included gas, the bulk supply of electricity and rail fares.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that full and comprehensive Answer, as a result of which I have no supplementary question to put.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will take me some time to recover from that.

WEST GERMAN EMERGENCY LAWS
3.16 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what endorsement they have given to the Emergency Laws (Notstandsgesetze) promulgated by the Government of West Germany.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before the passage of the legislation by the German Parliament, the Three Powers jointly assured the Federal Government at the latter's request that, if these emergency laws were enacted, they would regard the rights temporarily retained under Article 5(2) of the Bonn Convention as having lapsed. Her Majesty's Government were not called upon to endorse the legislation in any way other than this, and indeed had no standing for doing so.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply may I ask him whether he is aware that in West Germany there is a great deal of opposition by liberal elements, including the trade union movement, and particularly the youth among the Social Democratic Party, to this legislation; and is there not a danger that emergency laws introduced to defend democracy may in time be used to defeat democracy? Is that in the minds of the Allies when they are considering the association with this legislation.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far the first part of the question is concerned, whatever opposition there may have been to this in Germany has been resolved by the due democratic process and the legislation has been passed by the German Parliament. We have every confidence in the basic stability and vigilance of the Federal Government, and its ability to protect the democratic process in Western Germany.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I also ask my noble friend whether he is aware (there is no reason why he should be) that while I saw the original proposals I have not seen the Act in its final form; and can he confirm the fact that

1085
it includes the use of armed forces, the conscription of all men between the ages of 18 and 45, the suspension of trade union and civil rights, imprisonment without trial, and rule by decree without Parliamentary consent? And does he regard these as contributions towards democracy.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, whatever emergency contingency measures may be contained in this legislation, every society, however democratic it may be, needs to have this kind of emergency law. The effect of this law as my noble friend will know, so far as the interests of this country are concerned, is that it now gives to the Federal Republic of Germany the duty and responsibility of ensuring the protection of the security of all armed forces stationed on West German territory. That is the only direct interest that Her Majesty's Government have in this legislation, and we undertook that when it was passed we would transfer these responsibilities to the Federal Republic. We have no other direct interest in this legislation.
LORD INGLE'WOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it also includes a power to take away passports?

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that it will be for the optimum convenience of the House if we adjourn the Committee stage of the Transport Bill at about 7.30 p.m. this evening. We shall then proceed to the other business on the Order Paper.
HOVERCRAFT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to; with another of the Amendments agreed to but with a further Amendment to the Bill and a consequential Amendment; and with the remaining Amendment agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendments to be printed.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House dc again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 95 [Permitted driving time and periods of duty]:
The EARL OF SELKIRK The EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 126, line 29, leave out ("or (c)") and insert ("(c) or (d)".)
The noble Earl said: This is an introductory Amendment to the main Amendment, No. 236A, which is an additional sub-paragraph to paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 95. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has gone to Nigeria, though I am sure the Government are very fortunate to have him do so, because I should have been very glad to have his support on this Amendment on which he speaks with more cogency and experience than I do. My information on this subject comes from being the President of the National Ski Federation of Great Britain who are naturally concerned at the effects that this Bill, as drafted, will have or day excursions taken by young people. This applies particularly to young people, because many older people have their own cars and are not covered by this Bill.
This clause, like most of the Bill, is full of criminal offences, and a superficial reading of the Bill might leave the impression that the Government were wholly against transport. I do not think that that is so; I think it would be misconceiving the Government's intention, and I take my cue from a reading of the words of the White Paper on Transport which says:
"One of the most precious achievements of modern civilisation is mobility. It enriches social life and widens experience".
In view of that, I hope I shall have some support for this Amendment from the Government, because I do not believe that they want the effects of the Bill as drafted to be such as they are.
The problem here lies in Clause 95 (3) (c), which lays down that the working day is limited to 14 hours. If your Lordships will look at the interpretation of "working day" in Clause 102, you will see that the working day includes any period of the day from the time a man starts work to the time he finishes, whether or not he is on duty during that time. May I give one or two examples, supplied to me largely by the Scottish Ski Federation. They have made a fairly close examination of what is happening. These figures are probably well known to the Government, but it is just as well to remind them now. It has been found that in the cases of day excursions—and I am talking particularly about holiday excursions for young children, university students and youth clubs—these young people leave their home town in the early morning and go to some mountain area for hiking, climbing, skiing, or whatever it is, spend the whole day there and go back in the evening. That is the type of enterprise that I am sure everyone in this House wants to encourage and not stop, but it is pretty nearly prevented from taking place by the terms of the Bill as at present drafted.
An examination of the present system shows that in the great majority of cases the total time between departure and return exceeds 14 hours, but in very few cases were the driving hours in excess of six. An examination has been made of 74 different routings; there are many different routings which take in different places. In only 12 cases did driving hours exceed eight, and never more than nine, and they averaged about six. The remainder of the time was taken up with
1088
breaks for breakfast or coffee, long hours in the car park at the bottom of the hill or ski lift, which may be six or eight hours, lying in the heather or enjoying the sun, the evening meal or refreshment on return, making in many cases a total exceeding 14 hours. If this provision is insisted on, activities of this character will be seriously curtailed.
I seek to make an Amendment on the lines I think the Government would like to proceed with this Bill; that is to say, through regulations. The subsection dealing with these regulations which I have put here—and of course the Government are free to make the regulations entirely as they like—reads as follows:
"if during that day the vehicle or vehicles which he is driving is or are being used in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity the driving hours and working hours may be prescribed by the Minister."
There is, in fact, another way of doing it, and I suggest this only because the noble Lord may be interested in it. There is a curious conflict between the interpretation of the working day in Clause 102 and the interpretation of an interval for rest in subsection (4) of Clause 95. In subsection (4) a rest period counts although the driver may be liable to be called for duty, but the rest period as defined in the working day is counted in the working day, even though the driver is not required for duty during a specified time. The only difference is whether or not the period amounts to 11 hours. That is to say, in one case it is counted in the working day, although he may not be required for duty for quite a number of hours, and in the other case it is not counted as a period of duty although he may be on call. It seems to me a possibility that the definition of the working day might be changed to suit the particular circumstances which I have outlined to the noble Lord here.
I hope the Government will be able to meet this point. I do not believe they want to curtail this kind of activity I believe they would like to encourage it. I hope they will make suggestions which will mean that this type of activity can be carried on as now. It affects a large number of people, and I hope an increasing number of people—not only young people but people engaged in the business of driving, hotel-keepers and indeed the

1089
development of the whole area. I beg to move.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to support everything the noble Earl has said. I am President of the Ski Club of Great Britain, and many of our members, particularly young people, go out from the industrial North on these expeditions into Scotland to ski and to climb and to walk. There is among those who organise these parties for the young great anxiety about the effects that this Bill will have on all these excursions. The noble Earl has put in great detail, and very clearly, the problems and the difficulties which exist. I hope the Government will look very carefully at the position and try to see that these excursions are not prevented, as I fear they may well be if the Bill goes through in its present form.
There is another point. At that time of the year when a vehicle goes away for a day like that there can be delays, perhaps due to an accident on the ski slopes, possibly because of fog or mist or snow or icy roads. This delay might unwittingly produce contravention of the provisions in this Bill. I hope that the Government will look long and earnestly and try to put right what seems to be contrary to the general national interest.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I listened to your Lordships' debate for several hours on Tuesday in the hope that I might have an opportunity of supporting this Amendment by the noble Earl. I came to two conclusions, after sitting here some time: that speeches should be at an inverse ratio to the length of the Bill and that your Lordships could be excused for rechristening this Bill the "Transport Flexibility Bill". Flexibility was the recurring refrain proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers to stave off Amendments from the Opposition Benches which to me, at any rate, had improving merit. Always, it seemed to me, noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite refused to write into the Bill the promise of flexibility, but hoped that the Minister (perhaps it was a pious hope; I do not know) would later make exemptions by order. These concessions, or exemptions, by order will require to be legion if hardship is to be avoided for many sections of the community with
1090
no obvious connection with transport at all. Not only do increased transport costs retard the initiative and the enterprise among those in industry, but the extra burdens seep through to affect adversely every facet of living of the ordinary people.
I thought it was laudable that the Government should try to lay down reasonable limits for the working day and week of the driver. But, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, the Government, in so doing, may in this case, among other things, destroy some of the good work they are doing for youth in trying to make them active participators in healthy outdoor activities, rather than have them remain inactive spectators of town football matches or coffee d-inkers in cafes. If flexibility of approach is needed anywhere in this Bill, it is where the Bill may affect adversely the interests of youth. As the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, have pointed out, there are long rests for the bus driver taking youth on excursions to the ski-slopes, or climbers to the mountains. This is known, and should be assessed and taken into account by the Minister in this Bill. Through the Sports Council the Government must be fully aware of the blockading effect their proposed legislation would have on the youth movements of this country. To reconcile the drivers' welfare with the needs of the youth of our country to have easy and cheap access to our glens and bens makes it necessary to amend this Bill as the noble Earl suggests, or in some way that will give effect to his intentions. It might be done by direct Government grant through their Sports Council, which would offset the increased costs to these youth excursions out to the country. I should be glad to know what is the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on that possibility.
LORD HENLEY: I do not underestimate how difficult it is to put into practice what the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and myself want to do, and it is interesting that this difficulty did not become apparent until the Bill had almost finished going through another place. When it did become apparent, and we tried to see how it could be put right, it was immediately obvious to us that it opened up a great many other difficulties and anomalies. Nevertheless,

1091
we put down an Amendment. Indeed, we changed that Amendment and put down another—that which is before your Lordships. It may be that the Government cannot accept it in its present form, but I hope that they will look at it and see whether they can devise some means for doing what we want. If they do not devise some means for doing what we want, I fear that it will inhibit certain kinds of sporting activities which none of us want to inhibit, or it will lead to widespread disregard of the law in this respect. As I say, I know how difficult it is, but I believe that it can be done and that the Government may be able to tell us how it should be done.
3.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman. It happened to me many times in another place that I had prepared an excellent speech and at the end of the day was frustrated from delivering it. I congratulate the noble Lord on his excellent speech which was not wasted, and that he has now been able to get it off his chest. The only thing that I should have liked is that before delivering it he had read subsection (10), because I think he would have found that this would have given him all the flexibility that he is demanding.
Let me say at once that the Government have not the slightest intention of doing anything which would deprive young people of legitimate or proper opportunities for sporting activities of the kind described, or indeed of any sporting activities; nor do I accept for one moment that this is what the Bill does. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he is quite wrong in thinking that it was not until the Bill was well advanced in another place that we considered this particular proposition. The organisation to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred and of which he is President and my noble friend Lord Hunt is President-elect, the Scottish National Ski Council, have made full representations to my Department, which have been most carefully considered and are still under consideration.
The noble Earl, indeed, recited the suggestions from the Ski Council, which are that a limit of 18 hours should be allowed for drivers of express or contract
1092
carriages used in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity, provided that the aggregate driving time does not exceed eight, or preferably eight and a half hours. They say, and we know it is true, that it is common for a party to be taken by a coach to the ski-ing slopes and after some hours there to be driven back, involving a working day of 14 to 18 hours for the driver. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, said that he feared there could possibly be contraventions of this provision. I would assure him that some of the situations we have had described to us as happening are contraventions of the present circumstances. There is no question about that.
I want now to consider just what the proposed changes involve. I would say at once to the noble Earl—I assure him firmly on this—that the provision for which he asks in his Amendment is quite unnecessary, because the Minister already has the power under subsection (10) of Clause 95 which will repay careful consideration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Does the noble Lord mean subsection (10) or subsection (12)?
LORD STONHAM: I said, and I mean, subsection (10), a subsection which, incidentally, we considered closely on Tuesday night when the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, raised a question about snow ploughs. It is the same subsection. It gives power to make regulations to create exemptions from the requirements of subsection (3) of Clause 95 to meet any special need, and if the new limits on drivers' hours can be shown to cause serious difficulties they can, and will, be tackled in that way. It would be necessary to be satisfied that any relaxations were justifiable in safety terms as well as in terms of assisting particular types of sporting operation; because in addition to wishing to do and doing all we possibly can to encourage participation in sports by young people, and indeed by older people as well, we must have consideration for the rest of the population in regard to safety, and indeed for the welfare and well being of the drivers of the vehicles concerned. But excursions for sporting activities cover an extremely wide field—for example, football matches—and in many cases there will be no difficulty about fitting the journey

1093
into the statutory requirements, taking into account the latitude already allowed for for express and contract work under subsection (3)(c) of Clause 95, to which I would also draw the noble Earl's attention.
As regards the particular case of ski or climbing excursions—and I apologise for my speech being rather long, but I want to satisfy noble Lords on this particular point—I venture first to say that an 18-hour-long day is even longer than permitted by the existing law. That is the point I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. At present the working day is normally limited to 14 hours by the need for ten hours rest in each 24, counting from the beginning of any spell of driving. In the case of the driver of any express or contract carriage the rest period can be reduced from the normal 10 hours to eight hours once a week, if the driver has had four hours for rest and refreshment at a destination; but even in this case the working day cannot be spread over more than 16 hours. So, in so far as the noble Lord is asking for an overall day of 18 hours, and in so far as he is alleging that this happens now, then it is illegal, and I am sure he would not persist in any demand of that kind.
We have gone into this matter very carefully, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, arid I will prove it by giving details of a typical example of a day excursion for ski enthusiasts from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Aviemore, Glenshee or Glenmore. The journey time varies from five to six hours, including in the case of Glenshee and Glenmore a refreshment stop at Perth or somewhere in the neighbourhood of Perth. A day excursion would involve a driver leaving at, say, 8 o'clock in the morning and arriving at the ski centre at 1 p.m. if it were Aviemore, or about 2 p.m. if it were Glenshee or Glenmore. He would leave again about 6 p.m. in the evening so as to get back by 11 o'clock or 11.30 at night. This is a public excursion (express carriage) licensed by the traffic commissioners and would just fit into the 16-hour day. A similar excursion conveying a private party would not require a road service licence, but the same drivers' hours requirements apply under existing law and under this Bill.
1094
According to the Ski Council, over 80 per cent. of drivers of the day excursions have a 14 to 18-hour day, although an average of six hours and a maximum of eight to nine hours only is spent in driving. The Ski Council memorandum points out that many parties, especially from the North of England, travel up for the whole week-end, staying in an hotel, Friday and Saturday nights, and the drivers are likely to have a day exceeding 14 hours only on Sunday. That also means the possibility of two drivers. But under the Bill the use of two drivers will rarely be of advantage because, apart from cost, it does not help in meeting the new drivers' hours requirements. Under Section 73(4) of the 1960 Act, the time spent on a public service vehicle as a passenger is not reckoned as time spent in "driving", but no such dispensation is given in Clause 95 of this Bill. In other words, driving is driving time. As a result, a relief driver travelling with a vehicle always has the same limit to the working day as the driver who drives at the commencement of the journey. The bus industry have drawn our attention to this point in the context of long-distance coaches but without making any specific representations for the use of exemption powers.
We should certainly be unwilling, and I hope noble Lords including the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would be unwilling, to consider a relaxation beyond the 16-hours specified in existing legislation. I am sure that nobody wants that. As regards the reduction of this limit to 14 hours under the Bill, we already have considered and we shall continue to consider very carefully the case put forward by the Ski Council and any representations made by the bus operators themselves whose responsibility it is to observe these statutory requirements. But this particular point has riot been made to date in any representations from the bus operators' national associations.
This is not the only one. The other evening my noble friend Lord Wigg raised a point about horse-boxes and hours worked in conveying horses; and of course there are greyhounds and other livestock where we have to consider whether the spreadover will meet particular requirements. But I assure the noble Earl that his Amendment is unnecessary, and that if the new limits on drivers'

1095
hours can be shown to cause serious difficulties, whether it be in connection with ski-ing or in the movement of horses or greyhounds or other livestock, then under regulations which can be made under subsection (10) of Clause 95, if the "special need" is shown, regulations will most certainly be considered by the Minister. We have this matter very much in mind. Our intentions are no less than those of the noble Earl, and the only point on which we insist is that we are certainly not prepared in any case to allow the hours to be longer than they are at present, and we certainly must at all times consider the safety of all who use the roads and the wellbeing of the drivers.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: Could the noble Lord clarify the position of a driver who has perhaps driven a party to the ski-fields and is then not required for duty for 6 or 8 hours, so that he has plenty of time to have a rest? Everybody knows that the 'bus is not leaving until 4 or 5 in the afternoon, what is the position there? It seems to me that that is the kind of occasion that creates real difficulty. There is not very much driving time; there is plenty of time for the driver to sleep and rest. But, so far as I understand the position, those hours when he is not on duty and when he can sleep and rest count as duty. Am I wrong, or is that right?
Lord STONHAM: The noble Lord is perfectly right that the total hours spent on the job count as duty, and the Bill proposes, under normal conditions, a limit of 14 hours. Whether the time is spent driving or sleeping, if you like, until the journey back, it counts as part of the ordinary period of 14 hours. What I am saying in addition is that the Bill, as now drafted, allows the Minister, if the need can be shown, to make regulations which would meet the kind of situation which the noble Lord, the noble Earl, and my noble friend Lord Wigg, and others, have in mind.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: May I just add a word of support to my noble friend Lord Selkirk's plea for this exemption, which is really what is asked for here. We recognise that in Clause 95(10), the Minister has this power, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made the point that 18 hours would be in
1096
excess of the law as it stands to-day. I think it would be perhaps asking a little much to ask him to go beyond that, but obviously it would be very valuable if there were a prospect that the Minister would be sympathetic to continuing the present arrangement of a weekly journey, a once-a-week journey, at 16 hours. This would cover, I imagine, most of the excursions to which my noble friend is referring. These are special cases, and it was, I think, welcome to all of us to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the Government have needs like this very much in mind. I felt sure they would have, and I am glad to hear it; and if the noble Lord were able to tell us that the Minister will consider sympathetically making an exemption that would allow the continuation of the 16-hour weekly excursion, as under the present law, I think that would go a long way to meeting this particular need. I am bound to say that the noble Lord has my sympathy when he says that he cannot extend it for an extra couple of hours, when one remembers that the Bill seeks to reduce the hours.
LORD POPPLEWELL: There is another side to this story. Of course everybody wants to do everything possible to encourage young people to go on these sporting trips into the open air, but there is a genuine difficulty that the bus driver, who may have been driving for five or six hours, arrives at his destination and is asked to stand down possibly for five, six, seven, eight or nine hours. Where does he get his rest? He is in charge of the bus, and has to bring the young people back home from the sporting event. Several accidents have occurred, and questions have arisen as to whether the person in charge of the vehicle has been a little overtired at the time.
Because of the safety factor, I feel that we ought not to press my noble friend to go further than he has done. If a bus was taking a sporting party to a certain venue and would be travelling for five or six hours, or even longer, one way to get over the difficulty would be to provide a relief driver. The additonal cost involved would be negligible, or very small compared to the distance the bus would have to travel. I look at this matter from a practical point of view, since I know the great strain that is

1097
imposed by these split turns when a driver goes a long distance and then has nowhere to rest. It is no use saying that he can go to sleep in the bus. One knows what happens when these drivers get to their destination. They try to have a rest, or they just hang about and probably go for a drink or so. They are human beings, and if there is a pub open they probably go into it. My noble friend has gone a long way towards recognising the difficulties and in making the offer which he has made. Therefore I think that we should press him no further.
LORD KAHN: Noble Lords who have spoken in favor of the Amendment have been in favour of organised active participation in sporting activities. I am worried by the wider discretionary powers possessed by the Minister under subsection (10). I should like to express the hope that the Minister's sympathy will be mainly in the direction of organised active participation in sporting activities and very much less in favour of organised passive participation in sporting activity, even though it may be strongly supported by the enterprise which provide3 the transport.
LORD MITCHISON: If I may return to the Amendment, it appears to be rather limited. It does not propose an exemption, but provides that in certain widely defined cases the matter should be left to the Minister. The Bill itself contains another power for the Minister to make proper provision in cases of special need. I listened to all the instances which were given and I could not find one which did not fall within the words "special need". Under the terms of the Amendment, in the case of a sporting activity the Minister is not bound to do anything; he is required only to consider the matter. It is left to him. Under the Bill he is equally bound to consider the question in the rather wider context of special need.
I suggest that this is the wrong sort of Amendment, and that this matter ought to be left to the Minister. If one puts into the Bill a number of specific cases, one will leave out a number of others and so will be narrowing what the Minister will consider to be "special need". It is quite wrong to try to cover
1098
every case which might occur by writing it into the Bill. In cases of this kind there has to be a discretionary power. It is better to leave it in general terms.
Nobody, however ingenious, will be able to think of all the cases which the Minister will be able to consider in the Bill as it is. Another consideration is that transport and the requirements of transport change with the passage of time. If one thought of all the special cases which apply at present, they would not necessarily embrace all the special cases which would have to be met in future. It is therefore necessary to leave a discretionary power with the Minister to deal with the matter and to have the provision in general terms, rather than to narrow its effect by writing specific cases into the Bill.
I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. I am not speaking on any particular Party line. I am speaking as a lawyer who both in this House and in another place over a long period of time, has had to deal with the language of Bills. I am sure that I am right in saying that it is a mistake to try to include all these cases. One must reconcile, on the one hand, the safety of the public and decent conditions of work for the driver with, on the other hand, the need in a number of cases to have exceptionally long hours. The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will be glad to hear that there is provision in the Bill for rest and also for refreshment, so that the driver will not have to starve—and will even be allowed to have a drink.
3.59 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. I would point out that in Scotland one does not know in advance whether or not the snow will be there. One does not know whether it is going to be a sunny weekend until on a Friday night one hears the B.B.C. say so in the weather news. These young people are going to want their trucks at short notice. If it is to be impossible to obtain a truck because reference has to be made to London or to the Minister, then this is the sort of situation that will land Scotland in a frenzy of despair. You cannot blame them. They have to refer to Whitehall matters which ought to be looked at locally.

1099
I know that there is provision, in the text to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred, for reference to local licensing authorities, but I should like to invite the noble Lord to inform the Committee a little more closely. Is it possible for him to give us an assurance for instance, that to the greatest degree possible flexible arrangements will be laid on by which permission can be granted locally, and by which there will not have to be long-distance telephone calls to London and references to a Minister, which take three weeks to go through? Can a standing permission be given, in exceptional circumstances, to certain truck owners and drivers to carry young people when the weather is good, or when the snow happens to be there? I assure the Government that this is of very great importance to the young people.
LORD STONHAM: So far as Lord Hankey's question is concerned, about the young people not knowing until the Friday night whether the snow will be there, that has nothing to do with the matter, and it is really quite absurd to suggest that, if it was there on Friday night, they would then have to apply to the Minister for permission. The Minister will deal with a situation generally. There will be a class of exemptions, and if this one were agreed it would be one of a class. The provision in the subsection lower down, to which the noble Lord referred, for reference to a local commissioner (and, by the way, it could be a retrospective reference) is to cover a sudden emergency—not to enable people to ski on snow, but to shift it out of the way so that people can use the roads. It is for that kind of emergency. I hope the noble Lord is fully satisfied on that point.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Popplewell, because from his very great practical knowledge and experience he put the difficulties of the workers in this matter. I do not put this forward as a reproach, but it seems to me that in so many of the arguments from the Benches opposite the well-being of the workers in transport has been the very last consideration in noble Lords' minds. There should be a balance in this matter.
My noble friend Lord Mitchison mentioned a matter of which any noble Lord
1100
who has ever been a Minister must be aware: that the more examples of exceptions you put into a Bill, the less flexibility there is and the more you restrict the Minister's discretion. If you were to put in, for example, ski-ing and horseboxes, you would immediately imply that greyhounds did not count. Those noble Lords who are pressing for exemptions and exceptions to be written into the Bill are not pressing for flexibility; they are pressing for rigidity.
The noble Lord, Lord Kahn, asked me whether, in making regulations, the Minister would favour what I might call organised participation in sports, as opposed to spectator participation. I may not be quoting the noble Lord accurately, but I think that is what he had in mind. I can assure him that exemptions can be made according to the merits of the case being considered, and, quite obviously, the ski-ing case would have greater merit. Another factor is that in most cases that I can think of at the moment, if there is merely spectator participation, the people can probably be taken there and back well within a 14-hour day.
I should like to come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. He fully understands my position, because he has himself been in the same boat many times. I must say to the noble Lord—I hope he will accept this—that I am sure he would not expect me to give an open-ended assurance. Secondly, I must remind him that my right honourable friend the Minister has made it clear that there cannot be a mass of exemptions. If they were granted so readily, quite obviously it would destroy this clause of the Bill and there would be no purpose at all in having it. But, equally, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will very carefully consider—and has already said so—making exemptions if a good case is made out.
As regards the question about 16 hours, of course I cannot say that the period would be 16 hours. What I can say, however, is that unless it was more than 14 hours there would be no purpose at all in regulation, because it would be in the Bill. I think we have had an extremely useful debate. I hope that the ski-ing associations, both in Scotland and in England, will feel that their case will be fully looked after by the Bill and by

1101
the Minister, and that other similar sporting organisations will feel the same way. I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD BALERNO: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether he is aware that a great many of these trips to the ski-slopes, especially in winter, are made in mini-buses and mini-vans which are commercial vehicles but usually owned by a single individual? I presume that vehicles such as these, which have a commercial licence, will come under the regulation in this part of the Bill. Being individually owned, these vehicles can travel very cheaply for quite a long time, and the owners can start very early.
May I point out to the noble Lord, that it is not much good arriving at Avie-more to ski at 1 p.m. on a winter's afternoon? It is necessary to get there very early. It would still be dark, under standard, time, on arrival, but not by the time you have your skis on and get on to the ski-lift. You see the sun rise as you go up—which is the ideal thing to do if it is a fine morning on a winter's day. If it continues to be a fine day, you will not want to be off that slope until 6 o'clock standard time, and it will be 7 o'clock before you can possibly get back into your bus to go home. That means a start from Edinburgh, or Glasgow, at about 6 or 6.30 in the morning, and you will not be back much before 11 p.m. if you have a good meal on the way back. Therefore, I think that the hours which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave are not in accordance with the circumstances as they exist. I am saying this from experience, through having helped to organise ski parties of boys going up to the Cairngorms and other parts.
LORD STONHAM: I have no doubt that there are special arrangements which would get you from Edinburgh to Aviemore at 9 o'clock in the morning. But the skiers would not have to look out of the window, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, suggested, to see whether there was any snow, because it would be pitch dark then. But the times which I quoted, of leaving at 8 o'clock and getting there at I o'clock, allowing for refreshments, are actual times. I was quoting not imaginary times but actual times of
1102
buses and coaches. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, of that.
With regard to his question about individually owned vehicles, it does not matter whether they are mini-t uses or even private cars. If they are used for hire or reward, the drivers come under these regulations in the Bill, which means that if there were not regulations making special arrangements for these ski-journeys the total day for the driver would be 14 hours. If regulations were made allowing a longer overall working day, they would be the same for minibus or private car drivers as for coach or bus drivers. I think we are all agreed that that is so. It may well be—I do not know—that if special regulations are made, it might not be possible for somebody in Edinburgh to hire a minibus to leave at 4 o'clock in the morning and not get back until one o'clock the next morning. That might well be possible. He might enjoy one or two less runs or miss seeing the sunset; but if thereby, by that supreme deprivation, it saved one or two lives on the road, it would be worth while.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for the trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has taken in answering this Amendment. He has answered as fully as I know he is able, and I am very grateful to him. As a matter of fact, I never mentioned 18 hours the whole time I spoke, but I know that he was speaking from the brief which was given to him. I am afraid, however, that I must say that what the noble Lord said, when it is read elsewhere, will sound like the cold voice of London bureaucracy. The noble Lord really had no feeling of the sort of problem which exists in Scotland.
I should like to deal with de point which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, made. He said that drivers will arrive there and have nothing to do. Of course, when they are off duty at night time they may, for all I know, go to nightclubs. They may go anywhere: no one can say that they will sleep. Will the noble Lord consider 'whether proper rest facilities are available? In many cases the rest period is 8 hours. If it were 11 hours it would be perfectly all right; the operation would come in. But if it is only 8 hours it does not come in. I am not going to press the noble Lord for an

1103
answer now, but will he look again at the definition of "working day" in Clause 102, and again, in Clause 95(4), at what is called "an interval for rest"? There is really a conflict between those two. In one case, that of "an interval for rest", a man may be called for duty at any time, but that counts as time off, whereas during the period when the bus is waiting for the party to come back, although he is off duty and can do what he likes—he can sleep or do anything he likes—that counts towards his working day. I ask the noble Lord to look at that and tell us a little more about this at Report stage, because it really is important.
It is not good enough for the noble Lord to say that the Bill does not do what I have said it does. It does do what I have said it does. Not only that; the Minister has not made up his mind how to amend it. I think we are entitled to know that. It is all very well to say, "We will leave it all to the Minister". We have not yet quite abrogated the responsibility of Parliament. Parliament is supposed to discuss these issues, and not just hand them over to the Minister and say, "Please make up your mind". I really think that the noble Lord ought to say a little more about this if he can.
I am surprised, too, that there is no question of double-manning. I do not see the advantage of abolishing double-manning. Most of your Lordships must have changed seats with your wives at one time or another to rest each other. It is a perfectly normal thing to do, and there is no hardship in it. Two people can take turns to drive without difficulty. I really cannot understand this. I read the Bill and I was astonished to find no reference to double-manning. I was even more astonished to hear the noble Lord say that it was deliberate policy, to abolish double-manning. I ask the noble Lord to look at this again and to tell us a little more on Report stage. I do not want to press this Amendment now because I think the Government are with us in this principle, but I wish they would get a little way away from these rather rigid regulations.
LORD HURCOMB: I do not want to prolong this debate, but am I right in understanding that under regulations the Minister will be able to give the
1104
licensing authorities discretion to deal with individual or particular cases; that there will be no question of individual or particular cases being referred to the Minister, and that the regulations will empower the licensing authorities to deal with a class of case and apply their own discretion as to what particular applications they will grant? If that is so, it seems to me that the machinery ought to work quite smoothly subject to one point which I made in another connection a day or two ago; that is, that the operators themselves keep in close touch with the licensing authority and its clerk, and they get to know the nature of the business they have to deal with.
There is one other point which has not been referred to. The subsection empowers the Minister to make regulations which will enable dispensations to be granted retrospectively, and for a document purporting to be a certificate to be accepted in evidence without further proof. Surely that provision will enable these very short-term applications to be dealt with even on the telephone. The clerk to the commissioners will say, "That is all right and you will get the document next week." If I am wrong in those assumptions, I shall feel inclined to join with the noble Earl in pressing the point further. But having had some experience in these things I assume they are going to work in the way I have described.
LORD STONHAM: I know that my noble friend Lord Hurcomb has had very great experience in these matters, but I am not sure that they are going to work in the way he describes, although I am sure they are going to work very smoothly. If the noble Lord will look again at subsection (10) he will see that it says:
"…the Minister may by regulations—

(a) create exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of this section in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations; …"

Under paragraph (a) the Minister will make regulations with regard to particular types of journey for particular causes or reasons, not with regard to individual journeys. He may deal by regulation with the problem of the ski journeys, the problem of the horse-boxes, the problem of carrying perishable produce and things

1105
of that kind. If he does make a regulation covering those classes, there will he no need for application to local commissioners or anyone else. So it is a general application.
With regard to the traffic commissioners or the licensing authority—paragraph (b)—and:in particular to the reference to applications being granted retrospectively, these would be certainly for local and individual cases. An example was mentioned on Tuesday night by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, of the need to clear roads, and possibly the need to use a snowplough beyond the hours. That is the kind of situation which would be dealt with locally and individually, and could and indeed should be dealt with retrospectively, because you have to deal with the emergency when it arises and, as it were, get approval afterwards. I hope that I have covered the two points raised by my noble friend.
With regard to the final words of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I must say that I found it extraordinary that he should say, "We must not leave everything to the Minister", when the very Amendment which we have discussed for an hour includes the words,
"in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity the driving hours and working hours may be prescribed by the Minister".
In other words, he is now condemning the very thing which in his Amendment he asks your Lordships to accept. I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has not a little mind; but he is being a little too inconsistent here.
The only other thing (and I will look at what he says, although I have already looked at it very carefully; I do know subsection (10)) is this. If the noble Earl accepts, as indeed he must, that where a good case is shown the Minister may by regulation meet the situation, then his plea—although the noble Earl disowned the 18-hour reference—is for something beyond that. I am sure we do not want that. The noble Earl said that what I had said would he read as stern and stiff bureaucracy, and that I had been reading from a brief. I think I should tell him that it is half an hour since I dropped the brief—and I hope that I have been talking common sense ever since. I hope I have convinced the noble Earl
1106
that it is perfectly proper and safe for him to withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It may be perfectly proper; but I am not quite sure that it is perfectly safe. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 126, line 34, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("thirteen").
The noble Lord said: At first sight, this Amendment seems to relate to a slightly different point on the spreadover of the working day, where, in this case, four hours' rest is not a possibility. Certainly this Amendment aims for flexibility; but there, I think, any similarity ends, because it opens up entirely new lines of thought. This Amendment seeks to raise the proposed spread-over of hours in a working day by one hour from 12½ hours to 13½. The time of only 2½ hours which, under the Bill, may lapse between the hours at the wheel and the end of the working day seem insufficient in that many lorry drivers spend so much of the time waiting to load and unload. I fear I only know of queueing at docks by hearsay, but anyone who, as I do, lives in East Anglia must know well of the delays which occur at such places as beet sugar factories and flour mills.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of Part VI is that, at this, of all times, it must be dependent upon productivity agreements, a subject really first aired on Tuesday afternoon by my noble friend Lord St. Helens. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also made on Tuesday, that longer hours are not necessarily synonymous with productivity. He referred to other factors such as sickness, absenteeism, keeping to timetables and reorganising of services. But I am advised that, to give jug one example, the waiting time at a wholesale grocery warehouse can vary almost unpredictably for the driver from half an hour to 5 hours. Doubtless better scheduling could avoid this, but such warehouses could be taking in goods from up to as many as 300 suppliers. Reorganisation and the rebuilding of premises and marshalling areas, to quote the noble Lord's words, "to keep to the

1107
timetables and to reorganise the services" cannot take place in the twinkling of an eye. Yet the Minister has referred in another place to the spring as being the time when it is hoped this clause would be brought into effect. Columns 2903/4 of the Report of the Committee proceedings refer to this.
The reduced spread-over will also hit work which entails very little driving on the roads but, due to the nature of the job or to the weather, long hours. People putting up electric signs and furniture removers are examples that spring to mind; and there will be problems also for the construction industry where a driver transporting his fellow workers to and from a site will have to make the homeward journey within the driver's hours if he has been driving a vehicle around the site. This is something—and I bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about thinking of the welfare of the persons working—which may hit the construction industry during the long summer days.
This Amendment would also assist the passenger service vehicles; and here we touch for a moment on the last Amendment. It is true that coach tours either to the seaside or to the Highlands are to some extent provided for under subsection (3)(c) allowing a 14 hour day with 4 hours off. But many noble Lords will be familiar with the popular so-called scenic tours, which stop briefly at historic houses and beauty spots, and which will not qualify so easily for a 14-hour day. If that is so, then people will find that there will be greatly increased fares and, possibly a reduced calibre of drivers; for page 37 of the 50th Report of the Prices and Incomes Board shows the present shortage of drivers in company undertakings. On this side of the House I think it is true to say that we believe that the Government are expecting impossibly quickly a speed-up in the turn-round of heavy goods vehicles. If there is something in this argument, surely it should not be impossible to agree an Amendment to give a little flexibility to the spread-over rules. Surely the principle of this Amendment cannot endanger road safety, for nowhere would it involve extra driving time. I have submitted many examples, including work where the driving is only incidental. On the
1108
vital ground of continued productivity —and, I believe, in this Amendment, to road safety—I beg to move.
LORD ST. HELENS: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. It is one which seems eminently sensible to noble Lords on this side of the House. We do not object to a limitation on the hours a driver spends behind the wheel. This is the whole point of the argument. My noble friend has said there are many occasions when drivers spend hours "hanging about" in their vehicles, in coffee houses, perhaps at livestock shows. There is another occasion he did not mention: when there is an abnormal load and the driver may have to wait a long time in a lay by for a police escort or until the peak traffic is off the roads. Surely there ought to be some flexibility from the Government on a point like this.
LORD STONHAM: I find it a novel argument that a longer working day is in the interest of road safety. It is an argument that I cannot accept. It seems to me extraordinary that noble Lords should advance this argument because, of all the workers who come immediately to mind, it is noble Lords more than anyone else who spend time "hanging about". You come in at 2.30 p.m. You may not leave again until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock; and you have probably done a morning's work before that. But at 10 p.m. or a little later you may not have said a word; you may not have done anything more energetic than to walk from here to the Peer's Guest Room. But I notice that you all are very anxious to go home and you all appear to be quite tired at the end of the day. Therefore to suggest that the longer day does not fatigue you does not impress me at all.
My normal day starts at 7 or 7.30 and usually it is when I am not actually working that I seem to get most tired. I must hand it to noble Lords opposite. They do not give up easily. The Liberals in the other place "tried this on" at 14 hours; now noble Lords opposite have split the difference and asked for an extra hour. It seems that everything possible is to be tried in order to avoid reducing this over-long day in transport. But I do not think there is a single noble Lord opposite who does not agree that

1109
it is still, even with the provisions of this Bill, an over-long day.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that people using coaches would be facing greatly increased fares and then: would be a shortage of drivers. My Lords, having regard to some of the fatal accidents on the Continent, I feel that even if that were the case—and I do not accept it for a moment, because, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, said, there are to be improvements as a result of productivity changes—in the interests of the people concerned, the people travelling and driving, we must stand firm on this.
The arguments which have been advanced and which are so continually advanced in every Amendment to which we listen, ignore, completely the public safety aims in this part of the Bill. And this is wholly contrary to the instincts of noble Lords who move these Amendments; they would not do this to their own people or to anyone for whom they were personally responsible. But here this seems to be reasonably remote and they feel that they can keep on moving Amendments so that these hours should be long. Those aims would not be served by allowing a man still to be driving who started work 13½ hours before. It would mean that you start at 8 o'clock and you are still driving after 9 o'clock at night up to 9.30; that is 13½ hours. If you have driven perhaps 150 miles there and 150 miles back, even though you have waited about for 4 or 5 hours in between, in our view it is too long.
The Minister would from the point of view of public safety have preferred to stick to the simple rule of a minimum 11-hour working day; but he has recognised that there would be substantial practical difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, pointed out, if some spread-over were not permitted. Accordingly, when the new restrictions on drivers' hours are first introduced, the 12½ hour spread-over will be permitted for drivers of all vehicles to which Part VI applies. This arrangement will cease at the later stage except in the special case of stage bus operation, where there is the particular problem of carrying peak traffic at both ends of the day.
1110
I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that we consulted bus owners about this matter before the Bill was published. Frankly, they were troubled initially at the spread-over being restricted to l2½ hours, but that is not an aspect on which they have pressed us strongly since then. Scheduling adjustments will be necessary, of course, hut this change is not a revolution. The noble Lord said that it would be extremely difficult to get it done by the spring, but that is nine months hence, and of course it will not be difficult. Certainly the unions would be strongly opposed to any extension beyond 12½ hours. The temporary concessions in the Bill for the initial stages of the operation of this new limit on hours will, in our view, assist bus operators with their scheduling problems; for example the extension of driving time from nine to ten hours real driving time, the extension of the 12½ hours spread-over to non-stage services, and the fortnightly instead of the weekly rest day for stage bus drivers. We have leaned over backwards in this matter in order to help, and some might think that we have leaned too far. But now my back is straight and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
4.35 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I find a good deal of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, persuasive, but I think he went far beyond anything that was justified in telling us on this side of the Chamber that we completely ignored the public safety aims of the Bill. That is simply not true. My noble friend Lord Belstead put a very reasonable case. As he rightly said, he did not argue that this would increase the road safety factor but that it would not detract from it. It would not increase the driving hours. I had not intended to speak on this Amendment but in the light of the charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I feel that can do no less than add one or two points which I ask the noble Lord to consider. Let us take first of all the Government's policy to bring their driving hour regulations into line with the European Convention. The E.E.C. Convention is for a 13-hour spread-over, as the noble Lord knows. That is only a proposal the

1111
drivers are doing more now. Obviously, if it is the intention of the Government to come into line with that it would be necessary to raise the figure of 12½ hours to 13. I am sure the noble Lord would not say that it is the policy of E.E.C. to ignore public safety in proposing something a little longer than 12½ hours for the spread-over.
My noble friend Lord Belstead is perfectly right when he says that the success of the introduction of these new driving regulations will depend on a significant increase in productivity, and this point was stressed by Lord Stonham's right honourable colleague in another place. He stressed the necessity for that before the change was made, and this, of course, relates particularly to problems of turn-round and delays in loading and unloading with which we are all familiar. h would be ridiculous for the noble Lord to try to put us in the position of imposing on drivers an unreasonably long working day or week. It simply does not happen. The strength of the trade unions involved is such that they are more than capable of protecting the interests of their members.
In fact, as the noble Lord knows by looking at the Prices and Incomes Board's Report the position is that the average hours worked at present are 57. In practice, if a man wants to work very long hours, he does, and if he does not wish to do so he does not; and everyone knows that this is so. What we are here suggesting is that real flexibility will be needed. There will be all kinds of problems about shortening these hours. We are not saying that you should add to the driving time—we recognise the need to reduce that—but we are saying that we think that extra flexibility is needed in the overall time in order to allow for all the many unpredictable circumstances that will arise; and it would be quite wrong for the noble Lord to make any such assumption as that we are not aware of the public safety aims. We are, and that is why we support the general intention. We are trying to help the noble Lord to make the Bill practical as well.
LORD STONHAM: I will comment only on what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about Europe. I accept what he said about the reasonable case put by his noble friend Lord
1112
Belstead, who always puts a reasonable case. My only feeling about these cases is that noble Lords are insistent on trying, by the creation of exceptions in particular parts of the industry, to keep the hours longer than I think they should safely be or should be in the interests of the staffs.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, quoted in aid the European limits under the draft E.E.C. regulations. If you take the limits as proposed in the Bill for the "first stage" and as proposed in the draft regulations, I do not think that they help the noble Lord very much. The arrangements under the Bill which we are now considering, for example, contain our proposal for the hours of driving to be 10 at the wheel. In the European proposals we find 9 at the wheel or 10 twice a week. That is an example where we are substantially higher. Then, regarding the length of the working day, we are now proposing 12½ hours—that is what we are debating—or 14 hours for express contract bus drivers if including 4 hours continuous off duty. The European working day is 13 hours. I do not think there is anything in the argument to aid the noble Lord. It may well be that in some European countries they are working longer hours. But I think that we have this right. If anything, we have erred by trying to be too ready to meet those who are anxious not to see any change. I feel that this Amendment should not be pressed.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his full reply and in particular for the details he has given us of the E.E.C. draft regulations. I thought it was perhaps a little sweeping of the noble Lord to say that the hours which we propose were longer than they should be, bearing in mind that this Amendment relates specifically to the overall working day and to nothing else, and bearing in mind the 13 hours which the noble Lord has generously given us across the Table and the fact that in Europe they can use sleeper berths. I do not say for one moment that I am in favour of that, but I certainly think that the noble Lord was rather sweeping.
It is interesting to notice that in the Bill the reduction of the spread-over is marginally greater than the reduction in

1113
drivers' hours. This is really a rhetorical statement, but it is something that interests many people who have read the Bill and I still wonder slightly why this was the balance. However we may talk round it, and whatever pleasantries we may indulge in, the matter comes back to productivity agreements. On Tuesday evening I was listening to the noble Lord when he was speaking about agreements with bus drivers. I do not want to misrepresent him and these are the words he used:
"So far in these discussions we have not yet taken account of improvements in productivity. We hope to get more productivity not only on the railways but also on the roads and in the buses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/7/68, col. 896.]
But where is the productivity going to come from in the Amendment which we are discussing row—namely, in the turn-round of vehicles? I can only add a tailpiece to my Amendment. The old "C" licence holders—the people putting up electric signs, the furniture removers—and the "abnormal load" men of my noble friend Lord St. Helens, waiting for their police escorts, will regard the Government's reply with concern.
I will not conceal that I am greatly disappointed at the noble Lord's reply. I had hoped that in the last few words that I submitted to your Lordships in moving the Amendment I might have offered a chink by which the Government could agree to some form of Amendment, if not this one, that would give us at least some assurance along the lines of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on another subject, and allow possibly a little longer than two days a week. The noble Lord is not willing to consider this, so we in our turn obviously will have to consider his words before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 126, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 235A. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable various industries which operate split shift systems to operate economically. One of
1114
the industries I have in mind is the newspaper industry, and perhaps I may clarify the position by giving an example of a publisher in the Provinces of morning and evening papers. This will show that spread-over is an essential part of distribution. Apart from staff on normal duties, five drivers work from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. and then from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., and a further five drivers work from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. and again from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
As the Bill is drafted, to carry out this split shift system it would be necessary to engage additional drivers, because those already employed will not be able to carry out the second portions of their shifts earlier because the evening papers to be delivered would not be available. I would add that the example I. am quoting is not a hypothetical, but an actual, case. The conditions to which I refer are similar to those affecting the bus industry, but while there are to he provisions to cater for the bus industry there is nothing for the requirements of the newspaper industry. I thins it is essential that we should allow such industries to operate economically.
LORD STONHAM: The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, would enable all drivers to extend their working day to 14 hours if they are able to have a period of 4 hours in which to obtain rest and refreshment. At present we have this option for drivers who spend the whole day driving express or contract coaches. My right honourable friend would prefer to stick to the familiar rule of an 11-hour total working day. He recognises that in the bus and coach industry there would be a substantial practical difficulty if this wore enforced, and subsection (3)(c) is it tended to cater for the long day excursion or holiday run where a coach is driven to a seaside or other resort and stays there for some hours before returning. To make up for the longer working day a 4-hour break is required so that the driver is at work for only 10 hours.
We see no reason for extending this option to other classes of industrial operations, especially as, somewhat reluctantly, the Minister has agreed that during the "first stage" there should be a spread-over of 12½ hours for all drivers and not stage bus drivers only, Os was his first intention. As I listened to the

1115
noble Lord's case about the newspaper vans, it seemed to me that a 12½hour spread-over ought to meet this case, if a little adjustment were made to enable them to comply with the spread-over.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, as I mentioned, it would be necessary to take on additional drivers because the evening papers would not be available to be delivered; therefore the second shift could not start earlier.
LORD STONHAM: I can only suggest that this case would have to be submitted for consideration. Certainly I cannot agree with the Amendment to leave out sub-paragraph (i), which would enable all drivers to work a 14-hour spread-over, subject to a 4-hour break. The noble Lord has based his demand for a very large change on one example. I should not have thought that it would occur generally in deliveries like that, except in cases where a firm had both a morning and an evening paper. We really cannot argue from one example that there should be, as it were, a general exemption. I will certainly look at what the noble Lord has said, but it is no case for the Amendment, as a whole, that he has put forward.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Could not paragraph (c) have been entirely covered by subsection (10)(a), to which he referred earlier? In other words, is not the whole of paragraph (c) quite unnecessary? He has made a special exemption for seaside parties. If that is the case, why should he not make a special exemption for people going mountaineering?
LORD STONHAM: I thought I made it clear that if the Minister decided there was a strong case for a particular class of traffic, a regulation would be made for a particular whole class. But Lord Merivale's Amendment is not asking for a particular class of user. It is asking that for all drivers, whatever they drive and whatever they do, there should be a 14-hour spread-over, subject only to this 4 hours off for rest in the middle. This is what is unacceptable. We think that 12½, hours, in the first place, is the utmost limit for the ordinary working day, subject to any regulation which the Minister may make for a special class of traffic
1116
or occupation. From the one example the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has quoted, it is impossible to say whether there is such a case here. If there is, it is for the industry concerned to make it. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not argue for his skiers that there must be an overall exemption for everybody. He was asking for it for a particular class of user.
LORD LINDGREN: I intervene in this debate only for one reason. It is the function of the Government to get their legislation through, and their supporters ought to keep quiet and let the Opposition argue, so long as they have full satisfaction in regard to the matters contained in the Bill and how they are dealt with by the Front Bench. That we have. The more one argues from the Government side, the more ammunition one gives to the Opposition to argue further. I rise only because of the difference between the "split turn" and the overall turn. There is far more method in the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, than in the other Amendments we have been discussing this afternoon.
There is a lot of difference between a "split turn", whether your overall hours of duty are 14 or 16 hours, if in the break between 6 o'clock in the morning and 4 o'clock in the afternoon you can go home, dig your garden, have a cup of tea and have a decent lunch, and then go back to work. That is a break which does not make the overall day so tiring for the worker. It is what takes away from social life, and everything else, that is not to be encouraged from a general trade union point of view, or from the point of view of the individual.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, talked about the publishing business and newspapers. Of course, on their runs of delivery and distribution there are short runs and long runs. I should take a lot of convincing that a good roster clerk in the transport section of the publishing office could not provide a roster which would enable a driver to come within the limits of this Bill. The difference between this Amendment and those that we were talking about before—the long-haul driver who has been on from 6 o'clock in the morning, and is still on at 12 o'clock at night—is this. It has been argued opposite that he is free because

1117
he is not driving, but he is sometimes under a bigger strain. There is nothing more tiring for a man who has driven a lorry to arrive at the place for delivery only to find that it cannot be accepted. He has to hang about; he argues with all sorts of people to see whether he can deliver; he rings up his firm to say: "Shall I leave it here, or come back home?". Hanging about on a job, when one cannot leave the job, is often more tiring than doing the job. I do not support this Amendment, although I certainly think there is more merit in it than in the other Amendments put forward to-day. But even in regard to this Amendment, I think a good roster clerk could cover the regulations quite easily.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I was sorry to hear the noble Lord say that he was not anxious to intervene from the Government side, because if he and other supporters of the Government intervened, this would mean that the discussion would go on and other matters would be raised. Surely the whole purpose of a Committee stage is to try to improve the Bill, whether the speakers are Government supporters or in Opposition. The noble Lord has just made an interesting arid useful contribution out of his great experience of these matters. I should hope that the philosophy he mentioned will not be followed, and that all noble Lords will contribute to make this a better Bill—and, gracious me! it needs to be made a better Bill.
I just want to make this comment. Earlier this week the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, took me to task for making certain references to productivity, when I said that it seemed to me that in many directions the only way you could get increased productivity was by going faster with a vehicle, and that might increase danger. Here is an example of these newspaper drivers, and, so far as I can see, if the Bill goes through as it is now, it must decrease productivity. So far as I am aware, the arrangements that have been in existence for quite a long time for the delivery of newspapers have not been questioned or considered to be a risk. Here seems to me to be another example of the difficulties that are being made for industry in this Bill. I hope that the Government will take a further look at this Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: Arising out of what my noble friend Lord Wakefield has just said, I rise to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a question. I was a little shocked by his reference to the suggestion that noble Lords on this side were inclined to disregard the problem of safety. As your Lordships are aware, I asked a Question the other day about the Road Research Laboratory's Report. We are led to believe that this has been completed, although it has not been printed. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whether he has access to that Report, and whether the statement that he and his right honourable friend have made about the effect of tiredness upon actual accidents is supported by the figures in the Report, which now extends over a matter of a couple years. I say this in sup loft of what my noble friend Lord Wakefield said. Productivity is essential, but safety must not be sacrificed to it, and it seems proper that we should refer to the scientific examination of road accidents to see what effect this has had in recent years, with the new roads and new regulations, on the incidence of accidents.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Wakefield and Lord Ferrier for their support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, fir his limited support. If I may answer one point made by the noble Lord Lord Lindgren, he referred to hours of work being catered for by a roster clerk. A roster clerk has been at work, if I may put it that way, because in effect some drivers start at 3 o'clock, some at 4 o'clock; but in the second shift they all have to start at 2 o'clock and some finish at 5 o'clock and some at 6 o'clock. So what has been suggested is not always possible even by using a roster clerk, because there is the question of the availability of newspapers. So it cannot always be adjusted as one wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very kindly said that he would look at this matter again. I trust that he will not consider simply the words of my Amendment hut the intention behind it. I hope he will consider the various industries that operate split-shift systems and which carry goods in their own vehicles.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding at all.

1119
I made it clear—at least I hope I did—that I completely reject any suggestion, for which the Amendment asks, that there should be an increase in the overall working day to 14 hours subject to a 4-hour period for recreation. That I reject completely. What I did say was that I would look at the particular case cited by the noble Lord.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at the particular case. Will he also consider that there may be other particular cases? I do not want to give a whole list of examples. I referred to one industry. There may be other industries concerned, and I presume that they would have to make out a case under subsection (10). What I should also like the noble Lord to look at is this. Subsection (4) says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, there shall be, between any two successive working days of a driver, an interval for rest which—

(a) subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, shall not be of less than eleven hours".

Paragraph (b) refers only to the bus and coach industry. So could the noble Lord also see, when he is considering this, whether this subsection could possibly be adjusted so to suit not only the convenience of the bus and coach industry but also that of such industries as I have mentioned, like the newspaper industry, which operate a "split-shift" system? On that condition, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 236A:
Page 126, line 42, insert—
("() if during that day the vehicle or vehicles which he is driving is or are being used in connection with organised participation in a sporting activity the driving hours and working hours may be prescribed by the Minister.")
The noble Earl said: In view of previous discussion, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 127, line 18, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("sixty-six").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. In subsection (5) the limitation is 60 hours on duty during the week, and our Amendment would have the effect of raising this figure to 66; in other words, six times the 11 hours a day which is permitted under the Bill. This is a further attempt to get additional flexibility into the Bill. I thought my noble friend Lord Merrivale made out a cogent case of certain problems over split-shift working, the split turn, which will affect some industries. It is impossible to predict all the different circumstances that exist in all the industries which are going to be affected by this Bill, but one thing is quite sure: the more flexibility there is, the better.
I do not believe that the problem will be in the length of time spent at the wheel; it is going to be much more in the waiting, the turning round, the loading and unloading, et cetera. It is this kind of flexibility that we believe will be needed when the Bill comes to be put into practice. It occurred to me when the noble Lord was speaking about the E.E.C. regulations, and when he was giving us some details, that there was one rather important feature of the proposals which he did not mention. That is that on two days a week a 15-hour spread-over is included in the schedule. While the normal schedule will be 13 hours a day, on two days a week a 15-hour spread-over would be allowed.
I believe this will be necessary, because if we enter the Common Market, as is indeed the Government's intention when possible, then we shall want to move our regulations so far as we can in step with theirs; but also in order to give additional flexibility in the practical working of these regulations. My Amendment on the Order Paper refers to the figure of 66, but if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, does not like that—and I rather imagine that he probably will not—I shall be very happy at the Report stage to put down an alternative to this of an extended spread-over day on two days a week, similar to the provision in the E.E.C. system. I am sure that this kind of flexibility is going to be needed, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I am gratified that in moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has

1121
already indicated that he has some misgivings about it. I do not wonder at it. Noble Lords opposite continually talk about flexibility. When I point out that there is all the flexibility in the world in subsection (10) of this clause, it is apparent that all their contentions boil down to the fact that to them there is only one interpretation of "flexibility", and that is that the chaps must be flexible enough to work longer hours—more hours all the time. Every Amendment I have considered for the last three days has been a demand that the chaps should work longer, and I am constantly exhorted to regard this as making for greater flexibility.
Now the particular proposal is that it should be for 66 hours a week instead of 60. No doubt it is argued that it will provide greater flexibility in working out stage drivers' schedules so that full advantage may be taken of the permitted 10 hours a day. It is looking at the matter the wrong way round. The weekly duty limit has been fixed in the Bill at 60 hours as a reasonable figure in its own right. Surely noble Lords do not want everyone to be like Ministers and work about a hundred hours a week. Sixty hours is enough for any normal individual to work. It gives an average of 10 hours a day for a six-day week. We put the daily limit at 11 hours for the very purpose of allowing some flexibility in hours of duly in any given day, but with an overall total of 60 hours a week.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, quoted in aid the E.E.C. proposals on drivers' hours. Not for the first time I got out my sheet, and I see that the proposals under the E.E.C. draft regulations for the week are 54 hours' driving; not 60, certainly not 66, but 54. We have had to discuss this matter, of course, with the unions and with the bus operators. If the noble Lord wants to put down an Amendment on Report to make the total working week 54 hours, then of course I will promise to look at it, but really I cannot be favourably disposed towards any suggestion that there might be a way of permitting the total working week to be more than 60 hours. Really, I do not think that noble Lords should ask for it. I think that in fixing the figure at 60 hours we have taken the only possible step and we have made all the
1122
concessions that should be made in this respect.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I wonder if the noble Lord can help us. He apparently has the figures, from which he read, showing that the Continental draft regulations were 54 hours' driving, but I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is talking about is hours of duty, which is not the same as hours of driving. Are we comparing like with like?
LORD STONHAM: The E.E.C. proposals do not propose to regulate the total working time. This is the driving time.
LORD TEVIOT: I earnestly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for 66 hours, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I am a little outspoken on this matter, because I speak from personal experience. I do not think it is fair of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to say that on this side of the Committee we are remote and that we are not considering safety. In my view we are all considering safety; and I, for one, am speaking for Drivers. Drivers are extremely worried about the possibility of the hours being cut, because it cuts their earning capacity. The 66-hour maximum working week would in fact cut down the present maximum by 14 per cent. Personally I should like to see it even higher, but I am prepared to concede 66. If the maximum proposed in this Bill were to stand, there would be a cut of 22 per cent. I did my sums in the train and perhaps the noble Lord would care to check them.
LORD STONHAM: Before I start checking the noble Lord's arithmetic, surely he is aware that at present it is legally possible to work 77 hours a week?
LORD TEVIOT: Yes, indeed.
LORD STONHAM: Or, of course, allowing for standby time, it could be 98 hours. Which figure did the noble Lord take?
LORD TEVIOT: I took 17 over 77 times 100. There was a schoolmaster sitting opposite me, and he worked it out at 22 per cent. As I was saying, many more scheduled public services would be cut, and already there are many

1123
scheduled services all over the country which are unable to run owing to lack of staff. Also there are many goods which are not delivered, for the same reason, because the drivers simply will not drive if their earnings are so low. They will do something else.
There is another point that I wish to make, quite forcibly: I suppose this is another hidden purpose of the Government: to put more passengers and goods on to the railways. I notice that they do not consider cutting the hours there. One can well imagine why. Only last week we had the railway "go-slow." That was a complete misnomer, because in fact it was merely a ban on overtime and a work-to-rule. I even heard one noble Lord on the Government Front Bench refer to it as a "strike", but what in fact caused the trouble was the ban on overtime. Also, under the new powers of the Prices and Incomes Act, I think I am right in saying that within three-quarters of an hour yesterday of the Act being placed on the Statute Book the Minister of Employment and Productivity froze an increase of £1 for the busmen. Therefore these drivers are being attacked both ways: first, by withholding their pay increase, and secondly by cutting their earning capacity.
LORD BELSTEAD: I should like to make a slightly different point, but on the same subject. There are various people (to some of whom the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred) working in agriculture who from time to time need to work an inordinately long week. In all fairness, it must be said that we on this side of the Committee are not trying to suggest that we should approve of everybody working a 66-hour week, and I feel sure the Minister, when he makes his regulations, will have due regard to animal welfare, the maintenance of services and the risk of accidents. But the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, puts us in a very difficult position. He has said to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that it is pointless to bring up individual examples because subsection (10) will deal with them. Unfortunately for anyone who has read the Bill and the proceedings on it, the Minister said (I quote from column 2828 of the Report):
"I do not think that anyone could seriously suggest that in regulations intended to maintain safety on the roads one could draw a
1124
distinction between passenger vehicles and goods vehicles."
Our difficulty in speaking from this side of the Committee is to determine what are the criteria for subsection (10). We are really being asked to accept a pig in a poke.
I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, what I regret is an example that has been submitted to me, but it puts in a nutshell what I am trying to say. We all know that road and rail in this country play a vital part in the distribution of milk, yet last year 750 million gallons were distributed by road, as opposed to 104½ million gallons by rail. Of course the distribution to and from the retailers is done entirely by road. As milk collection occurs in rural areas, where the recruitment of drivers is not easy, the distributors try to cover annual holidays and periods of sickness by sometimes requiring their drivers to work what I agree are inordinately long hours. It should be borne in mind, however, that they are driving along roads of low-traffic density and that milk is the only food the cost of which is determined by law and the price of which affects every household in the country. Will this case be considered in regard to subsection (10); and, if so, why?
LORD FERRIER: I should like to make a contribution to what my noble friend Lord Teviot has said. Referring to the question of safety and of hours worked, I have in my hand a letter from a manufacturing organisation in Scotland which says that the restrictions on drivers' hours will make it extremely difficult for them to carry out their runs from Edinburgh to London and back within the week. They add that the reduction in drivers' hours will necessitate a complete reorganisation which would appear to benefit nobody.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made some remarks with regard to the views on safety of the noble Lords on this side of the Committee. This manufacturing organisation manufactures products to which I have already referred in this debate. They reckon that they cannot possibly send those products by rail because of the delicacy of the heavy wire gauze they manufacture. There is no question of a risk to safety, but one of their problems is that they have to go so slowly

1125
in order to ensure that the loads are carried with the greatest security. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the reduction in hours without some flexibility—and I almost hesitate to mention the word—is bound to affect productivity.
5.19 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to follow up with a further question on what my noble friends have already said. What is the magic about the figure 60? Why should it not be 56 or 64? Is there some reason for the figure 60? A short while ago my noble friend Lord Ferrier asked whether scientific information was available from research organisations or other sources which would give us scientific and realistic information about hours of driving and safety. Surely we ought to know this? On this side of the Committee we are as much concerned with safety as anybody else; but equally we are concerned with productivity.
The Government again and again have urged productivity in the country. That is quite right. But so far as I can see this Bill will hit productivity very badly. I want to see a combination of safety and productivity, and I do not want to see productivity jeopardised and thrown overboard for some hypothetical idea that if you work so many hours it is excessive. when perhaps it is not so at all. I think we ought to have far more information than we have now as to why these hours ought to be shortened, reducing productivity, and also some proper scientific basis to justify the Government's arguments to this House. Is the noble Lord able to give the House some further information, more information than we have had, as to the basis for the number of hours inserted in the Bill for driving, whether by the day or the week or any other period?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble Lord two specific questions? He keeps on referring to the E.E.C. proposals. Have any of the E.E.C. countries ratified these proposals or indicated that they are about to do so? Secondly, I gather that the 54 hours mentioned by the noble Lord was driving time. Would he confirm that this is actually when the vehicle's engine is running or it is in motion? If so, would he not agree that probably in 95 per cent. of cases 60 hours
1126
on duty, or even 66, would be far more limiting than 54 hours driving time?
LORD STONHAM: I would remind your Lordships that what we are discussing is whether or not the total driving working week should be 66 hours or 60; that is all we are discussing in this Amendment. It has been a very wide ranging debate, and I want to bring it back to the point we are discussing. We are not arguing about cutting the working driving day or extending the working driving day. The working driving day is 11 hours; that is still what it is in the Bill. All we say in addition is that the total working driving week should not exceed 60 hours. The first reason for that is because, frankly, from every point of view, we think that 60 hours driving is quite long enough. Limiting the total driving week to 60 hours adds flexibility, which noble Lords are so concerned about, because it means that if it suits the proprietor a man could work 11 hours a day for five days and perhaps half a day for the rest, which we think is an advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the fact that 750 million gallons of milk are delivered by road, and he said: "I know a lot of these chaps are working over-long hours, but how is the milk to be delivered if they do not work over-long hours?" The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke about percentages of reduction. He called in aid a school-master to work out the percentages. I am talking now about delivering milk. The noble Lord said that cutting down from the 77 hours which they can now work to 60 was a 22 per cent. cut. That is about right; it is a 22½ per cent. cut; I have checked. But even at 66 hours, at which noble Lords would settle, there is a 14·3 per cent. cut. I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how is the milk to be delivered if one man in seven is not there?
LORD BELSTEAD: With great respect to the noble Lord, he is not asking me. This is a question I have asked him.
LORD STONHAM: I am much too old to be caught by that one. What the noble Lord is saying is that it is going to be utterly impossible. And yet, presumably, if we make the working week, not the working day but the working

1127
week, six hours longer, all these problems would, he thinks, be solved. Of course they would not be. They are going to be solved by increased productivity. They are going to be solved by making better use of a man's working day. They are going to be solved by sensible re-arrangements where they are necessary. But the one thing that we are quite adamant about is that we are not going to have a working week longer than 60 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, asked by what scientific means we arrive at the figure. By the same scientific means that we assess the fact that most people now work a 40 hour five day week. There has been the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred. There is the possibility of scientific assessment, and certainly there are facts that prove that longer hours mean slower reactions in the event of emergency, and slower reactions lead to accidents.
LORD HAWKE: I was rather astonished by the noble Lord's remark that most people work a 40 hour five day week. All statistics that I have read lead me to suggest that the working week is much nearer to 47 hours on average.
LORD STONHAM: Certainly with overtime the average week may be several hours longer, though not as much as 47, and certainly nothing like 60 hours in the exacting job of driving in heavy traffic. The noble Lord has helped to prove my point.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said that I kept on referring to the E.E.C. proposals and asked me whether any had been ratified. I understand that the E.E.C. countries are still discussing these proposals, and I am sure he will be aware that there are a number of European countries where in the main the proposals which it is hoped will be ratified are in fact in actual practice now, and are the actual working day or working week. I am afraid I did not take a note of his second question before he sat down, but I think I know what it is. I think he said that 60 hours of total duty would be far less exacting than so many hours driving, but I did not catch how many hours.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Lord is quite right; that was the drift of my question. I should like to make it clear that there are obviously exceptions to this. But in most cases of 60 hours duty I should have thought—I have not been able to get hold of the figures—that 20 per cent. of that time was spent not driving but sitting round and waiting for goods to be loaded or unloaded or for various other reasons. In the industry that I know I think this is certainly the case, and I think the figure is higher than 20 per cent., but I have not been able to get the precise figure.
LORD STONHAM: I think there is a great deal in what the noble Duke says. With regard to the hours permitted now—I am not talking about under this Bill, but in operation now—they include all the work spent connected with the vehicle or its load—booking in the vehicle, washing, repairs, loading, unloading, documentation of the load or the vehicle, booking them out and, of course, ordinary waiting time. I think this is another reason for what we have in the Bill and not for what noble Lords are proposing, because in the Bill we allow for 10 hours actual driving time in the first stage, and even when you get to the second stage 9 hours actual driving time. There is, therefore, a great deal of scope for organisation in business, so that you use your drivers for the maximum time, and not in washing cars, repairs, maintenance and so on. But this is an important departure.
Our present proposals are as the result not only of our own judgment, but of our discussions with both sides of industry; and certainly the unions would not agree to any relaxation of the proposals in the Bill in this particular regard. But with regard to the length of the working week, the only proposition that has come during this debate is that from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who said that between now and Report I might look at the possibility of something on the lines proposed by his noble friend Lord Merrivale last Tuesday. I think that was what the noble Lord intended. Of course I am prepared to consider these matters, but I cannot hold out any hope of the Government agreeing to an extension of the total working week beyond 60 hours.
5.32 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: During the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to increased productivity, and he said that 60 hours in a week would be perfectly adequate on account of the increased productivity which is to be achieved by the provisions of the Bill. But if one considers paragraph 5 of Appendix 2 of the White Paper The Transport of Freight, it reads as follows:
"Reforms on this scale"—
that is, on the scale of goods vehicle drivers' hours—
"will call for a big effort from management and unions within the industry to ensure that they can be carried through without major increases in operating costs and without undue hardship to drivers. Increased productivity will be the key factor and evidence of real progress towards this objective by both sides of the industry will be essential before the enabling powers are used to bring the new law into effect."
Does that mean that until this increased productivity has been achieved by industry, with the co-operation of the unions and the Government, these new laws will not come into effect?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: We have again traversed some of the same field, but not by any means all of it, and I think again this has been a debate in regard to which I am sure the noble Lord will not underestimate the strength of feeling on these Benches about how this increased productivity is to be achieved. How is industry to be kept going without serious upset when these new regulations are brought in? Of course the purpose of this Amendment was primarily to introduce an additional flexibility, and the noble Lord's answer that subsection (10) gives all the necessary flexibility does not really give the answer that we want. This will deal with special cases, and I do not doubt that the Minister will deal fairly with them.
I feel much more concerned with the general position which industry will have to cope with when these hours are reduced, and while they are still struggling, as undoubtedly they will be next spring, to get the extra productivity that the noble Lord wants. My noble friend Lord Merrivale was quite correct when he quoted the White Paper. I think that
1130
both the White Paper and the Minister postulate that extra productivity is needed before the hours are reduced. Any additional flexibility would help industry to achieve just that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was quite right in saying that the suggestion I made was not with regard to hours of driving, but hours of spread-over. I quoted the proposition in the E.E.C. regulations which will allow two days a week for a 15 hour spread-over. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the E.E.C. proposition does not provide for hours on duty. It provides for hours of driving and total hours of the spread-over. But it struck me that a proposition on those lines, and perhaps two days a week where additional hours of duty were allowed, might have given additional flexibility which would have helped industry to adapt to what they will have to adapt to. I still think there is something in this. For myself, as I have said before, I accept the general proposition about driving hours, that they should be shortened, that there is sufficient medical evidence—
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask whether he means a facility for extra driving hours on two days a week within the same total work-Mg week, or does he want to extend the working week: as well?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I think my proposition would inevitably extend the working week, because I think that 60 hours is rather tight. Where you allow 11 hours a day on duty it means in fact that only 5½ full days can be worked in a week. The noble Lord tried to wring our withers on this side by saying that we were simply concerned to make the drivers work longer hours. But my reply is fact and not theory. The drivers will work the hours that they want to work. In fact, we know from the Prices and Incomes Report that the average hours worked now, when they could drive for 77 hours a week, is 57 hours. It is true that some drivers work more than that if they want to do a lot of overtime. But the average driver does not want to work all that time, and therefore he does not do overtime. This will continue to be the position in the future. But there will be problems arising. Some men will wish to drive for longer,

1131
and where they do and industries have problems, no doubt the drivers will be willing to help the industry out with the transport problem.
I do not think that it makes sense, in terms of modern conditions, to suggest that what we are talking about here, which is the legal structure within which these men work—in extending that or asking for it not to be reduced so much—means that we are exploiting the men who are driving. They are well able to look after themselves, and they do. My noble friend Lord Teviot, who speaks with some experience of this, has added a good deal of weight to the debate.
Leaving aside these rather contentious matters, I accept, as I was saying when the noble Lord intervened, the general proposition that there is medical evidence that fatigue makes for slower reactions, and therefore the general trend of the Government's policy. I also accept that in most, though not all, European countries, the driving hours are shorter than they are here, and that therefore the Government's case is, I think, soundly based. Therefore I am supporting it.
My noble friends and I are, I am sure, right to say that there is a massive problem here in adapting to the change if we are to maintain, which we must do, the productivity of our economy. This is what we are continuously concerned with, to try to find the best solution to that problem. We have talked for quite a long time about this, I think not without value. With the permission of the Committee I will now withdraw this Amendment, but I shall consider putting down another Amendment which may give some additional flexibility here but in the more limited field of two days a week. Perhaps this might be an Amendment upon which the Government will look more favourably. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 237Z:
Page 127, line 19, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I was a little disappointed that the last Amendment was not pressed, but I am glad to hear that there might be a further Amendment on the Report stage. I do not wish
1132
to detain your Lordships long on this Amendment, but I feel that people should be allowed to work seven days a week if they want to. I cannot see that having a day off enhances the degree of safety. It does not matter so much now; as the law stands it is going to be 60 hours. Six into 60 is 10 hours a day. If it was 7 hours it is not quite so bad. But I believe it should be flexible. It could be argued that a man should have a day off but not on social grounds. That is not what we are concerned with in this Bill.
I am dealing here solely with the drivers' point of view. There are many noble Lords who are more intimate with the operators' point of view, and I am sure we all look forward to hearing from them. There are times in all our lives when it is necesary to earn more money. It may be a young man who is buying a house while raising a family, or a man who enjoys Continental holidays, or somebody who, through no fault of his own, finds himself having to work to pay for something. I was told when I first came into your Lordships' House that all these Bills were about people and persons. We have heard this afternoon mostly about technicalities. I should like your Lordships to realise that this is essentially about people. There is another very important factor. If you do have seven days, it makes the amount of hours more flexible, so that you can spread out the number of working hours in seven days instead of six. I beg to move.
LORD McLEAVY: I was rather surprised that the noble Lord should move this Amendment. While I appreciate that he has spent some little time associated with bus driving, I think I can claim to have spent a lifetime in association with the bus industry. All the discussion this afternoon has paid no regard whatsoever to the human aspect of this problem. Many of your Lordships do not realise that bus drivers are under exceptional strain, with the volume of traffic and the difficulty of keeping up to their schedules. There is a very serious danger that as these bus drivers get to the age of 60 they may not be able to carry on with their job. It has been within my own personal knowledge that bus drivers, when they have reached round about 60 years of age, have had

1133
to ask to be taken off on to either conducting or going into the shed, because they were no longer able to stand the strain of the work.
Your Lordships appear to pay no regard whatsoever to the human aspect of this problem. In the bus industry to-day, the undertakings are experiencing extreme difficulty in finding drivers and conductors, for the simple reason that the conditions and the wages are not in any way comparable with those which prevail in other sections of industry. We are finding that even the London Transport Board have for a number of years had to go abroad to recruit staff from Jamaica and other places, because the simple fact is that very few of our people will accept this type of work.
I think it is absurd for your Lordships to suggest that the question whether the fatigue is too great does not really matter. There is another aspect of the problem which I think noble Lords have completely forgotten. If a bus driver, because he has been driving too long, is involved in an accident, maybe a fatal accident, he is in danger not only of prosecution but of losing his livelihood, because he could have his licence taken away as a result.
The people engaged in the bus undertakings, the drivers and the conductors, are doing, and have done over the years, a magnificent job. They are serving the public at most inconvenient times. The general public normally go to work on a Monday morning and finish at five or half-past five in the evening. They have their Sundays and Saturdays off, work five days a week, and enjoy the company of their families on Bank Holidays. I think it is not fully appreciated by your Lordships that drivers and conductors have conditions of employment which mean that they have to work Bank Holidays, Sundays, split turns and late duties, and they are in many cases denied much of the social entertainment and companionship that other sections of industry enjoy.
I ask your Lordships, in considering all these questions, to consider first of all the human element. I pay tribute here in the House of Lords to the men and the women who are working on our bus services for the magnificent job they are doing. Do not talk about their working longer hours; talk about reducing their
1134
hours and increasing their wages, so that they may enjoy some of the benefits which are enjoyed by other sections of the community.
LORD SOMERS: I think the noble Lord has been a little misleading. He is talking about bus drivers having to work extra hours as though there was some element of compulsion in it, but there was nothing of that in my noble friend's Amendment. He merely said that they should be allowed to if they wanted to. There are, as he pointed out, times, particularly when one is young, when one wants to earn a little extra money. I have known that myself. Like the noble Lord opposite, I have the greatest respect for bus drivers; they do a splendid job. But if they want the opportunity to earn a little extra money, I cannot see why they should not be allowed to. Certainly I do not think the noble Lord would Lind a single Member on this side of the House who would agree that they should be forced to.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Her Majesty's Government are very anxious indeed, quite rightly, to encourage tourism. They want to see more visitors from overseas coming into this country. One of the most popular reasons for people visiting this country is the seven-day and ten-day tours. The drivers of these tours continue throughout the tour. Not only do they drive the coach but they also give a great deal of information to the passengers they carry on the coaches throughout the tour. If I understand this Bill aright, it means that no longer can the same driver accompany his passengers if the tour is beyond six days. If it is a seven-day tour or a ten-day tour, then he cannot carry on. I have heard that this would be a great mistake. During these tours, there is a great deal of companionship and a great deal of respect by the passengers for their driver. A great friendship undoubtedly arises with tour drivers who carry out these tours, with their great knowledge of the countryside and of the places they visit.
I should like to know from the noble Lord, who is to reply for the Government, whether it is intended that these seven-day and ten-day tours should be compelled to have a change of driver during the tour? If so, this would be most unfortunate. These drivers are not driving overlong hours or anything of

1135
the kind. In fact, all the social amenities and advantages to which reference has been made are enjoyed by these drivers, who can add so much to the pleasure of overseas visitors on these six-, seven- and ten-day tours. Could we have some information which has a bearing on the opportunities and advantages for visitors from overseas to enjoy tours in this country?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It may well have been true 20, 30 or 40 years ago that there were employers who said to their men, "It is not very easy to get a job. If you come and drive for us, you must be prepared to work very long hours"; that is to say, hours which did damage to the man's family life or his health. One admits that there used to be employers like that. But is this so now? The Government must bring evidence to show that there are now bus owners who make drivers work longer hours than is good for them. One does not say to a doctor, "You must not see a patient except on six days in the week." Nor would you say the same sort of thing to people who lead an intellectual life. The noble Lord opposite must have had the same sort of experience that I had when I was a Minister. There was no day's rest if one was a Minister. One thought one had to do it, but it was voluntary.
What worries me is that there may be still employers who say to men, "You have got to work longer hours than can possibly be good for you". But is there any evidence of this? We have surely improved in the last 25 years. We have had a fairly long stretch of pretty high employment, and in modern times it does not pay employers to force men to work if they do not want to. I should like to know if there is any evidence to the contrary.
LORD FERRIER: I asked the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a question which he has not answered. I have the feeling that noble Lords opposite are being a little patronising about this matter of safety and also about this subject being a human one. I resent the suggestion that we on this side are not concerned with the human element. As for the point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as to whether we had any
1136
evidence in this matter, has the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had any access to the latest report of the Road Research Laboratory, which we know was in Government hands at the beginning of May? If so, is it possible for him to let us know whether that report points to the stage at which the working of long hours has a bearing on the incidence of accidents?
The noble Lord pointed to me and indicated that I did not seem to know that long hours cause accidents. Of course I know it; everybody knows it. Many ghastly accidents have been caused by excessively long hours, and of course everything must be done, and has been done, to stop it. But what is the scientific analysis as to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, about hours of work in relation to a ten-day tour? The noble Lord, Lord McLeavy, asked, "What about the men?" But we must remember the productivity of the men, for without productivity we shall all "go bust". One knows that many young, busy people are leaving this country to go to other countries where they can work long hours without being interfered with. This matter is of great concern to us all, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not talk down to us as they have been doing.
LORD HAWKE: When a bus driver drives a coach for some other employer on his rest day, who goes to gaol—the coach owner or the driver?
5.55 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not be surprised when I say that I shall oppose his Amendment. We are back on the same ground that we covered for a few hours on Tuesday evening. When the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, moved his Amendment he said that he felt very lonely on that side because he was not getting much support for his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: I do not feel lonely now, since I have had considerable support on this side of the Committee.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I was just going to say that I hope the noble Lord is now a bit more cheerful because he has had a good deal of support: so much so that I doubt very much whether

1137
I can answer all the questions which have been asked. But I will answer one or two of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, made a point about the tourist industry, which we all agree is an important industry in this country, especially the coaches, some of which tour for more than a week at a time. The point is that under this Bill one of these coaches on a long tour of say 10 or more days could not carry on without the one-day rest.
The Amendment, of course, seeks to leave out subsection (6), which says:
"… there shall be, in the case of each working week of a driver, a period of not less than twenty-four hours for which he is off duty, being a period either falling wholly in that week or beginning in that week and ending in the next week …."
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, seeks to eliminate from the Bill. The effect would be that a driver would not be required to have a continuous period of 24 hours off duty each week, or fortnight in the case of a stage bus driver. Subsection (6) is quite new, as is subsection (5). One day off a week will help protect drivers and the public from dangers arising from the cumulative effects of fatigue. This safety aspect, and the welfare of the drivers, is something which has run through the discussion on both sides. I am sure that both sides are interested in seeing that drivers have decent working conditions so that they shall be in a fit condition.
The other two matters which nave cropped up many times in this discussion have been the words "flexibility" and "productivity" Speaker after speaker has mentioned these two words. But it is strange that on this series of Amendments, where it has been said that the Government should be more flexible in these matters, nearly every point which has been made has been in the same direction—namely, longer hours for the driver and a longer working week. The matter of productivity we discussed at length on Tuesday, and I thought that my noble friend Lord Stonham made quite clearly the point that longer hours do not in every case guarantee more productivity. Very often they have the opposite effect.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: On the specific point of these tours, which the
1138
noble Lord agrees are of enormous importance, what evidence, if any, has he that excessive hours have been worked by any of those drivers?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I have no evidence with me. But this subsection will try to guarantee that the driver has decent working conditions in future and that he will have a day off, which will prevent him getting into the condition which the noble Earl is so worried about. In view of the shortage of bus drivers and the prevalence of rest day working in the bus industry, the Government recognise that serious difficulty might be caused, and that the service which can be given to the public might suffer unduly if a weekly rest day requirement were brought in at once. Therefore, during the "first stage" paragraph (b) will permit a stage bus driver to have a clay off once in each fortnight. In other cases it should generally be possible to meet the requirement. But there may be a few special cases where it will genuinely be impossible to stick to the rules in full, or where some time will be needed to adjust certain of them. Subsections (10) and (12) give the Minister ample powers to deal with such cases by regulation. Those concerned will, however, have to make out a strong case. I hope noble Lords will listen to the Minister's words on this matter during the Report stage in the Commons. He said:
"In all fairness I do not see these exceptions being used on a massive scale because there would be no purpose in having the regulations on the hours at all; but certainly there is provision, in the light of experience, for us to see where defined classes could if necessary be exempted."
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, talked about conditions of driving forty years ago. I think he will agree that conditions have changed vastly in those years. To make a comparison would take quite a long time, and we do not have so much time available to-night. I do not think there are any other specific points to which I want to refer now, but in view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will decide to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Lord answer my question? If a bus driver drives for another employer on his rest day, who commits the offence— the driver or the person who employs him?
LORD LINDGREN: Would the noble Lord agree that, before an employer takes on a workman he should see that he has a driving licence, and should also see that he comes within the regulations for doing the work required? They would both be committing an offence.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: That is what I was going to say—they would both be committing an offence.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Here, again, if I have understood the noble Lord aright, we have an example of the Government's advocating one thing and, by legislation, preventing it from happening. Here is this example of the great need to encourage overseas visitors to come here. There are the very popular seven and ten-day tours, and one of the most important and vital needs is a first-class driver who is a character, who can make himself most agreeable to his passengers. We have had no evidence that these seven and ten-day tours are in any way unsafe because of the hours of work and the very detailed schedule which they operate.
I should like to know, quite clearly, whether there is provision in the Bill for the operators of those tours to be allowed to have the same driver carrying on throughout the whole seven or ten days. Is provision made for the Minister to give exemption to the drivers concerned, so that they can drive these special tours continuously for the seven or ten days? At present it is not allowed, and the Government will be playing "old havoc" with these seven and ten-day tours, which is quite contrary to Government policy, that of the encouragement of tourism here. So again we have this contradiction with the Government saying one thing and legislating to create precisely the opposite effect.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The answer to that is definitely, No. We want to encourage these people to see our countryside and to enjoy their stay at an hotel here, but we want to do more than that. We also want to point out that we are prepared to treat our bus drivers and other workers decently, and this is one of the ways by which we are going to do that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I just say to my noble friend Lord Wakefield
1140
of Kendal, that if my drafting is correct my next Amendment covers this point. I have a certain sympathy with the Government over their general thesis. I think this is a marginal point, but I feel that it makes a big difference if people are away from home. Therefore, in some ways I may be disappointed if my noble friend presses this Amendment to a Division, because it would also mean that lorry drivers would not have to have a day's rest. There are definite dangers in lorry drivers working seven days a week, which do not arise in the case of drivers of public service vehicles.
BARONESS PLUMMER: May I ask noble Lords opposite what evidence they want in connection with this Amendment? Do they need more than the figures of accidents on the roads, due to tiredness on the part of drivers? May we know what they want?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Perhaps this is rather a facetious question, but how can the noble Lord be sure that during rest periods drivers do, in fact, rest? What is to stop them going to a dance hall or driving their own car a long way? There is no guarantee against that.
EARL FORTESCUE: We have been talking mainly about bus drivers, and we know that the modern bus can travel at 60 or 70 m.p.h. and not infrequently does, which must involve a considerable amount of fatigue for the driver. But, surely, fatigue is a matter of speed. Many noble Lords have no doubt bought a new car during the last few years which is limited to 40 m.p.h. and which is extremely irksome when one is in a hurry. Two years ago I bought a Mini, which I had to run in at 40 m.p.h. for 500 miles, so the first thing I did was to visit a friend in Cumberland. Most of the way up I was on a motorway, and I was going along very comfortably at 40 m.p.h. with the lorries which were also going along very comfortably at 40 m.p.h. I arrived at the other end without any sign whatever of fatigue. But on the way back I drove somebody else's car, and although I came back in about half the time I felt fatigued.
It is all a matter of speed, and in this connection I should like to remind your

1141
Lordships of an old friend of mine who used to drive a steamroller. He told me of one occasion when his boss, who I think was in Hertfordshire, sold the steamroller to some other organisation down in the West Country and he was given a week to take it down there. He said, "It was an absolute gift". He went eight miles an hour for 16 hours and did whatever it was—over 200, nearer 300 miles. He did not feel any fatigue; and he had the rest of the week for a holiday. Fatigue is all a matter of speed, and it is no good trying to lay down for everybody the maximum, which is only a permissive and not a compulsory maximum, which we have been talking about for bus drivers.
LORD STONHAM: I do not want to steamroller the discussion, but I would remind your Lordships that we have been over three hours on five Amendments. I do not think this is worthy of your Lordships' Committee. This is not a question of speed: it is a question of whether we are willing to permit lorry drivers, stage-carriage drivers and coach drivers to work for 365 days of the year. That is what this Amendment is about. The Government say that some of them ought to have one day off in seven, and bus drivers one day off in 14; that is all. That is what the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, wants to destroy, so that they could work for 365 days of the year. I do not think this is worth talking about. I do not think this is worthy of your Lordships' Committee, and I think we ought to be allowed to get on with the Bill.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Could the Minister answer the question which has been put by my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lord Wakefield of Kendal, by myself and by many others? It is a perfectly simple, straightforward question: is there or is them not power under this Bill to make a regulation exempting these 14-day and 10-day tours from this watertight provision?
LORD STONHAM: There is power under the Bill, under subsection (10), for the Minister, by regulation, to make special arrangements for certain classes of traffic, but I do not want that to be taken as an undertaking that he would necessarily make such a regulation with regard to the class of traffic we are
1142
talking about. But there is power if the Minister decided there was a good case for using it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must apologise for leaving the Chamber for a minute to confer with one of my noble colleagues, although I heard most of the debate, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there is a good deal of genuine concern among my noble friends, and he is not going to make progress by trying to knock us about like this. We have a responsibility here to try to get the right answer. Some of us—probably most of us—accept the Government's general case for shortening the hours of driving, but some of my noble friends are not convinced, and I am bound to say that the answers from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have not been clear on this issue. I suggest that, at any rate when we come to Report stage, the noble Lord would help his case if he were to give the medical evidence, which I believe is there, which shows that fatigue does lead to slower reaction and is therefore a road safety factor. But I assure the noble Lord that my noble friends are really in earnest on this matter. They want to see the right answer here, and the practical answer.
I would advise my noble friend Lord Teviot not to press this Amendment; but, on the other hand, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will look a little less uncompromisingly at the possibility of the Minister regarding these tours as an exception to be dealt with under his powers in subsection (10). They are a special case, and it may be that satisfactory conditions can be defined which would enable the same driver to continue throughout the tour. If that can be done, it would be something which would please us all. So if the noble Lord would be good enough to look at it in that light, I would advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: Is the Minister replying? I gather he is not. I am going to accept the advice of my noble friend Lord Nugent and withdraw this Amendment, but before I do so I should like to state that the reason why I put it forward was not to make these drivers work 365 days of the year necessarily, but to allow them to do so if they want to; that is all. We have had a very full

1143
debate, and I am thankful to noble Lords for all the points they have raised. We are now passing on to the Duke of Atholl's Amendment, which I think the Government could well consider. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 237ZA:
Page 127, line 34, leave out ("stage carriages") and insert ("public service vehicles").
The noble Duke said: In moving this Amendment I ought to declare a very small interest, in that, as some of your Lordships may know, my house is open to the public and a certain number of people who come to look round come in what my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal has so graphically described as "7 and 14-day tours". As the clause stands at the moment, these tours, as my noble friend has pointed out, would have to be altered. There are several reasons why this Amendment should be very carefully considered. First, it would still mean that the drivers of these vehicles would have to have one day in 14 as a rest day; therefore, even if they wanted to, they would not be able to work 365 days a year. Theoretically, they would be able to work only 339, if my arithmetic is right. Secondly, these tours are largely seasonal—I do not say entirely, but largely—and the drivers who work on them work, I agree, for long hours during the summer, and their week is a seven-day week; but during the winter they normally have a much easier time, so during the course of the year the number of rest days they have probably levels itself out.
Thirdly, these drivers would not be at home when their rest day would fall due. If you are on a 12-day tour of the Highlands and the Lake District and you have started from Birmingham, it is little help to you as driver of that tour if your rest day falls when you are at John o' Groats. A more ghastly place to have to spend the day, sitting in an hotel with a bus load of infuriated trippers who wish to go to see Dounrae, for instance, but who cannot do so because the driver is not allowed to drive the bus under the provisions of this subsection of the Bill, I cannot imagine. Fourthly, with the exception of one or two stages these
1144
drivers do not normally have great distances to cover. They start from one place and may go 20 miles to their first port of call, where they may wait for a couple of hours. They may then go another 20 miles to somewhere else, where they may wait for another two hours. On the whole, once they reach the Highlands of Scotland they do not go great distances in any one day.
I should have thought that in the interests of the tourist trade, which we know the Government want to encourage, and in the interests of the drivers themselves, this would have been an easy and simple Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom (if it is he who is to reply), says that I have drawn my Amendment too widely because I would also let in such things as express coaches, I would agree that that is probably true and I should be quite prepared to try to re-draft it at another stage of the Bill so that it covered only these 12-day tours.
Finally, as to the 14-day tours, I do not think it would be a disaster if they had to be cut down to 13 days. I think that is perfectly reasonable; for the driver will go back home and will be able to enjoy his day of rest and leisure with his family. As far as the 10-day tour and the 12-day tour are concerned, it is going to be impracticable for drivers to have a day when no one can move because it is the driver's rest day. With regard to the 7-day tour, I think it is a bit hard when from a mere week on tour, one day is lopped off. It is 14 per cent. of the holiday. I should have thought that provision might be made for the driver to take his rest day on the eighth day rather than the seventh.
This Amendment has every advantage and, so far as I can see, no disadvantages. The stage carriage drivers are exempt already from having a rest day every seventh day; they have one every fourteenth day. I think both the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord McLeavy, implied, though they did not say it, that they consider that driving a stage coach in a town is a more fatiguing job than driving a long-distance coach on less crowded roads in rural areas. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Duke moving his

1145
Amendment. He is quite right; he has drawn it too widely. His Amendment would mean that the drivers of public service vehicles of every kind, and not merely the drivers of stage carriages, would have to take one day a fortnight instead of one day a week. Paragraph (b) was inserted at the Report stage in the Commons and was a concession so that stage bus drivers need be obliged to have only one day off in a fortnight. That was a temporary measure by reason of the fact that there is a shortage and that many of these drivers are already working their seventh day. Therefore the Minister accepted the case so that we should not immediately create acute difficulties.
But so far as the express and contract side of the bus industry is concerned—the excursions and private party coaches —the case for retaining in the Bill the ruling about one day off in seven is a strong one. The noble Duke spoke about looking at his Amendment again and possibly drawing it narrower. I should be interested to see that; for one or two thing; that he has said, such as when rest days might be taken, seemed to me to be reasonable possibilities. Without any kind of commitment I should like my right honourable friend to look at some of the suggestions he made. But in drawing his Amendment narrowly I hope he will not say that every coach driver must take one day off in seven except during the period when he is calling at Blair Atholl. That would be rather too narrow.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I can assure the noble Lord that that particular thought had not struck me until he mentioned it; but I think it is a very good idea.
LORD STONHAM: I am always willing to be helpful; but I prefaced that suggestion with the remark that it would scarcely be acceptable. The noble Duke recognises that his Amendment is too wide and is unacceptable. I should like him to look at it again meanwhile I will look at some of the suggestions he has made.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for that reply. My intention is to limit it to touring coaches and to put down an
1146
Amendment on those lines at Report stage. If the Minister decides that he can accept it, I shall be grateful if he can give me some assistance in drafting it or if, perhaps, he himself would put down an Amendment. As he ha3 said, we do not have the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 127. line 34, leave out from ("if") to end of line 38 and insert ("that week is immediately preceded by a week in the case of which those requirements have been satisfied as respects that driver or during which he has not at any time been on duty.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended merely to correct and simplify subsection (6)(b) which ha.5 been the subject of so much debate in the last two or three Amendments. I should be grateful if the Committee would bear with me while I explain why these improvements are necessary. When the Bill was introduced in the Commons it imposed a requirement of one 24-hour period off-duty in each working week for all drivers. When the Minister announced in Committee in the Commons that the introduction of Part VI would be partly phased, one of the concessions h: decided to make for the "first stage" was that, since "rest day" (seventh day) working is prevalent in the bus industry, the 24-hour period off duty would be compulsory only once a fortnight for stage bus drivers. Paragraph (b) was intended to effect this, and was added as part of a new subsection, now subsection (6), which was introduced at Report stage. On looking at the wording subsequently it seemed that it is unnecessarily complicated; it unnecessarily adds to the difficulties in planning driving rotas; and it can be read as allowing a sequence of working weeks in which a day off is taken only every third week instead of at the most every fortnight. The Amendment makes the requirements applicable to stage bus drivers much simpler to understand and much simpler to operate and enforce; and it avoid; the unintended effect of creating uncertainty.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for explaining this Amendment. I think we must take him

1147
at his word. The draftsmen's efforts to simplify are seldom helpful to the layman and it may well become more complicated. His intention is obviously right and we are happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 237AZ:
Page 127, line 44, leave out ("four") and insert ("five and a half").
The noble Lord said: I hope our business may be speeded up somewhat by my moving an Amendment which the Government may accept. In considering this Amendment I would ask the Cornmitee to have regard to Clause 95(2)(a) and (b), where it is clearly stated that whoever the driver is and whatever the vehicle he is driving, a period of 5½ hours may go by before the rules of drivers' hours take effect. Clause 95(7) lays down that if a driver in each period of 24 hours during a week does not drive for more than a total of 4 hours each day, the drivers' rules shall not apply. This is based on the thinking of Appendix 2 subsection (3) of the White Paper (Command 3470) which referred to exemptions for those driving
"as an ancillary activity to some other main occupation."
If this exemption were to be raised to 5½ hours which, after all, is the first period of time in which any restriction under this Part of the Bill occurs, many anomalies and cases which have no connection at all with road safety could be avoided. That is the aim of the Amendment.
May I weary your Lordships for one minute with an example? I do not think that this line of thought has been put forward either here or in another place. Let us suppose that a farm foreman makes a trip into town to take, and afterwards to collect, some machinery which is in need of repair, and his total driving time exceeds four hours. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if the spread-over provisions in the total working week apply to all this man's work? It may be that the man will want to go off and earn good money sugar beet hoeing, for instance, on piece work. If he works in excess of four hours at the wheel and that makes him liable to the drivers' hours provisions for his general work, he would be hampered, though his other
1148
work might have no connection with the road at all.
The spread-over and total working week provisions will seriously affect such people as farm managers and vets, and particularly the agricultural fitters, who were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on Tuesday evening, although—and this is the vital point —comparatively little of their time, on some occasions anyway, is spent actually driving. I assume that once again the noble Lord will say that some cases may be dealt with by regulations under the well-worn subject of subsection (10), cases of emergency and special need. I do not think that need come in, and it might clear our minds if we kept that provision out of the discussion on this Amendment.
I regret that the examples I have given are mainly connected with agriculture. Many noble Lords with experience in industry could probably give other examples, and perhaps in particular regarding the movement of mobile construction equipment. In this connection I would refer specifically to equipment which proceeds to and from the site of its operations, and probably never forsakes the building site as its base, but whose driver will be subject to all the provisions of drivers' hours if once he exceeds four hours at the wheel. If 5+ hours continuous driving may be completed before there is any check to the hours at the wheel, as is in the Bill, I cannot see why only four hours may be covered before the Clause 95 provisions generally are to be complied with. This subsection (7) is a new form of exemption. I do not believe that it was embodied in the 1960 Act. It may be that the Government have an open mind on this matter; at any rate let us hope that the noble Lord is open to persuasion.
6.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: As die noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made clear, the effect of this Amendment would be virtually to exclude from all the driving hours restrictions in the Bill any driver who did not drive for periods amounting to more than 51 hours in any day of his working week, instead of exempting only those who do not drive for more than four hours a day, as the Bill proposes. At present the limit is set at four hours and

1149
the concession is provided to enable a person who, on his working day, regularly does less driving than other work—I would emphasise that "driving" means actually at the controls of the vehicle—to escape the restrictions in Clause 95 on the length of that day and his working week.
On Tuesday we had a discussion about this actual driving time and the question of delivery people was raised—milkmen, for example. I must emphasise the importance of this for tradesmen who have to make local deliveries but spend more time in their trade or on foot making deliveries than in control of a vehicle. A plumber or electrician, who has to take tools and equipment to and from each assignment, would not be subject to the hours' rule if on no day in any given week did his actual driving exceed four hours. I have never, for example, timed a milk roundsman to ascertain the proportion of his time that he spends driving. Certainly I would say that one who makes frequent deliveries in a road spends less than one-third of his working day actually driving, and would be right outwith these restrictions. A plumber or electrician who takes tools to a job would be outside these regulations. The four hours working time out of a normal working day (I am not talking about a 10-hour or a 9-hour working day at the moment, but four hours out of a normal working day) have to be spent actually at the wheel driving, and those people who, on any given day in the working week, do not work more than that four hours, are thereby outside the controls. This is quite a wide provision.
The noble Lord asked a question about the farm foreman and envisaged his going into a town with a machine, or something of that kind, and spending more than four hours at the wheel. He asked whether that would make the man liable to the restrictions on the total working hours. The answer is, "Yes". If he spent more than four hours driving in any one day of the week he would be caught by the hours' provisions. I know that this is a hypothetical case, but most farm workers driving to town with a machine would be driving from the farm to the nearest large town. I would assume that that would be so, they would not want to go on an unnecessarily long journey. They would go to the nearest town
1150
where the machine could be serviced, or whatever had to be done to it. It is a bit far-fetched to assume that such men would be driving for more than four hours in a particular day which would mean they would be driving for something over 60 miles each way. There are few farms which have not service arrangements within a shorter radius tan 60 miles.
If we extended it, as the noble Lord proposes, to persons who drive up to 5½ hours in any day, it would more than halve the proposed new daily maximum of 10 hours, and certainly it would be considerably more when we come to the later maximum of 9 hours driving. It would be exactly half of the total permitted hours on duty on any work including non-driving time. It would, as it were, reverse the present emphasis and it would exempt from the hours rule many persons who spend more time actually driving than doing other work. I think that is indisputable. In fact, to raise the figure to 5½ hours would, in my view, exclude the great majority of people who normally drive for a substantial part of their working life.
I am talking now only about time at the wheel. If you imagine all the other jobs which even a driver does and which is not work at the wheel, you will realise how soon the hours are reduced and how much it reduces the hours spent driving. So far as the workers themselves ate concerned, the unions think that we have gone much too far and have been much too flexibile in giving the 4 hours exemption. They make the objection that the concession will allow part-time drivers to take out vehicles on short coach excursions in the evenings, after a normal day's work in some other occupation Although it will be another occupation, there will be no safeguard against them suffering from fatigue and thereby adding to the dangers to public safety. To increase this to 51 hours would exacerbate the situation. For these reasons I am afraid that I cannot fulfil the noble Lord's hope that I might accept this Amendment.
6.40 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I wonder if I could put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, before my noble friend replies to him. This is another attempt to deal with the problem of

1151
mixed work, where a man is employed partly for driving and partly on some other job. We discussed this at length last Tuesday, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, answered the debate. The terms of our Amendment then were to exclude the 30-cwt. vehicle, which so often plays a dual purpose role, and at the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, acknowledged that there was a point worth looking at and that we would have consultations about it before Report stage.
The 4 hours granted here do help the situation but we think it does not go far enough. The noble Lord said that it would be unusual if a farm foreman had to do more than a 60-mile journey; and that is right. But occasionally he does have a longer journey. He might have to take cattle to another farm which is more than two hours' journey away and cattle trucks go slowly. Then for the rest of the day he would be caught by the regulations. I can think of many cases where 4 hours would not be enough to meet the problem of mixed work.
I must recognise that the noble Lord made a strong point when he said that 51 hours is as much as many professional drivers do. Maybe this Amendment goes too far. Maybe we have not the right balance here. I was going to suggest that when the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Beswick, are looking at this problem of mixed work, perhaps they could also look at this, because one of the ways of meeting this problem might be by extending this a little further. Maybe this will do or maybe not, but there is a problem here that needs looking at. I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead will feel that this is the way we should leave it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I can see both sides of this argument only too easily. May I suggest that perhaps there could be some geographical exemption? Although the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is right that it is unlikely one would need to drive more than 4 hours in England, we must not forget that in the North of Scotland there are many places more than two hours' driving from Inverness. I can assure the noble Lord of that. If
1152
there could be an exemption for the North of Scotland, I think that it would be very useful.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his full reply to what seems to be a small point but which is in fact a point of some importance. The noble Lord referred to the unions and to the fact that under this exemption a man, after a hard day's work, can go driving up to 4 hours and be entirely exempt It would be extremely churlish of me not to concede immediately that the noble Lord, out of his experience, has touched on a very serious point, which was debated at length in another place, a point which was referred to by one honourable gentleman as "moonlighting" when it takes place to a considerable extent at night. This is something which must exercise everybody's mind.
Having said that, I must say that I am disappointed that the noble Lord could not come some way to meet us. I wonder where the 4 hours come from? Were they plucked out of the air by the Government? I would put this point to the noble Lord. As soon as a driver goes over the line, whether it be 4 hours or 51, then he will become subject to drivers' hours. I have already conceded the noble Lord's point about somebody who goes off driving illegally for 4 hours and if by some magic a person who is to be exempted for 5½ hours can go off and drive illegal hours over the whole week, then this Amendment would not have been moved.
The noble Lord referred to the farm foreman whom I used as an example. A certain amount of trouble is being stored up over this and it is something that is going to come up again. But I think that we have given this a good airing and with your Lordships' permission, I would withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 237AA:
Page 128, line 15, leave out ("elsewhere than on a road if the vehicle is being so driven").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment refers to subsection (9), which provides that the regulations in subsections

1153
(1) to (7) shall not be taken into account in the course of operations of agriculture
"elsewhere than on a road if the vehicle is being so driven."
I am moving that these words be taken out as I do not see the point of them. By definition the driver of the vehicle is engaged in an agricultural operation. He cannot do that on the road. He has to go off the road to do it, and his use of the road is merely essential for getting from one point to another. How is it intended to work this provision? Is the farmer supposed to have a stop watch and time exactly the minutes spent in going from one field to another on the road? Does it mean that when he is in a field none of tie regulations apply, but when he goes on the road he has to have a complete note because all the rules about days worked, time off and days off during the week and so on then apply? Does this not cause more trouble than it is really worth, and would it not be better to take these words out of the Bill? I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Earl is aware, we are anxious to be helpful to agriculture wherever possible, but I feel that the noble Earl's Amendment is not helpful. Its effect would be to free completely persons who drive in the course of an operation of agriculture from any restrictions on driving imposed by subsection (1). If this Amendment were made, no account would be taken of the time during which a vehicle is driven whether on or off the road. It would also free persons driving in the course of an operation of agriculture from the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) relating to hours of work in the day and week, rest periods and days off, if they do not drive vehicles otherwise than in the course of the operations of agriculture for periods not exceeding 4 hours in any one day.
I am sure that the noble Earl has not considered the implications of this Amendment. At least, I hope he has not, because I hope that that is not his intention. It is our policy in this Bill to help the agricultural industry, but this would go far beyond the concessions we propose in subsection (9) and the concessions that exist under the present law —that is, Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, where driving otherwise than
1154
on the road is not deemed as driving for the purposes of the limits on hours imposed by that section. That is the existing law, and here we are not doing much more than to re-enact it. Sub section (9) of Clause 95 maintains the present concession in more or less the sane form for agricultural drivers. We cannot agree to extend it so that driving in the course of operations of agriculture on roads—that is, on highways and other roads to which the public have access—may also be ignored. Many of the vehicles so driven will be large goods vehicle s, and their drivers will be subject to fatigue in just the same way as drivers of other large goods vehicles. The general restrictions on driving must therefore be applied.
The noble Earl made the point: How will anyone know? That is a fair point, which can be answered: How do we know now?—because, as I say, we are really re-enacting the present law and not imposing any new restrictions. I am sure that in this respect the noble Earl is satisfied with the present law which was passed in 1960. In those circumstances, I hope that he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will not press the noble Lord. I will only say that I hope he will show his desire to benefit agriculture in a very positive: way on some of the future Amendments. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 237C:
Page 128, line 16, leave out ("operaticns of agriculture") and insert ("agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations").
The noble Duke said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move and then my next Amend noble Lord, that "agric ture", so fa concerned, the word "
LORD ST
THE DU circumstanc
Amendment, and we can have a debate on Amendment No. 238.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 128, line 16, at end insert (", forestry or construction")
The noble Lord said: There is general appreciation that the exemption contained in subsection (9), to which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has referred, and which involves agriculture, is, under the Agriculture Act 1947, an inclusion of horticulture and livestock breeding. I am a little puzzled that the exemption of this subsection is from subsections (1) and (7) of Clause 95. I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite could confirm whether this is a cross reference giving agricultural vehicles off the road complete exemption from drivers' hours.
Assuming for the moment that it is so, this exemption in subsection (9) was referred to in general debate in another place where it would seem that the thinking behind the exemption was two-fold. First, the effect of weather conditions on agriculture sometimes calls for very long hours; secondly, although driving a machine off the road is tiring it does not have quite the same dangerous effect as driving for a similar time on the road. I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the Committee believe that forestry and construction work satisfies these two criteria, and this Amendment seeks to include them in subsection (9). My noble friend the Duke of Atholl will, I hope, rise again in a moment to deal with the claims of forestry, which he can do far better than I can.
Apart from the two criteria mentioned, I should have thought that an important factor here was that many people engaged in forestry must have longish journeys over deserted roads to and from their work sites, and inclusion of hours spent in the depths of a forest from time to time would put such people in a difficult position. Driving off the road on a construction site is not, I submit, tiring the same way as driving on a road. sort of operations that this Amend would cover would be lorries hovelling of earth, and simply from one point to another rather than driving, a.
1156
man really is operating a machine which involves very little movement. I think it is fair to say that here again we on this side of the Committee (perhaps it cannot be said too many times) are not by this Amendment going to try to involve people engaged in forestry and construction in immensely long hours, but we do bear in mind that somebody can come walking out of a factory at the end of a long day, get into his car and, if he wants to, drive all night.
Unless the proposed tachographs, when introduced, are to record only engine revs., not connected to any ancillary equipment, such as a mobile crane or a cement-mixer, there will be a grave problem here on construction sites—and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has an Amendment down on this quite shortly. If this situation is an uncertain one at the moment, surely that is another factor supporting the need to exempt the construction industry, which widely uses equipment built on to carrying tackle, provided, of course, that the Amendment relates only to operations off the road. I hope that the Government will be able to give this Amendment serious consideration. It would be important for productivity, and it only seeks to follow the Government's thinking as set out in subsection (9).
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to support my noble friend, particularly with regard to forestry. I am afraid that I know little about the construction industry and their problems, and I fully accept his statement that that industry would be greatly hampered by the provisions of the Bill as it stands at the moment. I think it is obvious that in forestry the drivers' hours provisions will be extremely difficult to obey unless some form of exemption is given to the forestry industry.
The planting season is a very short one anywhere, and it is often made shorter by the weather. For instance, you cannot plant when there is frost; so during the planting season you want to make use of every available hour of daylight. I might say, too, that you have to stop planting once the sap starts rising. Nor can planting take place in the height of the summer: it can be done only when the hours of daylight are not too long. When you are planting, there

1157
is normally someone driving a tractor, which goes rather slowly alongside, with all the plants on the trailer of the tractor. I do not think this is in any way a fatiguing job. He does not cover much ground during the course of a day. He hardly drives at all on a public road. Maybe he drives on the public road getting to his place of work and going home in the evening, although in many cases this does not happen, because he leaves the tractor ready for himself to come to the next day and gets there and back by bicycle or in a car driven by the foreman.
It is going to make it very difficult for the forestry industry if these sort of operations are curtailed to ten hours a day when we get a suitable day and suitable weather for doing them. Further (I am not sure whether this is covered or not) in felling operations, in most cases you obviously want to use your winch gear throughout a fairly long day. I cannot see that this gives rise to any great danger or fatigue, because in fact the tractor doing the winching is probably stationary for much of the day—not for all the day, for it obviously moves from place to place to do its winching, but for much of the day. I should have thought that this was another case where forestry could easily be exempted from these provisions without adding any danger to anyone.
I support my noble friend very strongly in saying that forestry should be included in this exemption. I personally feel that legislation would be much easier if forestry were always treated as being part of agriculture. They are related. A man is used to growing crops on a yearly cycle in agriculture, and is used to growing crops on a 30-yearly to 80-yearly cycle in forestry, but the idea is basically the same, and I feel that any difference between forestry and agriculture ought to be carefully analysed and the reasons for it given with great care. So I support my noble friend strongly so far as forestry is concerned.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Having satisfied noble Lords opposite that the concession so far as agriculture is concerned also applies to horticulture, I am afraid that I cannot go any further to meet them to-night. Forestry, as we all know, has hitherto enjoyed the same
1158
concessions as agriculture has under the 1960 Act, but is not now give n any concession. This is because it is less subject than agriculture is to the restraints of weather at harvest. In such circumstances the safety advantages of shorter hours should prevail—
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Could the noble Lord please explain why forestry is less subject to weather conditions than is agriculture? I tried to point out that in many ways it is just as subject to weather conditions. It seems to me that this is very much a fallacious argument.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Briefly, what I am trying to say is that forestry is not subject to the same sort of conditions as is harvesting corn in the fields. I agree that the trees in the forest have to be harvested at times, but there is not the same hurry to harvest them as there is to harvest, for example, corn from the farms. That is what I am briefly trying to say.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I must disagree with the noble Lord here. I agree that harvesting operations can sometimes be spread, although when you have a windblow such as we have had in Scotland recently they cannot be spread over more than 18 months, and this gives rise to great problems if you cannot work for long hours during that 18 months. Wind-blows are always occurring. They are not usually as bad as the one we had on January 15 this year, but there are always windblows. So I cannot se e that that is really a good case for an emergency exception under subsection (10). The planting season is short enough anyway. The Government's policy, they say, is that we should plant more and more forests in Scotland. The Prime Minister announced not so long ago that he hoped we should plan (I think I am right in saying this; I am speaking from memory) 50,000 acres a year. If we are going to do that, it is a short season. We must be able to make use of all the suitable weather—and planting is very dependent on the weather. I d3 not know whether the noble Lord would like to go planting trees on a frosty day, but I can assure him that it is almost impossible to do it.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I agree with the noble Duke that one can always find anomalies. I would not claim to

1159
have nearly as much forestry experience as the noble Duke has, but I live in a forestry area in East Anglia; for a good long time I was a member of the English National Forestry Committee, and I have some experience of it. I am not saying that I should like to go felling trees or, what is worse, lugging them out of the forest, but, generally speaking, I think the noble Duke will agree with me that forestry and agriculture and horticulture are not always comparable.
So far as building site and other construction work is concerned, this, like agriculture, is subject to some extent to the vagaries of the weather. But there is no concession in the 1960 Act and the Government see no substantial reason for giving a concession now. If, however, overwhelming reasons are brought forward in support of concessions for either or both of these industries, it would be possible to bring these about either by an order under Clause 95(12), which would probably take the form of adding the industry concerned to agriculture in subsection (9), as proposed in this Amendment, or by regulations under subsection (10) of the clause, which enables specific concessions to be made to meet any special need. It is therefore unnecessary for a concession to be made in the Bill itself, and I must inform the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who moved this Amendment, that I must ask the Committee to reject it.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I think it is a most preposterous suggestion that there is any fundamental difference between agriculture and forestry. There is a much wider difference between different sections of agriculture than there is between growing crops in farming and growing crops which are called forestry. The only fundamental difference, if you can call it a fundamental difference, between the growing of crops in agriculture and in forestry is a time difference. You normally get an agricultural crop a year or 18 months after sowing, whereas in forestry the period is measured in years, but that is the only fundamental difference between the two. It is utterly absurd to try to make a legal difference or to suggest that there is any other fundamental difference. There is a much greater dif
1160
ference between livestock husbandry and other branches of agriculture than there is between agriculture and forestry. To try to draw a line in respect of the implements—which can be the same, and often are the same—used in agriculture and in forestry is utterly and palpably absurd.
LORD FORBES: I do not think the Government realise that in the North of Scotland you try to plant trees in the time between when the frost goes out of the ground and when the sap begins to come into the trees. You cannot plant before the frost goes out of the ground; you cannot plant once the sap goes up into the young trees. That is a very, very short time, and if planting cannot go on as it does at present, if there is any restriction, the Government's planting programme cannot possibly be carried out.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Perhaps I can help the noble Duke in this. There have been a few fresh points made, and I said earlier that I agree with a good deal of what the noble Duke said. In view of the fresh points that have been made, I will give an assurance that I will look into the question of forestry, especially the planting side.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I just make a point of logic? The whole basis of Part VI is safety, and this is off the road. We see this in Clause 94. These are all operations off the road.
LORD BELSTEAD: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, has given us the benefit of his considerable time on this Amendment and has said that he will look at forestry. Now all we have to do is to ask him to look at the construction industry. Let me put a point to the noble Lord. Suppose one has an hour to drive to a construction site, which I think is possibly not unusual. I am advised—and the figures have been worked out—that a man who has to do this will now be reduced to 45 hours per week. May I quickly say, not hours per week, which I should like to see somebody working week in week out, but hours which I think many noble Lords on both sides of the Committee will agree may be very necessary in a particular emergency. The hours which have been worked out would be 45 hours of work, 12 hours for the journeys and three

1161
hours statutory meal breaks, which equals 60 hours.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, a second question. Will vehicles on construction sites be fitted with tachographs? If they are not fitted with tachographs, how on earth are construction sites and people working on them going to be brought into the scope of this Bill? Let us assume that somebody does what I suggested when I moved this Amendment—drives to a construction site and then spends time on the construction site, involving himself in drivers' hours, even though he is only tipping and shovelling. If he does not have a tachograph on his vehicle he can come (if I may use the expression) sailing off the construction site without anybody being the wiser and go off and drive to his heart's content.
Finally, I have some figures which I think make sobering reading. A pipeline contract was locked at, and it was worked out that the bill would increase by 31 to 3 per cent., and in the memorandum it was pointed out by the people putting in the pipeline that the actual increase in labour costs would be a great deal higher than that. The people concerned worked it out that they could get the figures down to this level. We are not talking about something academic. We are not moving this Amendment for fun, and I do not accept the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, that he will look into the question of forestry because it is something in which Members of this House are deeply interested, and then we can get on with the next business. I do not accept that, and I ask the noble Lord to give me an assurance in regard to the construction industry as well.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I was pleased to give the noble Duke an assurance in regard to forestry, because there is a very real connection. But I do not think anybody in this Committee, other than the noble Lord, Lord Beistead, can believe that there is any sort of connection between agriculture and the construction industry.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I find it entirely unacceptable, and I think we shall have to look at this matter again. In the meantime, with your Lordships' permis
1162
sion I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 128, line 17, leave out from ("enabling") to ("cases") in line 18 and insert "drivers to deal with".
The noble Lord said: This is largely a drafting Amendment, which is necessary to ensure that the scope of the Minister's exempting powers is not unintentionally restricted. It will enable the Minister to make regulations creating exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (6) of Clause 95 or for empowering the traffic commissioners or licensing authority for any traffic area to dispense with the observance of any or all of those requirements.
As at present worded in the Bill, the Minister's powers to make regulations are inadvertently too restrictive, being limited to the purpose of enabling vehicles to which Part VI applies to be used otherwise than as prescribed in subsections (1) to (6) of the clause, in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need. Some of the provisions 3f subsections (1) to (6) relate, however, to matters other than the use of vehicles. For example, subsection (3) prescribes the maximum permissible length of a driver's working day. The working day will embrace all work other than driving which a driver may do for his err, ployer, even work unconnected with a vehicle or its load.
In particular circumstances it may be necessary to grant a dispensation, retrospectively if need be, under subsection (10)(b) to allow a driver to d3 work of this kind in an emergency, or to meet a special need, after the expiry of his permitted hours of work. For e) ample, a farmer, after having driven for the maximum number of hours permitted under subsection (3), might on return to his farm find that he must work beyond the permitted limit to attend to the needs of a sick animal. Because of the limit on his working day, and because as at present drafted subsection (10) of the clause enables the licensing authority to dispense with the observance of the normal requirements under regulations

1163
only for the purpose of enabling vehicles to be used in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need, an offence would inevitably be committed if the driver did what any normal person would do and attended to the needs of the sick animal. Since, whatever the law says, no one is going to stop work in such circumstances, this must be recognised in legislation or the law will be brought into disrepute. This Amendment, belated but very necessary, avoids that disaster. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 239Z:
Page 128, line 18, after ("emergency") insert ("severe weather conditions").
The noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down in order to try to ascertain from the Government what is intended by this subsection. From what has already been said I gather it means anything that the Minister wishes it to mean. If that is the correct interpretation I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Earl is quite right, his Amendment is unnecessary. I assume that he is taking with it Amendment No. 239A. I beg the noble Earl's pardon, I see that is by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, which is on the same point but is equally unnecessary. I hope I may be allowed to speak to both Amendments, which will save quite five minutes.
Whether or not the Minister will be prepared to use his powers under this subsection, or under subsection (12) which in some cases may be more appropriate, will depend on the merits of each case. Perhaps I may quote the words of my right honourable friend in another place. He said:
"We have a degree of flexibility in the,power to make exemptions. One would assume that those exemptions would be made in the light of experience, but there is no point in using those exemption procedures to an extent which would make nonsense of the whole legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 29/5/68, col. 1952.]
This is the theme which I have been following all the afternoon, and it was really exemplified by the last Amendment. Certainly we shall move sensibly
1164
with regard to the requirements of certain industries and seasonal conditions, and that will include severe weather conditions.
I gave part of the answer on Tuesday night, when I was replying to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Minister could make exceptions to the normal limits of driving time and drivers' hours on duty during periods when weather conditions are such that journeys consistently take much longer than usual. For example, as the noble Duke will be aware, in Scotland in winter, when the roads are snowbound for months on end, fatigue among drivers in such conditions must be expected to be greater than normal. This might be an argument against allowing longer driving and working periods when the weather is bad.
In certain conditions, and particularly bad weather conditions, Clause 95(10) as it stands is drafted in sufficiently wide terms to enable this to be done. I would also mention—because I cannot remember that it has been mentioned at all in any of the many debates—that it is an important part of this clause that subsection (11) provides a defence against contravention of the rules in cases where it can be shown that such contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of a journey, arising out of circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen. In such circumstances no one will be daft enough to take any notice of it at all. The job will have to be done. But in general in answer to the noble Earl's point, and I hope also to Lord Merrivale's point, I can give them the assurance that the Bill provides for everything that they require.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.20 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 239A:
Page 128, line 19, after ("need") insert ("including the requirements of certain industries and seasonal conditions").
The noble Lord said: May I briefly ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, one point? He said that the Bill as drafted gives everything that I seek to achieve by my Amendment. But paragraph 4 of

1165
Appendix 2 of the White Paper, The Transport of Freight, says:
"A new and much-needed flexibility will be built in to the law by allowing the Minister of Transport to make suitable arrangements for those drivers whose job involves emergency work "—
which the noble Lord was talking about—
"to be excused from those parts of the rules which might otherwise make it impossible for such services to be provided."
But it does not say that this applies to industries with particular needs or requirements or affected by seasonal matters.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will carefully read certainly the first part of subsection (10), I think he will be satisfied that it does give the Minister power to make regulations providing exceptions for industries.
LORD MERRIVALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 239B:
Page 129, line 26. after ("of") insert ("the users of transport,").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with subsection (12) which can have quite considerable effects on subsections (1) to (9) of Clause 95. Before making these regulations the Minister is bound to consult with representatives of employees and employers. I am suggesting that he should also consult with representatives of the users of transport, who are more important than employees or employers. I brought this in because it occurred to me in the Amendment which I moved earlier that before this Bill was drawn up there had been no consultation with the people for whom I was speaking. I think it is right to provide that users of transport should be consulted wherever possible. If the Amendment does not find favour in the eyes of the Government they can negative it, but I am not going to withdraw it.
LORD STONHAM: I think it was a little premature for the noble Earl, even before hearing my reply, to say that he was not going to withdraw the Amendment, because I assure him at once that I agree with this. The Amendment raises an important principle with which the Government are in entire agreement.
1166
We are absolutely convinced that before changes are made in such important matters as the limiting of drivers' hours and means of enforcement there must be proper consultation with the interests concerned, both on the side of tie providers of transport, and their employees, and on the side of the users of transport, which is exactly the word used by the noble Earl. I should like to think this has always been the practice. It will certainly be the practice white we have anything to do with it.
Under Section 260(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 the Minister is required, before making any regulations, to
"consult with such representative organisations as he…thinks fit".
The Minister believes that this hind of requirement to consult is more appropriate than the present requirement in subsection (12) of the Bill, either as it is, or as amended by Lord Selkirk's Amendment, and that the new requirement should be applied to the whole of Part VI. It is an unintended omission from this Part of the Bill, that the Minister could, by regulation, make extensive alterations to the drivers hours rules under Clause 95(10) and introduce measures concerning tachographs (Clause 95) and written records (Clause 97) without at any obligation to consult. Not that he ever intended to take such a tours,—but there is at present no statutory requirement in this Part of the Bill.
The purpose of consultation is to enable the Minister to find out whether any proposals he may make are likely to be workable in practice; whethe.7 they are sufficient to achieve whatever aims he might have in mind and whether they create particular problems for any group of persons affected by them. This does not mean he must consult everybody on every occasion. For practical reasons, detailed consultations must generally be limited to the "top hamper" of al sociations—the "associations of associations" such as the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the R.H.A., the Transport Users' Joint Committee and the Traders' Road Transport Association. Many other representative bodies may be affected by the proposed changes. Sometimes it will be right to invite them to discuss the changes in detail; sometimes they will just be informed about what is afoot and left to comment if they wish; on other occasions it will be

1167
reasonable to leave it to the major national associations already mentioned, to obtain the views of their affiliated members.
To give a concrete example if the Minister wished to make an order under Clause 95(12) reducing the hours of driving per day from 10 to 9, it would obviously affect everyone in the country to some degree, but detailed consultation would probably be limited to the major associations—though many others would be notified and would be free to express a view. If, on the other hand, the Minister proposed to alter the hours only for, say, drivers carrying timber it would be right for him to consult forestry and timber interests directly as well as the national associations already mentioned.
The Minister believes, therefore, that the public interest is best served by imposing a requirement to consult, but leaving him discretion to consult such representative organisations (including user organisations) as he thinks fit. This arrangement has worked well in the past and there is no reason, as the noble Earl as a former Minister is well aware, to suspect that it will not do so in the future. Where failures have occurred, they have always been failures in administration. It would not have made a ha'p'orth of difference whatever had been laid down in the Bill.
I suggest therefore that the noble Earl might suspend his first intention and withdraw his Amendment on the undertaking that I give him, that the Government will themselves table Amendments on Report which will, first, remove any reference to an obligation to consult in Clause 95(12) but, second, include in Clause 100 an obligation on the Minister to consult "such representative organisations as he thinks fit" before making any order or regulations under Part VI of the Bill. I was quoting the actual words we would propose to insert in Clause 100. I hope that on that understanding, since he has achieved his purpose, but perhaps in a better way because it is more embracing than his present Amendment, the noble Earl will feel it right to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure he will appreciate that he has had to
1168
say "No" to your Lordships fairly often, and sometimes his "Noes" are not wholly convincing. I am most grateful to him for what he has said to-day. I think it is of help that users' organisations —and I should like him to put in the word "users" if he can—should have a right of channel to the Minister, perhaps through their senior organisation. I think this is of great value. In those circumstances, I am glad to go back on what I said, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.31 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 129, line 45, at end insert—
("Provided that the appointed day for the purposes of section 95 of this Act shall not precede the appointed day of section 96 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and after the notable success of my noble friend Lord Selkirk with his last Amendment I am encouraged to think that I shall meet with an equally reasonable response by Lord Stonham. This is a small and simple point. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the Minister under the next clause, Clause 96, which deals with recording machines—tachographs, as they are called—to make regulations requiring the fitting of tachographs before he makes the regulations reducing drivers' hours.
Doubts have been expressed, I know, about the efficiency and reliability of these recording machines, but I observe that in another place the junior Minister explained in some detail how they work, that the Government believe that 95 per cent. accuracy is possible, and that in any event where regulations are made they will be made within the limits of accuracy of the machine. This is consistent with the line which the Minister has taken during the consultations with industry over the past year, that the fitting of tachographs was essential in order to ensure that the new and stricter regulations for drivers' hours were properly kept.
This was a point which was made several times in another place, and particularly by the Labour Members of Parliament who were experienced in transport. It is essential that these new regulations shall be observed by all, and not

1169
be made the opportunity for the "smart guys" to benefit at the expense of the law-abiding. The Government have already said in the White Paper The Transport of Freight that it is their intention that tachographs should be fitted, and I think it should be laid down in the Bill, in order to remove all doubt, that the Minister will make this order before he makes an order with regard to the shortening of hours. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, with sweet reason and all his guileless charm, is, nevertheless, powerful stuff. It is nothing less than saying to your Lordships that we cannot have Clause 95 effective, with the regulations on hours, until Clause 96 with the regulations on the fitting of tachographs becomes effective; and, of course, we cannot have them until there are enough tachographs, and that might be 18 months after the passing of the Bill. That is why I say this is powerful stuff. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, agrees with me because his Amendment is precisely similar, and his smile is as wide as a barn door. Nevertheless, I have to answer the Amendment on its merits; but I thought it just as well to point out the underlying factors here, and how important this Amendment is.
My right honourable friend the Minister has said that it is his intention, when this Bill becomes an Act, that Clause 95, the hours clause, will become operative so that the stage of reducing drivers' hours can operate from the spring of next year, some nine months or so hence; and we regard it as most important. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, quite properly urged the importance of these tachographs. Of course they are only part of the job of controlling drivers' hours. I do not accept the implication that it is pointless to reduce the hours if tachographs are not first fitted to make sure that drivers' hours are reduced in Practice. It might be argued, it might even be thought, if we accept that view, that the operators would be glad of this delay, because they could benefit from the tachographs in the way of better control over their drivers and in the management of their fleets, before being faced with any possible increased costs arising from the reduction of hours for their men. That, of course, would be a most unhappy arrangement, and one to
1170
which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would be the last to subscribe. We do not accept that the law cannot be enforced without tachographs. This is the important point. In any event, these tachographs only measure driving time. That is a most important point. It is time at the wheel.
Apart from limiting driving time, the rules that we have spent so long discussing impose new limits on the length of the working day, the length of the working week, hours and periods of days off. These will be controlled, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is aware, through drivers' written records, just as are the present rules which he himself helped to draft and push through Parliament. Clause 97 makes detailed provision for the keeping of the written records which are required for the purpose of enforcing the rules. For the reason that tachographs are merely an aid to enforcement, and not an indispensable one, the Amendment to defer the implementation of the clauses on drivers' hours until after all the vehicles are fitted with tachographs is surely quite untenable.
I would again remind your Lordships that the regulations relating to hours and to the working week and the working day which will be introduced by Clause 95, and which the Minister wants to be in operation by next spring, are reductions in hours for the purpose of improving public safety. Surely it would be unthinkable to delay such a safety measure until the tachographs are available to help in enforcement cases.
We have been enforcing the present rules—the driving hours, the driving week, the days off and so on—for nearly forty years without tachographs. Therefore, although tachographs would have been a useful aid in enforcing them in the last forty years, I cannot accept that because they are not now available in sufficient quantities for fitting to every vehicle that would need them, we must therefore postpone this vitally important matter of the reduction in hours until they are so ready. We hope that they will be ready in about 18 months, If they were ready now, this Amendment would be unnecessary and could not be moved, because the two would go forward together.

1171
Unfortunately, that is not so, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree—I feel he must agree himself; it must be his personal conviction—that these reductions in the number of hours, the length of the working week, the provision for days off and so on, are in the public interest as a whole, public safety in particular, and in the interests of the men also in particular, and should be brought into operation as soon as new schedules can be worked out and new arrangements made, which ought to be as early as possible next year. I hope the noble Lord will agree with that, and will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: I should like to ask the Minister one question, that is, how has the industry, in respect of the unions and the operators, taken to the idea of tachographs? It seems to me—and I say this quite nicely—intolerable for a driver to have a snooper sitting alongside him and quite contrary to the British Constitution. I should like to know whether the rest of the world has such instruments.
LORD STONHAM: I would only say that many of these instruments are in use in many cases. This is not any revolution. Of course they are in use now, in firms which wish to be as efficient as possible and wish to use their labour as efficiently as they can. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that these matters have been discussed with the organisations on both sides, and certainly there is no objection from either side to Clause 96 which provides for tachographs.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his very careful and conciliatory answer. Although I am naturally not at all anxious to suggest that there should be a delay of 18 months before the new regulations should come into operation, I must press him on this. He will know that all consultations that took place with industry last year were on the basis that tachographs would be fitted before the new regulations were introduced, and the line that he is taking now, that tachographs will not be ready by next spring and therefore there must be a delay and the new regulations must be introduced without requiring the
1172
fitting of tachographs, is something quite new.
As we all well know, the extra productivity which it is so vital to get—and the Minister has stressed this again and again; and indeed the noble Lord has stressed it—and the shorter hours which the noble Lord wants, and indeed I want, will only be acceptable and successful if greater productivity can be achieved in regard to all the vehicles that this clause affects, particularly the freight vehicles. There is scope to get this productivity. However, we have the very cogent advice of the Prices and Incomes Board that the fitting of tachographs is one of the essential factors in order to get this extra productivity. In the light of that, it seems inconsistent for the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to recommend—and indeed to ask the House now to agree—this very important measure of reducing hours without doing something which we are told on the highest authority is essential if we are to achieve the extra productivity which is so essential.
I do not want to repeat arguments that we have had before about productivity, but the object is to maintain the earnings of the men engaged in this work, at the same time avoiding an increase of costs and also maintaining the efficiency of the transport operations. This is quite an undertaking, and the cogent advice here is that a tachograph is necessary. In the light of that, I really must press the noble Lord that, first of all, the line that is now being taken by the Government is not consistent with the line that was followed last year in consultations with industry; and, secondly, that this most cogent advice that the tachograph is an essential factor if we are to get the extra productivity on which the whole of this operation is based, as the Minister tells us, must be taken. I really must press the noble Lord that he should accept this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I assure the noble Lord that the Ministry of Transport have never discussed drivers' hours with the industry on the basis that tachographs would be introduced first. The only basis on which there has been discussion is that there would be provision for both in the Bill. Therefore, there has been no change at all. I must repeat, first

1173
of all, that the need to have tachographs is appreciated and fully understood, and that the Government are doing all they can to press ahead with the necessary arrangements. These are manufacturing problems; they are not political problems. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord knows, tachographs are already commercially available, and I believe there is no reason why many vehicles should not be equipped in advance of the dates that I mentioned. No doubt many of them will be equipped by next spring, in addition to those already so equipped.
The noble Lord has said that he really must press me on this Amendment. If he means he presses for acceptance of it, then I must tell him that it is quite impossible. I must impress on him the view, and I must ask him to acknowledge, that everything except tachographs with regard to hours is in operation now. The whole machinery of control is in operation now, and the only change under the Bill will he, with regard to drivers hours, a reduction in the permissible total working week, the permissible total working day, and the permissible total number of hours spent driving, although that meals actual driving all the time and not including other work as the case is now.
There is, therefore, no practical reason, any more than there has been any time in the last forty years when tachographs have not been fitted, why these regulations cannot be implemented as soon as there has been time—and I say it is about nine months—to make the different arrangements and draw up the necessary schedules. What the noble Lord says is that these are dependent on the economies that can be made through the
fitting of tachographs and, therefore, until those economies can be made it is not right to proceed with the changes in the hours. I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, with the best will in the world. I do no think he should ask this. I think the case has been clearly established that Clause 95 should be implemented so that these reductions in hours should take place next spring, and that Clause 96 should be implemented as soon as possible thereafter. That means as soon as these machines are ready, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that view.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for trying again to persuade me; but I am afraid that he has not in fact persuaded me. The two basic points are that enforcement of the law as it now stands is well known to be virtually impossible. This was said again and again in another place, and has been said most cogently from the noble Lord's own side of the House. Therefore, if the drivers' hours are further shortened enforcement will become even more impossible. It is quite obvious that many firms will dodge the shorter hours at the expense of the firms which observe them. Secondly, on productivity there is no doubt at all that there is a direct link between the fitting of these instruments and the greater productivity which is essential. The noble Lord has failed to answer these points, and therefore I am afraid that I must press my Amendment to a Division.
7.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 241) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Atholl, D.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Audley, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Balerno, L.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Barnard, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Brecon, L.

Glentanar, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brentford, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller]

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Sackville, L.

Conesford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sanderson of Ayot, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Somers, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Tweedsmuir, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Rhodes, L.

Arwyn, L.

Headford, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Boothby, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller]

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Carron, L.

McLeavy, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham. L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Walston, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SWAZILAND INDEPENDENCE BILL
8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have it in command from The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
By introducing this Bill Her Majesty's Government are giving effect at once to their general policy for the constitutional advancement of the dependent territories, and to an undertaking which they were glad to give to the Government of Swaziland last November. They had been asked, and they had readily agreed, to take the action necessary to enable Swaziland to become independent on September 6, 1968. The Bill provides for Swaziland's independence from that date. The Constitution will be provided for by Order in Council.
1176
My Lords, I think it fitting to refer tonight to the services during the period of our administration of the many officers who have gone to Swaziland from this country and from other parts and made their contribution to the administration, development and welfare of the country. Sir Francis Loyd will have had the distinction of serving as Her Majesty's Commissioner from the time that the first Constitution of Swaziland came into operation until the moment of independence. We are grateful for his loyal and devoted services and wish him well where-ever his future may lie. He and all his predecessors have had the unflagging support of all branches of the public services. For some of them it is the end of this particular road, but I am happy to say that for many more there are continued opportunities for service in Swaziland, which the Government of Swaziland have invited them to follow. Our good wishes go also with those who will be leaving and with those who will stay.
The country which will now be achieving independence in the constitutional field is at a most interesting stage of economic development. Everyone who visits Swaziland seems to be impressed with the beauty of the scenery, the charm and sincerity of its people, and the vigour of the economic expansion over the past few years. Certainly, the country is bleassed with a fortunate variety of climate, with good and varied types of soil, and with mineral resources beneath it.
We recognise that Swaziland, which has stood in need of support for the

1177
budget and aid for capital development for a number of years, will continue for some years to come to need external aid. We have already been able to settle what we can provide for the whole of the financial year 1968–69, so that, in effect, we have provided for the first six months of independence. Although we have no commitment beyond that date, we have agreed to talks on post-independence aid towards the end of the year, and preparations for these talks include the visit of a team from the Overseas Department of Aid to Swaziland this month.
The foundations of this country have been truly laid. Without undue disturbance of his traditional position and powers as leader of the Swazi people, the King is in a special position and, as Head of State, is also the constitutional Monarch. His Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is well established and enjoys very wide popular support in a country where by good fortune, and I think I may say good sense, race relations have not aroused antagonisms and their attendant problems. The state of the economy gives reasonable grounds for hope of continued development. The auguries are, it seems to me, favourable, for the grant of independence for which the Bill provides.
I do not know whether your Lordships wish me to deal with the clauses of the Bill. They will be familiar to many of your Lordships who have sat in this House over the years, in the sense that the Bill is very much like those presented in the past for the granting of independence. Perhaps I may mention only Clauses 3 and 4, which are concerned with citizenship. Swaziland already has a citizenship and those who possess it are British protected persons. The Bill will withdraw that status from them on Independence Day. The Bill will also withdraw citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from any person who is a citizen of Swaziland on that day, with the normal exception of those with close connections with the United Kingdom and its remaining territories.
I feel sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing to the King of Swaziland, the Prime Minister, the Government and the people of Swaziland our heartfelt good wishes as Swaziland achieves her independence. If this speech is short, its shortness only adds to our
1178
sincerity. This is not the parting of the ways but the beginning of a new stage of our journey in which we shall walk together—the United Kingdom and Swaziland—in continuing friendship as members of the Commonwealth, since Swaziland has already been accepted into the Commonwealth.
My Lords, with those few short words I commend this Bill to you; and I trust and believe that Swaziland has a great and happy future. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Shepherd.)
8.8 p.m.
Loan ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having clearly and concisely explained to us the provisions of this Bill. I should like to say at the outset that we who sit on these Benches warmly welcome it, and are delighted that the long and fruitful association between our two countries should end in agreed independence. We would also associate ourselves with what the noble Lord said and congratulate, with respect. His Majesty King Sobhuza II and all those who serve the people of this kingdom well, especially, as the noble Lord mentioned, Her Majesty's Commissioner, Sir Francis Loyd. Swaziland is the last British colonial territory in Africa to receive independence, and this Bill therefore has a particular significance.
British policy on independence, which has in general been accepted by all Parties in this country, is that it should be granted when it is clear that the colonial territory can stand on its own feet and when independence is requested by the majority of the inhabitants. It is quite clear in this case that the majority have overwhelmingly approved the request for independence; and, as regards the capacity of the country to stand on its own feet, Swaziland, as the noble Lord mentioned, is blessed with diverse and rich deposits of mineral wealth. She has, moreover, a political stability rare on the African Continent. She is blessed with wise and realistic leaders. It is true that the country will require aid from Britain after independence, but this need is not confined to colonial territories. The move to independence is taking place

1179
in an orderly manner, with full consultation at every stage, and I think that both Swaziland and Britain should be proud of the civilised way in which this very difficult process has been achieved.
There are just two matters that I should like to raise: they were brought up in another place but were not fully clarified, and if I may I should like to ask the noble Lord about them again. First of all, there is the matter of land alienation. In response to questions, the Under-Secretary admitted that on this matter the British and Swaziland Governments were still at odds. This is likely to cause grave difficulties in the future and could lead to racial trouble. The ownership of land arouses deep emotion everywhere, not only in Africa, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what is to happen after independence. Is this issue to be a running sore, souring relations between our two countries for the foreseeable future? When Swaziland becomes independent she will be so in all senses, and there must he a danger, therefore, that she will take unilateral action in this matter. If she were to do so, it would be unfortunate. Is it too late to ask the Government whether they cannot conclude an agreement on this subject with the Swaziland Government before independence, rather than leaving this very complex matter to be sorted out later?
My second question concerns citizenship, which was mentioned by the noble Lord. As I understand it, all the citizens of the present protected State of Swaziland will become citizens of independent Swaziland from the date of independence. But what will be the position of the 200 or so South Africans who took up Government posts in the Protectorate and for that purpose registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, so automatically losing their South African citizenship? These people have the right to acquire Swaziland citizenship if they apply not later than August 15 this year, but presumably if they do not apply they will retain their United Kingdom citizenship. I would ask the noble Lord, if he is able to answer, how many of these people have in fact applied for Swazi citizenship; and are there any other categories in the same boat?
1180
I also understand from what he said that there is no danger that anybody in Swaziland will be left Stateless. There was a point in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3568) saying that the Swaziland Government proposed that births in Swaziland after independence should confer citizenship only if the father was a citizen, but I understand that this has now been overcome and that the Independence Constitution will ensure that no citizen is left Stateless.
The noble Lord told us of the budgetary and development aid to Swaziland which is agreed until March 31 1969, and that new negotiations to cover the three-year development period 1969 to 1971 will not take place until after independence. This is not very satisfactory, but I can see that there are difficulties, and I hope that a satisfactory agreement will be reached.
Finally, I am delighted to hear that Swaziland is to apply for membership of the Commonwealth and that the members of the Commonwealth have agreed to accept her. It would be idle to deny that Swaziland, dependent as she is on South Africa, and I suppose to some extent on the Portuguese Port of Lourenco Marques, might perhaps run into some difficulties with the more militant African States to the North. However, I am sure that the wise statesmanship of her leaders will solve any such difficulties with moderation and good sense. I am delighted that Swaziland is to join the ever-growing throng of independent nations, and that she is to keep her special relationship with this country and the Commonwealth.
8.14 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have spent a good deal of my life in championing the cause of Asian and African nations to independence. But I have some reservations about the Bill which we are considering to-night. Yesterday I was with a great educationist who has experience in Southern Africa. I will not identify him because I want to quote him in private conversation; he remarked that we ought to have regarded the High Commission Territories in South Africa as "West Berlins". Just as we regard West Berlin as a surrounded outpost in Communist Eastern Germany, so the three High Commission Territories have been outposts in

1181
apartheid South Africa. And if we had recognised them as that, then we should have done very much more for their development than we have done in past years.
Looking over that history, during the time of both Conservative and Labour Governments, I have the very strong impression that there has been an attitude of defeatism which has taken the view that sooner or later those High Commission Territories would become part of South Africa. Because of our neglect, those three territories—Lesotho, Botswana and, now, Swaziland—despite their political independence, are dependent upon the Government of South Africa with its apartheid system. There has been shocking economic neglect in aid over these years; there has been also neglect in providing educational opportunities. It should be in our minds when we pass this Bill to-night that the 300,000 Swazis are among the most illiterate of all the African peoples.
I recognise that Swaziland has greater opportunities than Lesotho or Botswana. It has greater opportunities because it has rich mineral deposits, considerable economic development; and if these were used for the independence of their country they could bring much happier results than in either Basutoland, renamed Lesotho, or Bechuanaland, renamed Botswana. In Swaziland, however, we have a situation where the Administration is under the control of African traditionalists, the Chiefs and their circle, and of the minority of 10,000 white settlers, many of whom are South African. I admit at once that they represent at the present time the majority view in Swaziland. But I also say this: the African population of Swaziland will, as the years go by, become responsive to the mood which is now passing through all African peoples: the belief in self-reliance, the belief in democracy and the strong resentment of the system of apartheid in the neighbouring territory of South Africa. My Lords, the Constitution of Swaziland which will be endorsed by this Bill, was determined by three British representatives in negotiation with the African traditionalists about whom I have spoken and the white settler minority.
I was very interested that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke about the
1182
alienation of land. More important is the alienation of mineral rights. In the first draft of the Constitution it was suggested that the mineral rights should be the property of the King. I pay tribute to my friend Mr. John Stonehouse, who was then Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office and who declined to accept that provision. Like the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition, I am concerned about the future in this matter. The decision not to regard mineral rights as the property of the King was accepted only temporarily, and just as in the case of land alienation it could be reimposed after independence. I think a difficult and perhaps even a dangerous situation may arise in Swaziland when these issues of aristocratic ownership of land and of minerals come into conflict with the inevitably increasing democractic pressures.
The other issue I wish to raise about the Constitution is the distribution of the constituencies from which the Parliament will be elected. There were complaints, and I went into them in some detail, at the last election that practices were carried out against the Ngwame National Libertary Congress, the Opposition, representing the more modern views among the African population. They polled over 12 per cent. of the votes. I recognise at once that the other Farties had the vast majority of the electors, but the interesting fact is that the votes which went to the National Libertary Congress were cast in the towns. They were the Africans who were responding to modern conditions and who were most educated. They were the Africans who most represent the developing forces in ideas, industry and employment.
Under the new Constitution there are to be only eight constituencies in the whole of Swaziland. They are to be three-member constituencies. They are not even to be under proportional representation, and they will include not only the populations of the towns but of large rural areas around. Inevitably a constitution of this character will tell against minority interests and minority parties. If there were single member constituencies separately representing towns as well as country areas, the minorities would have some representation. Because I am so concerned that the future of Swaziland should be enabled to develop by democratic means, by education and

1183
persuasion rather than by conflict I feel I must give a warning to-night that a constitution which will prevent the democratic expression of minority views, and the views of the more dynamic Africans who are living in the towns, might bring about a conflict outside the normal challenge of parties within a democracy.
The other point I want to mention on the constitution is that the King of Swaziland is given the power to prevent constitutional change. This means that if new democratic elements are arising in Swaziland, as they inevitably will, and are pressing for changes, a constitution which gives the King power to prevent any changes will also contribute to the danger of conflict.
I appreciate that it is now too late to alter these decisions. But because I am so concerned about the democratic future of Swaziland, I would appeal to my friends there who belong to the parties of the Opposition to accept the fact that Swaziland becomes independent and to build up their parties on the basis of education and reason and the conversion of the majority now against them, so that there may be effective pressure in Swaziland for the changes which I believe are necessary, and without the conflict which I fear the present constitution may otherwise arouse.
8.28 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Brockway will forgive me if I do not express complete approval of the details of his speech though I would like to assure him that on the broad issues he and I are in complete agreement. I would like to add from these Benches a warm welcome to this Bill and to extend to the young nation of Swaziland all our good wishes for its future happiness and prosperity.
Many of us must feel a slight pang at the ending of a notable chapter of 80 years of close political ties between Swaziland and this country. These years have been marked by an outstanding record of service by generations of British civil servants and officials who have every reason to feel proud of their services to Swaziland. But these old relations are now being founded on a new and more secure basis involving total
1184
political independence for the people of Swaziland. Here it is a source of pride to note the active part being played by the Commonwealth Development Corporation (as I am sure will be emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, when he comes to speak) in the economic prosperity of Swaziland. That, I feel, is the best way that we can show our absolute confidence in the future of Swaziland, and the wisdom and foresight of its rulers.
My other concern in intervening in this Second Reading debate is to emphasise one point on which many of us feel very deeply indeed. It is to express the hope that in future all political issues will be subordinated to the one urgent vital issue, and that is the material prosperity of the majority of the inhabitants of Swaziland. Although independence is being achieved under the most hopeful omens, this little country faces very grave immediate problems. Internally, she has to maintain the unity of her people within her present tribal system, the one great cohesive force that can maintain the prosperity of the country, despite its out-ward Parliamentary structure. Here, internal political tensions must be restrained. They can only be divisive in their effects. The results of the recent elections should now bring all minority factions to work together, and under Swaziland's acknowledged rulers, for the benefit of the mass of the people, and not for the personal benefit of the few.
The economy of Swaziland is not geared to face the dangers of political upheaval. The problems of land tenure must be settled eventually in the interests of the poorest elements of the population, and not to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The great mineral and agicultural resources of the country must be harnessed to raise the material standards of the people. By that factor mainly should the policies of the Government of Swaziland be judged in the immediate future.
In the wider economic field it is to be hoped that Britain will continue her help to Swaziland, both through the Government, and for a time, also, by continuing the magnificent projects already so well rendered by the C.D.C. But there is nothing to be gained by deceiving ourselves and failing to recognise the fact that the whole future of

1185
Swaziland must inevitably be closely linked with South Africa. Not only is she surrounded entirely by South African territory, but the whole field of her economic development in the future must depend not only upon the good will, but upon the active investment of capital by her powerful neighbour. One can only hope that South Africa will interpret her great opportunities in Swaziland, not for the advancement of her own material wealth (for that can be increased relatively only very little in Swaziland) but to assert the right of Swaziland to full economic and political co-existence.
We all profoundly trust that this great little country will, by the disinterested help of South Africa, become an example to the whole of Independent Africa of what Africans can achieve in material prosperity and in asserting the dignity of man. With these few remarks, my Lords, I should like to endorse all that has been said from these Benches, and to give my warmest support to the Bill.
8.35 p.m.
LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE: My Lords, I am very happy to-day to join in congratulations to the Swazi nation on the state of their country and in good wishes to Swaziland for its future as an independent country. I was particularly happy to listen to the speech the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made and to hear him, very rightly, pay a tribute to the work that Sir Francis Loyd has done in Swaziland in recent years. I can assure him that in the past, when I was closely associated with Sir Francis in Kenya, he did equally good work there.
In 1968, anyone who looks with an impartial and discerning eye at Swaziland must be struck by one feature of the country and that is that, compared with other small countries in the African continent, there is a remarkable economic development. There are important and well-diversified projects for economic development. There is a large asbestos mine producing very high quality asbestos and run by term renewal with security of tenure, which was not the case in the past. There is an iron ore mine and, as a result of the construction of that mine, there has now been built a railway right across the country to join up with the Portuguese railway in Mozambique—a thing which everyone associated with Swaziland, and I was very
1186
closely associated with Swaziland in the past, has always dreamed of happening. There is in the high country just South of the capital, a large pulp mill and 100,000 acres of pine trees, both owned jointly by the Commonwealth Development Corporation and by Courtaulds. In that undertaking now there are employed about 3,800 men; many of them earn what by African standards are certainly very high industrial wages, and there is a good and expanding scheme for artisan training—the sort of thing that was quite unknown in the past in Swaziland.
In the low country of Swaziland there has been a big development of irrigation. Irrigation twenty years ago had not come to Swaziland at all. There are two large sugar mills, one very successfully run by a private company, one also managed and financed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, each producing over 80,000 tons of sugar a year. And about 5,000 families—that too low a figure; I think perhaps rather more than 5,000 families—of Swazi now gain their living in security with irrigated agriculture, far more secure than dry-land agriculture in a dry country. With that security in the low country of Swaziland, with the series of agricultural developments that have follower—the building of a big diversional weir on the Komati River by the Commonwealth Development Corporation—the number will go up in the future, since there is now also a large dam. There is a particularly interesting development—and this I think is the future of many African countries. There is run by that Corporation, of which I must say I am the chairman, a large estate growing citrus and sugar and rice, and all round it now there are a number of small farmers. This is a scheme known as the Uchrus Estate, or plantations, and the whole idea is that the benefits of up-to-date management and up-to-date scientific ideas should spread from the large estate to the surrounding small farmers. And it has done very well for Swaziland. It has proved what many people doubted in the past, that Swazis can become very efficient and active and successful individual farmers.
There are several other important economic developments in Swaziland. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has mentioned, Swaziland still does not pay

1187
its way. On the other hand, I think one should say that Swaziland currency is inexplicably tied to that of South Africa; yet its exports come mainly to Great Britain. I think it is a fair guess that, if it had not been for the situation in which we devalued and South Africa did not, which therefore hit Swaziland very heavily, Swaziland probably would be on the threshold of paying its way. Anyway, whether that is so or not, the picture of Swaziland in 1968 is that of a flourishing country with plenty of jobs offering to its people, and plenty of chances of further economic development.
My Lords, what I want to say to-night is that it was not always like this. In 1944, when I first visited that beautiful country, scenic beauty was about all there was to encourage those in Swaziland. There were a number of European farmers, it is true. There was an asbestos mine still not completely developed, since there was not security of tenure for the company. For many years the country received an annual grant-in-aid from the British Government, and that was stopped during the war simply because there was not the wherewithal to maintain either the roads or the Government houses and both were in a very bad condition indeed. After the war the grant was resumed. In those days there was hardly any new development in Swaziland. There was a general air of decay, and there was ill-feeling and constant bickering between the leaders of the Swazi nation and the Colonial Government. There was a crying need for some large wealth-producing unit to put the country on its feet.
How did the change take place between the gloomy prospect of 1944 and the encouraging one we see in 1968? As usual in a developing country, it was the first step that was by far the most difficult, and equally, I believe, the most important. That came primarily through the bringing of first-class technical brains from a large developed country into a developing country, and those brains belonged to a man named Dr. Craib, who at that time was the chief research officer of the South African Forestry Department. He left that Department and came to Swaziland, where he found that it was possible to grow pine trees with great success in the high mountains which pre-
1188
viously had only been grazed by sheep. He established there two forests, one of which I have already mentioned and which had the pulp mill in the middle.
With the first forest—that is, with the first big economic enterprise in the country except for the asbestos mine—everything at once began to change. The velocity of circulation rose, as in the economic textbooks. I was there at the time, and I remember it extremely well. New people came in, and there was a small housing boom. The shops made higher taxable profits; people began to buy lorries, and new licence fees were paid. Land was bought and sold, and the Government received higher transfer fees. Postal revenue rose; and, above all, this first big enterprise brought Swaziland to the notice of the outside world, with its money for investment and its know-how for management. And from it there flowed other enterprises, of which I have tried to describe one or two.
It was a most happy transformation and, as usual, several people contributed to this. One was Dr. Craib; another was Sir Edward Beetham, a fine administrator and afterwards a successful Governor of Trinidad. During his period of office in Swaziland the relationship between the Swazi nation and the Government was completely changed; and for the better. But above all—and this is the point I want to emphasise to-night; and it is important after listening to the sincere speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because it explains the attitude of the Swazi people—there was the part played by the Paramount Chief, who is now King Sobhuza II.
In the early days, particularly in the establishment of the two big forests and the expansion of the asbestos mine, land exchanges were required, since Swaziland was then a patchwork quilt of small Swazi areas and European farms, and it was impossible to have a big land development which was any use to anybody without there being an exchange which affected the economic benefit of the Swazi. Yet, given the past history of the country, such an exchange, seen through Swazi eyes, appeared at first to be an appalling prospect. The exchanges which were made, either for the forests or for the mines, or for anything else, looked at through a Western and economic eye were to the benefit of good

1189
land use. Yet, given the past history of land use, the land grievance was not unjustified. That land problem is still not completely resolved, and if a solution could be found, if possible before independence, great benefit would flow from such a development.
The story goes right back to 1907 when a very bad partition was made in which the Swazi received only one-third of their own country on a calculation of the growth of population which proved entirely wrong. Later, in the 1930's, an attempt was made to get more land for them, and, rightly or wrongly, the Swazi thought they had been cheated. In any case there was a very deep feeling about land. I think, again with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is much deeper than the feeling about minerals.
It follows that any agreement about exchange of land—and such exchange was necessary for development—was extremely difficult for the Swazi to accept. I had always thought this was so even in the late 'forties. This view was confirmed when I visited Swaziland in February this year and had the most interesting conversion with the Prime Minister, Prince Makhosini Dlamini. He told me that when the first land exchange was proposed, I think in 1946 or 1947, the then Paramount Chief put it to the Inner Council, of which he himself was a member, and there was very strong opposition indeed. They attacked the Paramount Chief more strongly than ever, and the words they said to him were, "You love the trees more than the people,"—a very telling phrase in those circumstances.
But in spite of this he had become convinced that his people needed this development, and he stuck to the point. He persisted with great courage and foresight and carried the day. It was a very courageous action. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that from that action of the man who is now King Sobhuza II has flowed nearly all the prosperity of Swaziland, because without that action it would have been impossible to get the early land development, and without that none of the subsequent investment, which has given jobs, the modern outlook, would have occurred. In fact when one looks at this action of his one can say: hence the other de-
1190
velopments, and hence the reverence with which he is regarded by the Swazi to-day. They think that he has led his people into prosperity; and they are right.
And that is why, my Lords, whether you like to think of him as a traditionalist or anything else (I do not think labels matter very much), King Sobhuza has a very powerful position in Swaziland today, and will always have it so long as he is alive. I felt that on this happy occasion this should be said. It happened a long time ago, but it is very important to this country and as a result I think it is a story of a small African country and of very good happy co-operation between the British people, both in Government service and in business. Finally, let me add that most of my life has been spent in African development. To develop a small country is infinitely harder Clan to develop a big one. It is very much easier to get development in Nigeria than in a little West Indian island like Montsarrat or St. Lucia. Swaziland is a small country but it has been developed, and I believe that its prospects for the future are good. It has a pretty stable Government. The Swazis are not, it is true, the most sophisticated people, but they have a remarkable degree of common sense.
8.48 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to join in the universal welcome and good wishes which we all feel and offer to the King of Swaziland, his Parliament and his people. I have listened with the deepest interest to the noble Lord, Lord Howick, because he has a knowledge of the country which none of the rest of us is fortunate enough to possess, and I think it is a great privilege on an occasion like this to be able to have a sketch from somebody of his knowledge and experience. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, partly because I do not think this is the occasion for airing certain views, and I do regard his speech as having been a mixture of false impressions and bad advice. I should be only too pleased, in another debate when it would be a suitable subject, to argue that matter further with him.
To return to Swaziland, it is true that the natural resources of this country, both mineral and agricultural, added to the absence of any grave racial and tribal problems, and also the mature national

1191
character, provide a sound basis for successful independence and that cannot be said so easily of many other countries which have attained independence.
It is also true that for some time Swaziland will need outside help, in capital and technical skills, for developing the diversified economy which will give her genuine freedom. A glance at the map shows that much must hinge upon amicable relations with the Republic of South Africa and it would seem that there is every prospect, under the wise guidance of the traditional leaders of Swaziland, that she will achieve friendly co-operation which the interests of both countries demand.
After all, the declared policy of the South African Government is that of the good neighbour; and she has repeatedly emphasised that her help, scientific, educational, and financial, will not unreasonably be denied to any of her African neighbours who care to ask her for it. She has also explicitly declared that her interests are in fair trade and development of all kinds for the mutual advantage of both of the countries concerned. She has also said most emphatically that she wishes to interfere in no way with the domestic affairs of her neighbours.
I should be the last to underrate the immense benefits derived by Swaziland from the operations and the assistance of the C.D.C., and also from the guidance and the financial help given to her by the British Government; and for the assistance, of course, and the great work done (to which Lord Howick has paid tribute) of the British officers who work there.
Now that she will stand alone on her own feet, the maintenance of good relations with the great republic next door to her must be a predominant factor in making a real success of independence. So we all wish for Swaziland and its people the happy future which wise guidance will so ensure.
8.53 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I do not intend to speak for more than a short time to-night, because we have already heard a series of eloquent and informative speeches, and I certainly feel that this is not an occasion for contentious debate, otherwise I might have entered into a discussion with the noble
1192
Lord who spoke last, particularly having regard to his apparently unqualified admiration of the Republic of South Africa.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he really is out of order speaking from the Bishops' Bench. If he would just move back one row, he would bring himself within the custom in your Lordships' House.
LORD SORENSEN: I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House. A certain ecclesiastical trait must have directed me to the wrong Bench. I think I should certainly say that I am not a member of the Established Church.
To return to the matter under discussion, since the days when India became free and independent, we have seen a number of portions of the British Empire steadily pass out through the gates into freedom and responsibility. At first many of us had good will, confidence, and hope regarding the development of those countries. Part of that has been justified by subsequent events; part has not. We deplore the fact that so many countries secured their independence only in course of time to adulterate it, and instead to pass away from the full freedom we believed they would exercise into some kind of dictatorship or, on the other hand, into internal disruption. But this is in the nature of things, and it is no excuse whatever for us to deny the right, the inevitable right of all peoples who were once within our Imperial domain to achieve their freedom and independence and work out their own salvation.
Swaziland is in a peculiar position territorially and otherwise, but that is no reason why we should not recognise that this High Commission territory must, like the other territories, march forward and work out its own salvation. All we can do, I am sure, is express our good will to that country and hope that in the days to come it will avoid some of the errors, failures and disappointments that have accompanied other territories and other peoples when they first secured their freedom.
This is probably the last time we shall be discussing Swaziland, and that is why I am very glad we have not allowed this historic occasion to pass by simply with the excellent speeches made by my noble

1193
friend Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I am glad that others have participated because at least that will leave the impression among the Swazi people that we are deeply concerned about them, and as they go forward we are not merely saying "Good riddance" but we are saying "Good will".
One other point and then I will close. Reference has been made to the inner conflict between what has been called "the traditionalists" and the incipient democratic movement of Swaziland. It is, of course, a little paradoxical for us to decry "traditionalism" in a House which itself is the repository of past traditions. We ourselves stand open, of course, to the criticism that we had better put our own house in order before we decide what shall be done elsewhere. But just as in this House we are transforming the House so that it becomes more and more essentially democratic—through the advent of, I will not say people like myself, but many others in this House —so also one would hope that the traditionalism of Swaziland will also be peacefully transformed, given good will on the part of those who are traditionalists, on the part of the King, and on the part of the paramount chiefs. I see no reason why, just as many noble Lords in this House through their enlightenment gradually transform the nature of this House, so also the traditions of Swaziland cannot be similarly peacefully transformed.
For that reason I trust, with a full appreciation of the anomalous position that Swaziland is in at the present time, with the recognition that inevitably there will be this conflict between those who rely largely on the past and those who look to the future, and also with the recognition that still we must give friendly assistance whenever we can to this country, nevertheless we ask Swaziland to go forward and give an example to her neighbours of what a small, democratic, free country can do.
8.59 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Segal reminded us that we are now coming to the end of an 80 year old association between Swaziland and this country. It is right that we should look back and see the fruits of
1194
that association. Clearly we cannot look back and say we made no mistakes, or that we have done everything we could have done that we should have. I do not think any country, any government, any individual can ever be so complacent as to say that about the past. My noble friend Lord Brockway was right, I think, to point out some of our failures, and I certainly share his view that Swaziland and the other former High Commission territories should have been regarded, and still should be regarded, as showplaces, the showplaces of what tolerance and multiracialism can be in a part of the world which is singularly and unhappily lacking in those attitudes.
The noble Lord, Lord Howick, was right to point out what had been achieved by co-operation between our two countries. It is an impressive record and the Swazi people, the Swazi leaders, this country, and the noble Lord, Lord Howick, personally, have every reason to be proud. We have also helped in a fantastically rapid transition from what one can describe as tribal feudalism into a form which is approaching Western democracy. I do not hold up Western democracy as the ideal for any country, especially the African countries, but there has been remarkable progress over that period and we can take some pride in it. We must now look to the suture and to the movement forward of Swaziland, under wise leadership, so that under democratic processes it may advance towards a still more democratic form of government which will be fast and, I hope, smooth. This will include its advance towards greater economic wellbeing and eventual economic independence, in so far as any country to-day can ever be economically independent.
There is one further point which has not been mentioned, which gives me the greatest grounds for confidence in the future of Swaziland and the greatest reason for looking at that country with such interest and sympathy. It is the feeling of tolerance which exists in Swaziland itself. It is a country in which black and white, Africans and Europeans, live and work together. God knows, we need examples of that throughout the world. We need it in this country and we need it, above all, in the Continent of Africa. For that reason, if for no other, I have enormous hopes

1195
for the development of Swaziland, not only within its own territorial frontiers, but within the whole ambit of the southern tip of Africa.
I believe that the example which was set by Swaziland during its colonial days will now gather momentum so that they may advance economically and politically and, above all, show that a multiracial society can work for the mutual benefit of all the people of that country and the surrounding areas. To that end I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give all the moral, economic and financial support of which it is capable. Although Swaziland is to become an independent country in its own right, it will still be able to gain from us, so far as it wishes to do so, material help and any other things of which it may stand in need. I join with other noble Lords in wishing it well in the future.
9.4 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a debate in which we can all speak in unison. Even though my noble friend Lord Brockway had several reservations to make about the Constitution (which, of course, will be a separate instrument quite separate from the Bill itself), he expressed the good wishes and the great hopes which we all have for the Swazi people. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, could speak with greater authority than any of us, in the sense that he was at one time a British High Commissioner for that territory, with others. Certainly, while he is Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has itself played a very great part in the development of this territory, I am sure that in the Corporation there will be a special affection and a great deal of sympathy for this territory, so long as it is viable.
I accept from my noble friend Lord Brockway that the accusation of neglect might stick. But I do not know of any British territory where that might not apply, if we go back far enough. However, much has been done during the short period for which we have been directly responsible in Swaziland, and much should be developed for the benefit of its people from the base that is there now.
1196
I should like to deal with the land problem, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Of course, that does not come within the Constitution. But if I know the Swazis as well as the noble Lord, Lord Howick, I am sure that over a considerable period we shall be discussing this subject from time to time. It is not a very easy matter. There is a long history behind it, and I know that the Swazis take a very strong view. For our part, we took over an appalling mess, as one of my officials described it. So there are points on both sides. But I made it very clear to the Swazi delegation at the Constitutional Conference, that if they would consider their land problem within a development plan for Swaziland, we would consider all proposals with the greatest sympathy. For the object is surely to see that the available land is developed quickly and to the best advantage of the country.
With regard to the question of mineral rights, which my noble friend Lord Brockway raised, I agree with him that what is now proposed is not what we in the British Government would have wished. We feel that the arrangements made by Mr. John Stonehouse were right. As my noble friend will appreciate, both Houses of Parliament there, after an election, made it clear that they wished the mineral rights to be dealt with according to the Constitution. We expressed our view very strongly at the Constitutional Conference, but, in the light of their very strong views and what we in this country would regard as a mandate, we felt it was right to concede the point and to make the present provisions.
I accept the concern of my noble friend about the political structure, the size of the constituencies and the result of the votes. I think it should be recognised that some 80 per cent. of those who voted at the last election voted for those who are now in the present Parliament. However, I very much share the view of my noble friend, that the political Parties in Swaziland will use education and the normal good sense of the Swazi people to see that politics are discussed, and I do not have the slightest doubt that in due course the varying views of the Swazi people will be represented in their Lower Chamber.

1197
When we looked at this question in terms of the Upper House, we found a way of making it possible for the King to nominate individuals who may have been in a political Party, and who may have fought in the last campaign. Under the previous Constitution this had not been possible, and when we put this point of view to the Swazi delegation they were very ready to accept an amendment to ensure that a candidate who had fought in a previous election would not he precluded from being nominated by the King to the other House. Clearly this gives some leeway, some flexibility, for (shall we say?) a minority political interest to be represented.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. I appreciate very much what my noble friend has said. Could he make some reference to what I regard as the most doubtful item in the Constitution, and that is the power of the King to block changes in the Constitution even if there is a democratic demand for such changes?
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend did not really permit me to develop that, but I took note of what he said. Here I speak with slight diffidence. As I understand it, the Swazi people wished to ensure that the Constitution should not be changed too readily, and they provided what I am bound to say we in the Commonwealth Office felt were too rigorous or too limited powers. But this was the view which was expressed by the elected members who attended the conference, and I am bound to say—and I am sure they would understand if they were to read my words in Hansard—we accepted this with the greatest reluctance. We felt that this was something which one day, perhaps, they would wish they had not imposed upon themselves—too tight a control, too limited a provision for change in the Constitution. But this is what they waned. And as my noble friend will appreciate, when you are at a Constitutional Conference and you have elected representatives in front of you, genuinely elected representatives clearly representing the people of the territory, it is rather difficult to impose your will upon them, although we made our views very clear at this Conference.
LORD SORENSEN: Before my noble friend continues on that point, can he
1198
say very briefly whether in fact the regal power to block is determined by the King on the advice of his Ministers? If that is so, does than not provide some democratic connection?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Swazis are democratic, although, as my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, they are very much traditionalists. There is Parliamentary control: it requires Parliamentary consent for change.
My Lords, citizenship, to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, is one of these very difficult problems, particularly in Africa. We were absolutely determined that by this Act or this Constitution there should be no Stateless persons. We were under the impression that this had been achieved. I am bound to say that I have received a letter from a Member in another place; and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, himself raised the question of some 200 persons (I think it was) who may be ill difficult circumstances. The briefing that I received before I came here, although not in regard to the 200, was that we had dealt with this problem, and certainly that if there were exceptions these could be dealt with by administrative action. However, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, and in view of the letter that. I have received, I am asking that this matter should be very carefully considered by the Department, although I say again that I am advised at this particular stage that if there were difficulties these could be dealt with by administrative action. Certainly there was no intention, either by Her Majesty's Government or by the Swazi people, that by this grant of independence anyone should be made Stateless.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Segal, spoke for us all when he said that we should warmly welcome the independence of the Swazi people but with a slight pang of regret that someone who has been so close to us should now be going alone into the outer world. I share this feeling for a people who have the courage to go out alone in a difficult world. I am sure that this small country with their confidence, the economic and political stability, and, I hope, their political growth, have a good future in front of them. I believe and hope, despite all, that they will be able to live in

1199
peace and find economic sustenance and development from their neighbours on each side. With these few words, I hope the House will approve this Bill and send a message to the Swazi people of good hope and of the everlasting friendship of the British people.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS AID BILL
9.17 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, your Lordships last debated the overseas aid policies of Her Majesty's Government on May 29, on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. Most of your Lordships on that occasion showed yourselves sympathetic to the aims of the Government's overseas aid policy. Most of us then expressed appreciation of the work which had been done by the International Development Association and the Asian Development Bank and showed a general sympathy for the multilateral and regional approach to the problems of foreign aid. These are the aims which three at least of the clauses of the present Bill are designed to serve.
In paragraph 3 of their Command Paper, published in August, 1965, the Government stated their policy on multilateral organisations in the following terms:
"We recognise the advantages of giving aid through international organisations and we intend to increase our contributions in common with other donors as the needs of these organisations grow and our own resources permit."
Clause 1 of this Bill, which deals with the replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, an affiliate of the World Bank, is probably the most important single step yet taken by Her Majesty's Government in implementation of this policy.
The International Development Association was set up as an affiliate of the World Bank in 1960. Its initial subscriptions from member countries totalled close on 1,000 million dollars. Its objects were to fill a special need in the provision of development finance by assisting a number of poorer, less developed
1200
countries, whose need for outside capital was greater than their ability to service conventional loans. I.D.A. development credits were designed to impose a far less burden on the balance of payments of borrowing countries than conventional loans.
The initial resources of I.D.A. were supplemented in 1964, following negotiations conducted while the Conservative Government were still in office, by the resources of the first replenishment amounting to a further 750 million dollars. The Bill which is now before the House will enable Her Majesty's Government to pay their proper contribution of 12·96 per cent. to the resources of the second replenishment amounting to 1,200 million dollars (or £500 million) spread over three years. The British share of this replenishment will amount to £64·8 million. The proposed arrangements, including full details of the contributions of the other 17 Part I donors, are set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 3599.
My Lords, it may well be asked: why should Britain support this proposal at a time when we are ourselves facing economic difficulties? First, the economic difficulties which this country faces are as nothing compared with those of whom ultimately these funds will help. I.D.A. credits go to countries with a per capita income of less than £100 a year. Even more important is the fact that these development credits have not only been made available to the poorest countries on very soft terms, but also the International Development Association, with the full resources of the staff of the World Bank behind it, has administered the funds made available to it so far very wisely and well.
I believe that I.D.A. has been a success story. Some 118 credits, valued at over 1,700 million dollars, have been granted in 38 countries. I.D.A., however, now has virtually no more funds; hence the need for this second replenishment. The development programmes of a number of countries (especially India) will suffer seriously if they cannot speedily receive fresh I.D.A. credits. To implement the Resolution providing for this replenishment, the Government requires the authority of Clause 1, subsections (1) to (3) to enable them to make their first payment on November 8. But for the

1201
replenishment to go through, at least twelve contributing members, whose contributions total not less than 950 million dollars, must give the Association formal notification that they will make their authorised contributions. So far, at least six of the donors, including Germany, have given this notification and the approval of four more, excluding ourselves, is expected this month or may, indeed, have already been received. The replenishment, however, cannot go through without the approval of the largest donor of all, the United States, who will be contributing 40 per cent. of the funds, that is to say, 480 million dollars or £200 million.
Noble Lords will have seen Press reports last week about the situation concerning United States legislation to implement this replenishment. It would not be proper for me to comment upon what is happening in the United States Congress. We hope, however, for a speedy American ratification, so that the desperate needs of the poorest countries of the world can be met. The best contribution we can make to securing it is to set the United States House of Representatives a good example by passing our own legislation speedily.
While on the subject of the United States, I must draw the attention of the House to one feature of this replenishment which has never previously appeared in the I.D.A. arrangements. Hitherto, the arrangement for spending the donors' contributions to I.D.A. has been that when I.D.A. came to draw upon these contributions the cash was drawn down from I.D.A. funds proportionately to the size of the donors' contributions to those funds. Thus, if the United States provided 40 per cent. of the funds, then 40 per cent. of every disbursement would be made by drawing on the United States contribution. However, over the past eight years of I.D.A. operations, although the United States has provided nearly 40 per cent. of the funds, it has received orders for less than 20 per cent. of the goods financed by I.D.A. The position as far as we are concerned is quite the reverse; for every pound which we have provided to I.D.A., we have received about thirty shillings' worth of orders. Thus the balance of payments effect for
1202
the United States has been the opposite of that experienced by Britain.
The United States authorities felt that in their present serious balance of payments position they could not justify to Congress a continuation of this state of affairs. So a new arrangement has been arrived at in this replenishment whereby, broadly speaking, for a period of three years the United States contribution will be drawn on only to the extent to which orders are placed in the United States. This means that the contributions of other participants (including our own) will be drawn on during these three years more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case.
Disbursements on commitments entered into by I.D.A. naturally extend over very many years and the arrangement is that after the first three years the United States contribution, including that part which has been deferred, will become fully available as required and after the first three years the calls on other contributors will, of course, be correspondingly reduced. The essence of the arrangement is, therefore, one of timing. Free international competitive bidding under I.D.A. contracts has been fully preserved and the American contribution is not "tied". The American contribution will be fully available to finance I.D.A. commitments wherever the orders may be placed.
This arrangement is a regrettable departure from previous practice. Nevertheless, we have to fact the fact that if previous experience is any guide, the balance of payments cost of this replenishment to the United States might well have been anything up to £100 million. In present circumstances, this is not a negligible matter, and we, and most of the other donors, are willing to help the United States out of this temporary difficulty. The arrangement will, over the next three years, almost certainly reduce the balance of payments advantage which Britain has hitherto got from I.D.A., but, on the best calculations we can make, it will not eliminate it altogether and, at a later date, the balance of payments gain should be proportionately greater. While the arrangement, therefore, has disadvantages which we should have preferred to avoid, it nevertheless represents a comparatively small price to pay for an increased replenishment of I.D.A. funds at a level of some £500 million.

1203
Turning to Clause 1 itself, I should point out to the House that its subsections fall into two parts. When I.D.A. was set up in 1960 and when the first replenishment took place in 1964, it was necessary for the Government to come before the House with legislation to secure the necessary authority. Subsections (1) to (4) give the Government power to implement the specific replenishment set out in Command 3599. Subsections (5) to (7), however, will enable Her Majesty's Government to implement future replenishments without coming back to the House for fresh legislation. All that will be required will be an enabling Order which, since it relates to a money matter, will require the approval of the House of Commons only. But clearly if noble Lords wish to discuss it, we have by the flexibility of our procedure ways in which the matter can be raised. The Government's view is that I.D.A. has now sufficiently proved itself as an established international organisation, the need for which will be with us for a number of years to come, that it will in future be sufficient to replenish its funds without recourse to a separate Act of Parliament each time.
Clause 2 relates to regional development banks. There has been a steady increase in the number of these institutions over the past decade. The three most important are the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Bank. Section 2 of the Overseas Aid Act of 1966 enabled the United Kingdom to become a full member of the Asian Development Bank.
Clause 2 is a general enabling clause which would empower the Minister, subject to the prescribed procedures, to make a subscription, or increase an earlier subscription, to any existing or future development bank. Although these powers are sought in general terms, the reason for seeking them at this time is a special one. Negotiations have been in train for some time for the setting up of a regional development bank for the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. Her Majesty's Government hope that these negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion. This may, indeed, come about during the Summer Recess and Her Majesty's Government
1204
would wish in that event to proceed speedily with their implementation once agreement had been reached. For this reason, Parliament's approval is being sought to legislation which will put Her Majesty's Government in a position to confirm that they will be able to implement their part of the agreement.
The last two clauses of the Bill deal with more specific matters than the first two. Clause 3, however, is still related to the affairs of a development bank—the Asian Development Bank—of which the United Kingdom is one of the 32 members. The particular purpose of this clause is to enable the United Kingdom to discharge its responsibilities by enabling those countries in the area, for whose external relations the United Kingdom remains responsible, to join the Asian Development Bank. Hong Kong, as an associate member of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, is eligible for Bank membership, and has indicated that it wishes to become a member, and by the terms of the agreement establishing the Bank, Britain must guarantee Hong Kong's subscription. In due course, Hong Kong, having become a member, may also wish to seek a loan from the Bank. The terms of any such loan and of any further guarantee required of Britain in connection therewith would need to be separately submitted for the approval of the House of Commons. The clause will also permit Her Majesty's Government to sponsor application for membership from Brunei and Fiji at a later date, should they wish to make them. Although the clause proposes a limit of £5 million to the British guarantee, it is difficult to envisage circumstances that would involve any payments of this order of magnitude. Indeed, the likelihood of any payment arising under this clause at all is very remote.
The subject matter of Clause 4 is quite unrelated to that of the first three clauses, but the Government are taking this opportunity to remove certain anomalies that have been discovered in Section 7 of the Overseas Aid Act 1966. and the operations of the Overseas Service Pension Scheme, which was introduced by regulations from the 1st January, 1967. The scheme was designed to help fill the void left by the cessation of fresh pensionable appointments overseas and the substitution of contract terms of service.

1205
It was hoped that by providing for comprehensive pension cover on a voluntary contributor basis, it would give additional incentive to service and re-engagement for future service overseas by providing additional security for the participants. Participation in the scheme is open to persons from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, serving overseas in temporary or non-pensionable employment of a public or social character approved by the Minister.
The amendments proposed by this clause are of a minor character and are intended to remove the anomaly of the 1966 Act which precluded persons from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man from participation in the scheme. The clause would also extend the provisions relating to service which may qualify under the scheme so that participants who are employed by the Ministry principally for overseas service (for example, the Corps of Specialists) can count the whole of such service as qualifying for benefits under the scheme. It also extends the existing provisions relating to continuing participation in the scheme after leaving overseas service so that participants will be able to continue contributions not only when leaving for other employment, but also when they have no alternative employment to go to. These are comparatively small changes but, nevertheless, of importance to those participating in the Overseas Pensions Scheme and I am sure they will be welcomed by the House.
The main purpose of this Bill, however, as I said in my opening remarks, is to empower Her Majesty's Government to implement their international obligations towards multilateral organisations. Most important of all, it is to enable the British Government to play their part in the great international donor effort—the replenishment of I.D.A. There is need for fresh resources, and this need is urgent. I can assure the House, as in the past so in the future, they will be wisely and well spent. I therefore commend the Bill to this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Shepherd.)
9.35 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are very grateful, again, to the noble
1206
Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having explained this Bill to us. As he reminded us, it is not very long since we had a debate on overseas aid, initiated by my noble friend Lord Barnby, who I am delighted to see is with us again this evening to give us his expert knowledge of this matter. We had that debate on May 29. It was a very good debate and well-informed, and I do not think therefore that it would be appropriate to go much wider than the Bill itself this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, the most important clause is Clause 1, which provides for a second replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association, to which our contribution, our second contribution, is to be in the same proportion as that previously agreed between the World Bank and all the other Governments concerned. Reading the debate of May 29, I did not think that any of your Lordships who were present on that occasion (and there were rather more of us here on that occasion) disputed the need for Government aid to some of the developing countries in present circumstances. There were those, of whom my noble friend Lord Barnby was one—and I would certainly sympathise very strongly with him —who thought that we should seek to expand private overseas investment and reduce Government overseas aid. But even they did not think that private sources alone could solve the present problem. I am sure that all of us would agree that the ideal solution would be one in which all countries were in a sufficiently healthy economic state to be able to trade at a profit and borrow their capital requirements in the international market. But certainly that is not the position to-day, and hardly seems likely to occur in the near future.
There is an anomalous situation al the moment. Every nation is in fact trying to seek to make a profit, to export more of its goods and services than it imports, although of course it is patently clear that the sum total of exports and imports must balance and that not every country can physically achieve an export surplus. And whereas institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund can even out these ups and downs of exports and imports in the case of a developed country, it is very much a

1207
different matter with the developing countries, where, so far as one can see, for many years ahead it will be impossible for them to achieve a favourable balance of trade. So we have to find the money for them to purchase our exports, and then we have to lend them more money to enable them to pay us interest on the money that we first lent them. This is not, obviously, a satisfactory system, but for the moment it is the best that we can do if we are to provide funds for the developing countries.
Another theme that emerged from the debate of May 29 was that of the advantages if this help is given multilaterally by a number of countries acting together. Briefly, this has the benefit of taking politics out of the aid and of making sure that the recipient country is not embarrassed by being indebted to one single donor. On the other hand, I think we should remember that there are advantages in bilateral aid, if only because it is swift and sure, requiring the ratification of one country alone, instead of, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us on this occasion, 12 out of 18 countries and a minimum subscription of 950 million dollars. This can lead to doubt and delay, as indeed it has at the moment in view of what the noble Lord said about the situation in America.
Multilateral aid can also raise doubts from a national point of view about the use being made of the available funds, but in the case of the I.D.A. I believe that the advantages of multilateral aid are accompanied by careful control of the use of the funds, as indeed one would expect of an organisation under the ægis of the World Bank. I believe that the criteria that the I.D.A. uses before granting a loan would satisfy even the strictly orthodox financial standards of my noble friend Lord Barnby—and of course I need only remind him and others that our first subscription to the fund was made by a Conservative Government in 1960.
I think it is worth remembering what those criteria are. The I.D.A. gives no aid to countries which default on their external debts or which expropriate foreign-owned property without full compensation; it gives no aid if other loans are available on reasonable terms; it gives no aid unless the project is economically viable; it insists that the bor-
1208
rowing country has to find an equal amount to the amount of the loan in its own local currency; and it is in no way inhibited from financing the expansion of private enterprise. I think those criteria would satisfy most people who might otherwise be critical of multi-lateral aid.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, explained, it has operated to our considerable financial benefit in export terms, although this favourable situation will not continue to quite the same extent once the special allowance—
LORD SHEPHERD: It will later, though.
LORD ABERDARE: Later, no doubt it will. My Lords, in conclusion I can only express the hope that the United States of America will ratify this arrangement for, as the noble Lord said, without agreement from the United States ratification is impossible because the 950 million dollar minimum is not achieved. We can only hope that the United States, which has such a magnificent reputation for its generosity in overseas financial aid, dating right back to the Marshall Plan, will on this occasion once again not disappoint its many admirers. The other clauses in the Bill, concerned with regional development banks and with pensions for members of the overseas service, seem to us to be sensible provisions and we support them. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
9.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, this subject was recently debated in your Lordships' House, and for that reason I was attracted here to listen to the Second Reading of this important Bill. In the event, we have certainly been treated to a generous explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who went into such great detail that it ought to satisfy the most exacting Member of the House, or indeed anyone who is interested in this subject. I am fully aware that it has been covered so fully that any tribute of mine should be much longer than I shall condense into these few words. I feel that this matter has been more generously dealt with than these things are as a rule.
The second paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Command

1209
Paper (No. 3599) to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred several times. That Paper deals with such massive figures that it justifies the trouble the noble Lord has taken to help the House to understand them. The massive figure of £1,800 million, on being broken down, reduces itself to something of the order of £20 million sterling as the contribution to which the United Kingdom is committed. Taking those figures, and the other explanatory matter with regard to overseas aid, it is to be understood that this £20 million falls within the round figure of £200 million which has been referred to and is the Government's intended contribution.
With regard to this explanatory matter, it is interesting to see —and I do not think we have seen it before—that assistance is given from Switzerland of a substantial sum which is repayable over a period of 50 years without interest. That surely is an unusual thing. The other thing is the unusual position for the United States; that her balance-of-payments difficulties justify the special treatment which was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Aberdare in his most appropriate and excellent explanation. This is really the reason why I particularly have followed this question of overseas aid and want tonight to emphasise, as Lord Aberdare has already done, that there is strong feeling that, apart from the propriety of the assistance from Her Majesty's Government, which Lord Shepherd effectively presented, so far as possible there should be less help through Government agencies and more should he left to private and civilian loans. These are likely to be better supervised and policed, and this often means that they are less likely to be attracted in directions where insufficient attention is paid in the recipient countries to a proper economic procedure.
With those few words, I want to align myself with what Lord Aberdare has said and the views from this side of the House. I would again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the trouble he took to give a full explanation, and I give my support to the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may, I would express my great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. As he knows, I did not agree with all ho said on a previous debate, but I had the feeling that in his own heart he would support us when the time came.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKF OOL AND STOUR BRIDGE) BILL MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
  TRAFFIC VOLUME ON A.702 (EDINBURGH-ABINGTON) ROAD
  TRAFFIC VOLUME ON A.702 (EDINBURGH-ABINGTON) ROAD