Sitting of 9 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Comprehensive Schools
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to education authorities recommending that the building of new comprehensive schools shall not be under-taken until funds are earmarked for the entire project and that comprehensive reorganisation shall not take place until the project is completed.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No, Sir. Where a progressive increase in school population is foreseen, it is often necessary to build a new secondary school by instalments. It will depend on the local circumstances whether the school can then be organised on a comprehensive basis before the whole project is complete.
    Mr. Marten: In those conditions is it not rather unsatisfactory to call a unit which is scattered over the countryside in a number of centres a comprehensive school? Is not that an illusion, and should not they wait until the school is ready before calling it a comprehensive school?
    Miss Bacon: Sometimes when even a part of the school is built it can be organised on comprehensive lines. As I said, it depends on local circumstances and numbers.

    Magazine "New Worlds" (Grants)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grant was made out of public funds to the magazine "New Worlds" during 1967–68.
    The Minister Of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Grants totalling £1,200 were made by the Arts Council.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a leading British newsagent refused to handle the March edition of the magazine? In view of the great shortage of money for all sorts of educational projects, does my right hon. Friend think that it is justified to spend any money at all on this sort of publication?
    Miss Lee: A decision on matters such as this must lie with the Arts Council. I understand that its literary panel has expressed its disappointment at the fluctuating literary standard of the magazine, and has decided to offer a grant of £600 towards four further issues of the magazine on the condition that the money is used for fees for new contributors.
    Mr. Channon: No one wants to see censorship applied by the Arts Council, but would not the right hon. Lady agree that there must be a minimum public standard of decency when public money is involved?
    Miss Lee: I think that we must also agree on who will set the standards. I think that Lord Goodman, the Chairman of the Arts Council, put it very well when he said:
    "We must be very slow to discourage experiment even if it runs counter to our own notions."
    Mr. Strauss: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to discuss detailed grants by the Arts Council when the whole purpose of the Council is to remove authority for the distribution of public funds for the arts from the Minister and from this House?
    Mr. Speaker: If the Question is on the Order Paper it must be in order.

    Educational Priority Areas (School Building)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reallocate the £16 million for schoolbuilding in education priority areas, to ensure that local education authorities in the West Midlands get a fair share of this sum, especially Wolverhampton, which has 12 per cent. immigrant children in its schools, and

    593
    where more than 400 children of school age, some of secondary school age, are unable to get a school place.
    Miss Bacon: No, Sir. The £16 million programme was for the replacement of schools in unsatisfactory buildings in areas of serious social deprivation. We have authorised the building of four new primary schools in Wolverhampton in the current year's ordinary school building programme and increased the Authority's minor works allocation. This should help Wolverhampton to deal with the immediate problems arising from the influx of immigrant children.
    Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The allocation to the education authority of the four additional primary schools has rather over-taken this Question, but may I tell my right hon. Friend that we are indeed grateful for that help to the local authority? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we still need more teachers, and will she help us to provide nursery education for the under-fives in this very overcrowded area?
    Miss Bacon: I cannot commit myself on the last part of that question, because, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a serious shortage of infant teachers for the over-fives. Next week my right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Wolverhampton, and we can discuss all these questions with the authority.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the terrible problems which exist in places like Wolverhampton, would not it be sensible to curb what the right hon. Lady called the influx of immigrant children and give the authority a chance to overcome the problems?
    Miss Bacon: The children who are coming into the country now are mostly those whose parents are here, and I think that it would be inhuman to say that they could not join their parents.

    Handicapped Children (Corporal Punishment)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decision has now been reached on ending caning in schools for handicapped children.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): I should greatly deprecate the use of corporal punishment on handicapped children but the ultimate decision on this matter must depend upon the professional judgment of the teachers.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend going back on the clear statement by his predecessor that caning in such schools must cease? If he is, it is most deplorable. Will my right hon. Friend recognise the feeling among most people that there can be no justification at all for the caning of handicapped pupils in either State or private schools?
    Mr. Short: What would be deplorable would be for me to try to lay down how teachers should carry out their professional duties. I hope that we can make some progress on the question of professional status and that this is the kind of question which teachers themselves will consider in the context of a code of professional conduct.
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. I asked whether the Minister was going back on what his predecessor said, and he has not answered——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Dissatisfaction with an answer is not a point of order.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is a clear distinction to be drawn in this matter between mentally handicapped children and educationally subnormal children?
    Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is very unfair. I prefaced by reply by saying that I deprecated the use of corporal punishment for handicapped children, but teachers themselves must deal with this problem in the context of their own code of professional conduct.

    Primary Schools, Leicester (Commonwealth Immigrants)
    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proportion of children in primary schools in the city of Leicester who are, or whose parents were, Commonwealth immigrants, and what is the highest proportion in any of such schools.
    Miss Bacon: About 7 per cent. in January, 1967; the highest proportion in any Leicester primary school was 55 per cent.
    Mr. Boardman: In view of the real problem, which is now generally recognised, in regard to primary schools, will the right hon. Lady consider the concentration on the fixed resources available on extending and improving primary schools and abandoning the extravagant Socialist plans for complete comprehensive education?
    Miss Bacon: No, I could not promise that. Nevertheless, we are anxious to do everything possible to help where there is difficulty because of immigration.

    Teaching Profession (Productivity)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase productivity in the teaching profession; and what discussions he has had with the relevant teaching unions on this subject.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have no specific proposals at present. Teachers' productivity cannot be precisely measured. Much of the work of the Department is, however, concerned with a wide range of measures to improve the effectiveness of teaching, and we are in frequent touch with the teachers' unions about these.
    There is, however, an urgent need on the part of all concerned, for a more intensive use of the capital resources which have been devoted to education—particularly in the fields of further education and the universities.
    Mr. Biffen: But since, in the prices and incomes policy, productivity is the centrepoint around which incomes negotiations must revolve, and as payments in the public sector will be regarded as of great significance by those engaged in private wage negotiations, would not the right hon. Gentleman feel that there was a case for his issuing an early statement saying in what directions he thought productivity could be increased and relating it particularly to such things as the use of aids to education, so that he could influence the pattern of wage negotiations throughout the public and private sectors?
    Mr. Short: There is great scope for the use of further teaching aids, but
    596
    clearly the criteria in the White Paper are not applicable to the kind of job which teaching is. Nevertheless, I reiterate that the really urgent need in teaching is to make more use of all the capital resources which have been provided over the last 10 years or so, particularly in the case of the universities.
    Mr. Marks: When my right hon. Friend is considering that, would he remember that the period when there was payment by results in education was a disastrous period for education?
    Mr. Short indicated assent.

    Council for Education in World Citizenship
    Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the Exchequer grant to the Council for Education in World Citizenship.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Council for Education in World Citizenship is financed primarily by local education authorities and the other users of its services. I think it right that this should continue to be the source of its grants. I understand that it is the intention of the United Nations Association, to which the C.E.W.C. is affiliated, to increase the educational side of their work as a sequel to the recent drive for increased funds. My Department will be very glad to hear about these plans and to advise in any way it can.
    Mr. Archer: I welcome that Answer, but would my right hon. Friend agree that, since we are spending over £2,000 million a year on defence because we have not achieved international understanding, another £100 million or so spent on trying to achieve it might be a good investment?
    Miss Lee: There was an all-party dinner at 10 Downing Street in May attended by leaders of all parties and there is a general consensus, I think, that we want to do all we can for education in world citizenship.

    Teaching Staff (Employment)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reductions in teaching staff he anticipates during 1968–69 as a result of recent cuts

    597
    in Government grants to local education authorities.
    Miss Bacon: Government grants to local authorities have not been cut for 1968–69. It is important that within the education service local authorities should give priority to the employment of teachers, and present indications are that the numbers will rise.
    Mr. Hunt: But is it not a fact that at least 15 local education authorities are planning to reduce their teaching staffs, particularly part-time teachers, as a direct result of the Government's financial squeeze upon them? What on earth is the point of the Government's campaign to coax more married women back to teaching if, at the same time, they threaten them with redundancy in this way?
    Miss Bacon: I have seen reports that a number of local authorities are contemplating cutting down on part-time teachers, but these have not been confirmed by the authorities. On the other hand, 39 local authorities have asked for increases in their 1968–69 quota. Some people are being a little too pessimistic about this: all the indications are that the numbers employed will rise.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend assure us that all those who leave the colleges or institutes of education this coming July will be able to find employment?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, I shall receive later this month a return for the October quota, which we shall increase, and I have every confidence that those leaving at the end of the summer term will find employment.
    Sir E. Boyle: But can the right hon. Lady say how many authorities, since the January measures—including the curtailment of the rate support grant—are not recruiting up to their full quota, and how many are contemplating going slow on the recruitment of part-time teachers?
    Miss Bacon: The cutting of the rate support grant is not for the current year. There will be an increase of 3 per cent. next year. These grants are not given to local education authorities but to local authorities, and the share of the education authorities must then be determined. I do not have the figures for the number who are not employing off-quota teachers, but the indications are that most local
    598
    authorities would like an increase in their quotas.

    Swimming
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken during the last 12 months to encourage and develop swimming in schools under Government authority; and what plans he has for further action in this matter.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): There is much interest in swimming in the schools and we are making a small annual grant towards the administrative costs of the English Schools Swimming Association. In 1967, 19 swimming pools were completed in maintained schools, under the auspices of my Department. A further 16 are under construction this year.
    In addition a number of pools have been provided by local authorities for general community purposes, including use by schoolchildren.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive parts of that reply. Does he realise that, during the last year or two, there has been a great wave of interest in swimming as a means to health? Will he strike out in order to help in this respect?
    Mr. Howell: My Department has no intention of being submerged by this wave. Indeed we intend to ride upon it to see that more swimming facilities are provided.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost has been?
    Mr. Howell: Not without notice.

    East Riding Schools (Sixth Forms)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of sixth forms in the East Riding of Yorkshire Local Education Authority; and how many pupils are in each of these sixth forms.
    Miss Bacon: In January, 1967, there were 18 sixth forms in the East Riding with a total of 884 pupils. With permission, I will circulate the figures for each school in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wall: Do these figures indicate that there will be a relatively large number of sixth forms and a relatively small number of pupils, which would be difficult to staff and equip? Is there not a case for a sixth-form college in the centre of the county?
    Miss Bacon: I know that the hon. Member has an interest in the sixth-form college at Beverley, but, as I have told him, the East Riding Education Authority produced a scheme without the sixth-form college. I know that there were two opinions about the matter, but we accepted the scheme put up to us by the East Riding Education Authority.
    Following is the information:

    East Riding of Yorkshire Education Authority—Schools with sixth forms

    January, 1967

    Name of School

    Sixth form pupils

    Beverley High School for Girls

    110

    Longcroft (mixed)

    35

    Bridlington High School for Girls

    126

    Hessle High School (mixed)

    86

    Withernsea High School (mixed)

    78

    South Humsley (mixed)

    5

    Driffield County (mixed)

    31

    Cottingham County (mixed)

    32

    South Holderness County (mixed)

    23

    Barlby County (mixed)

    8

    Woldgate County (mixed)

    22

    Hornsea County (mixed)

    1

    Willerby County (mixed

    31

    Howden County (mixed)

    19

    Fulford County (mixed)

    6

    Bridlington: Headlands County (mixed)

    27

    Bridlington Grammar (Boys)

    140

    Beverley Grammar (Boys)

    104

    884

    Universities (French and German Post-Graduate Students)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek to make grants to encourage French and German post-graduate students to consider doing advanced work at British universities, rather than those of the United States of America.
    Mr. Edward Short: My Department provides funds, under the Royal Society European Science Programme, to enable European post-doctoral fellows to work in this country. The British Council also offers scholarships to foreign students. Both schemes cover France and Germany.
    Mr. Dalyell: Although I praise the work of the British Council to which my right hon. Friend referred, is it not extremely undesirable that so many postgraduates from France and Germany should automatically gravitate towards the United States, without considering the work which they could do at British universities? Does he see any helpful solution to this problem?
    Mr. Short: I think that we are doing a great deal here, and my hon. Friend should not underestimate it. There is an additional factor, in that this country takes a very large number of Commonwealth students as well.

    Computer Programming Schools
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek powers to recommend a standard syllabus for computer programming schools with the object of establishing a nationally recognised examination.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley William): No, Sir. This would not be appropriate, but I welcome the steps which are being taken on those lines by the co-ordinating committee recently established by the organisations chiefly concerned with computer education. My right hon. Friend is represented on this committee by an assessor.
    My Department last week issued a bulletin giving full details of the extensive range of computer courses in technical colleges which lead to qualifications of a national character. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hunt: Does this bulletin refer to the private computer programming schools? Surely the hon. Lady is aware that many students find the certificates which they obtain at these private schools virtually useless in obtaining employment. Would not a national examination, such as I suggest, provide a univerally acceptable qualification which would help to weed out the inefficient and the more dubious of these schools?
    Mrs. Williams: The bulletin is concerned with courses available at maintained schools, including colleges. With regard to independent schools, we have no power to impose a syllabus or to

    601
    require that that syllabus shall lead to a recognised examination. But the Board concerned with computer examinations is now drawing up a list of nationally recognised qualifications. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and also that some of these certificates are virtually worthless, but one can only draw the attention of would-be students to the fact that there are adequate and free courses available in the maintained system if they choose to take them.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dobson.
    Mr. Hunt: On a point of order. I beg to give notice——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a little too late. Mr. Dobson.
    Mr. Dobson: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a wide divergence of courses in schools, some of them very shallow in scope and virtually useless as a means to achieving qualifications? Would she think again about this and encompass computer courses inside industry, for which there is still no recognition once the person concerned has finished the course?
    Mrs. Williams: Consideration is being given to the point in the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question. I was, of course, referring to the colleges rather than schools. He will know that the setting up of the Council for National Academic Awards is leading to the recognition of high standards of qualifications in this respect, but this is a recent development.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hunt, point of order.
    Mr. Hunt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) was rising to put a supplementary question.
    In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Lady's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

    School Places, Birmingham
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware that the parents of 600 children turned away from school on the opening day after Easter in Birmingham, owing to lack of places and lack of
    602
    teachers, were not informed well in advance about the situation in the schools; and if he will issue a circular to local education authorities advising them to give adequate notice in future cases of this kind.
    Miss Bacon: It is up to the local authorities to make plans as far ahead as possible. I hope that all authorities will do their best to give parents notice as early as possible in cases of difficulty.
    Mr. Gurden: Will the right hon. Lady ask her Cabinet colleagues to inform the House of the number of Commonwealth immigrant children who are entering these areas, so that local authorities can have advance notice of what the demand at these schools will be?
    Miss Bacon: I understand that, although there has been an increase in the number of immigrant children coming into Birmingham in recent months, the majority were more than 5 years old and did not play a significant part in the recent difficulties.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in this instance, the Conservative leaders of the Education Committee attempted to blame the immigrant children for an administrative muddle purely of their own making?
    Miss Bacon: As I have said, the immigrant children played very little part in this difficulty, which was more one of a shortage of teachers than one of buildings. But my right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Birmingham next week.
    Sir E. Boyle: What proportion of these 600 were rising fives, as opposed to the children of statutory school age? With regard to immigrants, is the right hon. Lady aware that her factual answer is of considerable value and that many of us would deeply regret any attempts to inflame opinion on a matter in which the important thing is that the facts should be clear?
    Miss Bacon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. I could not say how many of these 600 were rising fives, but a number were, and they have now all been accommodated. It is also important that, in a big city like Birmingham, under-fives should not be taken in to school in one part of the city if that means that five year-olds in another part of the city cannot be taken in.

    The Arts
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent, when allocating subsidies to the arts, he takes into account the foreign currency earnings of the institutions in question.
    Miss Jennie Lee: Grants and guarantees for the arts are made by the Arts Council of Great Britain which takes all earnings into account.
    Mr. Channon: Would the right hon. Lady agree that considerable foreign currency earnings are to be made from the arts? Is it not, therefore, important to give assistance whenever possible from this point of view, just as the Board of Trade helps firms in the export drive?
    Miss Lee: The situation is that the excellence of our great companies and orchestras is such that they could spend their entire time abroad. We must, therefore, keep a balance in these matters.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgent need to give the National Youth Centre all the help that it can receive?
    Miss Lee: Yes, Sir, and if my hon. Friend will table a Question on that topic I will answer it.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Lady aware that much of what she is doing would be better appreciated if people understood that there is every potential for the entertainment industry generally to make a considerable contribution to the nation's foreign earnings?
    Mr. Strauss: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that she has no control, and desires no control whatever, over the allocation of funds by the Arts Council and that that is solely the Council's responsibility and not hers?
    Miss Lee: I have answered that question and made the position clear on many occasions. My right hon. Friend should remember, on the other hand, the need for a certain amount of flexibility. It is only natural that hon. Members should be interested in knowing whether we are going ahead with such things as a great opera house or national theatre. It is
    604
    equally right that, if hon. Members feel particularly strongly about a problem, they should raise it. I suggest, therefore, that the best course is for us to play this one by ear.
    Sir C. Osborne: A fairly flat one, too.
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the proposed new official bureau to give assistance to local authorities in relation to the arts.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The Arts Council does not have it in mind to set up a new bureau, but it does intend to commission a survey of the present position of the arts in the regions, with particular reference to the development of regional arts associations.
    Mr. Channon: Can the right hon. Lady comment on the duties of Mr. Abercrombie when he retires from the Arts Council? He has been asked to commission a study. What are his terms of reference, who will be paying for it and can we have any other information on the subject?
    Miss Lee: We are fortunate in that when the Secretary General, Mr. Abercrombie, retires, he will be undertaking a survey of what is happening in the regions. Only after receiving the report of that survey will the Arts Council be able to consider whether any fresh machinery is required. In the meantime, the Secretary General will be doing this work as an employee of the Arts Council.

    Comprehensive Reorganisation, Bedfordshire
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received the new plan for Bedfordshire County Council for the reorganisation of secondary education on non-selective comprehensive lines; and whether he has approved this plan.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have recently received from the local education authority the further information which was requested last autumn. I hope to reach a decision on the plan shortly.
    Mr. Parkyn: In considering this plan, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind

    605
    that many Bedfordshire people believe that it will be possible to have a fully comprehensive and non-selective school system only if the two direct grant schools of the Harpur Trust are transferred to the local education authority?
    Mr. Short: I understand that the local authority has now had consultations with the Harpur Trust. The information given to us by the authority is one of the factors which we shall be taking into account in reaching a decision.
    Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, would ha agree that we very much hope that the relationship with the direct grant schools will be decided by negotiation? Secondly, is it not a fact that this plan is based on middle schools and assumes the money for the raising of the school leaving age? In view of the postponement of the raising of the school leaving age, must not this plan also be subject to some postponement?
    Mr. Short: We have asked the local authority for further information. The authority has had discussions with the Harpur Trust in Bedfordshire and, as I say, this is one of the factors which we shall be taking into account in reaching a decision on the matter.

    Part-time Teachers (Superannuation)
    Sir E. Boyleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to introduce a superannuation scheme for part-time teachers in institutions of further education.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have not yet received any recommendations from the Working Party on Superannuation Arrangements for Part-time Teachers about the introduction of a scheme for teachers in further education establishments. I understand that the Committee has some proposals under consideration and is seeking the views of a number of local education authorities on the difficult administrative issues involved.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware of the widespread hope that it will soon be possible to make progress on this issue and that, just as there was great feeling about a scheme for those teaching part-time—half-time or more—
    606
    in the schools, so there is great hope in the world of further education that progress will be made on this issue?
    Mr. Short: I, too, hope for that, but we must wait until the Committee has made its recommendations, and then we will see what can be done.

    Sixth-Form Curricula
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Schools Council and Dainton proposals for the future of the sixth-form curriculum.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope that much will come of a recommendation in the Report of the recent Dainton inquiry that more boys and girls should be encouraged to study for careers in science and technology. My right hon. Friend is now awaiting the views of a number of bodies including the Schools Council, whose views are expected in June. They will take account of the relevant recommendations in the Report when discussing with the universities and other bodies possible patterns of sixth-form curricula and examinations.
    Mr. Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is there not now some urgency about this matter, since the Schools Council and Dainton recommendations are reconcilable and since there is a great desire in the schools to reform their sixth form curricula, yet there is not certainty about the direction in which they should move forward?
    Mrs. Williams: I recognise the need for more speed in view of the uncertainty that exists in schools. My hon. Friend will recognise that a major change in the whole structure of education is being proposed here, with the suggestion that specialisation in secondary schools at an early age should be abandoned. I assure him that the Schools Council will be bearing in mind the Dainton recommendations in making its suggestions in June.
    Mr. Ridsdale: If we wish to encourage science in sixth forms what are we doing to encourage science teachers? Is the hon. Lady aware of the grave shortage of science teachers? Would she consider getting some secondment from industry?
    Mrs. Williams: We are aware of this and the hon. Gentleman may like to know that the first three courses for science teachers returning for refresher in-service courses in universities are being started as an experiment this summer. We hope to widen the experiment later.

    Polytechnics
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schemes for polytechnics he has now approved; and when he will have made decisions about all the schemes which he has invited local education authorities to submit.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend expects to be able soon to announce decisions on most of the 20 schemes that have been submitted. The timing on the remaining schemes must depend on when they are submitted by the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware of the impression that the Government are backpedalling somewhat in their previous enthusiasm to get these polytechnics off the ground? Will she give an assurance that this is not so?
    Mrs. Williams: There is no question whatever of the Government backpedalling on this. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the two important factors which arise. The first is that we wish to consult the professional associations involved, and particularly those of teachers in colleges of further education; it would be wrong to go ahead until they feel that they have had ample opportunity to put their views forward. The second is that these schemes must be fully liberal, and to achieve this there must inevitably be a great deal of consultation with the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Molloy: Could my hon. Friend say whether if reasonable evidence could be provided in regard to the London area, where polytechnics have already been established, there might be a need for some amendment of the original decisions?
    Mrs. Williams: We are open to suggestions for amending schemes until the point when they are designated. There are, from the point of view of London, quite particular difficulties about the number of polytechnic schemes.

    Youth Service Building Programme
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the cuts in expenditure on the Youth Service, and in particular on the effect of the reduction in grant aid on the Youth Service building programme in the Bournemouth area.
    Mr. Denis Howell: A Youth Service building programme of £3·8 million has been allocated for England and Wales in 1968–69; it includes £27,160 for a Bournemouth project.
    Sir J. Eden: Would the Minister kindly answer the Question? To what extent is this a reduction on the original figure and, if there has been a reduction, when does he expect it to be made good?
    Mr. Howell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not know that last year's building programme amounted to £4·8 million, but on previous occasions this figure has been given.
    Sir J. Eden: Answer the Question.
    Mr. Howell: I have. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would like to know the situation in relation to the Bournemouth area.
    Sir J. Eden: On a point of order. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory Answer of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Schools (Damage and Theft)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the total losses, due to damage and theft, respectively, caused by those who broke into schools in England and Wales during each of the past three years; and what recommendations he has made to local education authorities regarding preventive measures.
    Miss Bacon: We have made no such estimates and preventive measures are a matter for the local education authorities.
    Mr. BrooksIs it not somewhat extraordinary that no attempt has been made to evaluate this serious problem at local

    609
    level? As an interim measure, pending such an evaluation, would my right hon. Friend consider recommending local education authorities to at least install burglar alarms in headmasters' studies?
    Miss Bacon: It is up to local education authorities to take decisions of this sort. They know their areas and are able to authorise installations of this type. If a local authority wished to incorporate such a burglar alarm system in a school—provided that the cost of the building was not exceeded—we would agree. This is a matter which must be left to local authorities.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will circularise local education authorities advising them not to make student grants conditional on promises of the students' future behaviour.
    Mr. Edward Short: I see no reason to do so. The conditions governing the payment of duty awards—as opposed to discretionary awards—are set out in statutory regulations.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister of State yesterday deplored action by local authorities which assumed behaviour on the part of students? Does he accept that if students break the law they should be dealt with like other people, and that if they offend against their universities or student bodies, those bodies should deal with them and not local authorities?
    Mr. Short: I remind my hon. Friend that Statutory Regulation No. 22(3) states:
    "If, after consultation with the academic authorities, an authority is satisfied that the holder of an award has shown himself by his conduct to be unfitted to hold it, it may terminate the award or suspend it."
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Minister agree that the taxpayer and ratepayer should not be expected to give a subvention to disorderly behaviour and student hooliganism where it exists in a minority of cases?
    Mr. Short: Yes, Sir, but there is a good deal more to it than that. I was asked a specific Question and I have answered it. If, now, the hon. Gentleman raises
    610
    a much wider question, then he must accept that there is a lot more to it than he may think. Excess in student protests is one thing. To try to stop every type of student protest is a very different matter. There are two factors involved here. The first is the terrible conflicts in society itself. Students would be abnormal if they were not acutely sensitive to these. The second is the fact that many of our universities still do not give students a part in running their own affairs. The concept of a university is that it should be a self-governing body of students, but a great body of the students are not at present able to take part in the governing of their universities.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why all this fuss about these young people kicking up a row now and again? Are they making any more of a nuisance of themselves than the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton)?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Kidderminster?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should have said the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
    Sir E. Boyle: Ignoring the momentary lapse of memory on the part of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that his Answer about refusing to circularise will meet with wide approval in House and that, for the rest, many hon. Members would probably prefer this matter to be left where the Minister and I left it after Question Time yesterday?

    Primary Schools, Bedford
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary schools in Bedford have over 50 per cent. non-English born pupils.
    Miss Bacon: Six, Sir. The pupils include children born outside the British Isles whose parents were of overseas origin and children born in the United Kingdom whose parents came here as immigrants within the previous 10 years.
    Mr. Parkyn: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very interesting reply, may I ask her to assure the House that in trying to provide special help for these schools, priority will be given to

    611
    those which have an extremely high ratio compared with the normal ratio rather than treating all schools with more than one-third non-English pupils on an equal basis?
    Miss Bacon: I am not sure that I follow the precise point my hon. Friend has in mind. I assure him that we want to help all schools, whether the percentage is below or above 30 per cent. One reason why my right hon. Friend and I are visiting schools is to see how this rule is working.

    Student Teachers (Infant Training Courses)
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to attract a bigger proportion of student teachers to enter infant training courses.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The colleges of education are devoting a higher proportion of their greatly expanded capacity to the training of teachers of infants. Over the last five years the colleges' annual intake of students has increased from 17,000 to 36,000 and the numbers entering courses which equip them to teach infants have risen from 5,000 to 12,000.
    Mr. Hill: Is this not still well below the level needed to make up the shortage of infant teachers? Would it not be well to take a new look at the teacher courses, both at a high and a lower academic level, with a view to encouraging more places to be provided in colleges and getting more girls of different academic attainment to fill them?
    Mrs. Williams: At the present time the situation is that the number of infant teachers coming out of the college is, or should soon be, adequate to meet the needs of the children, but the hon. Member will appreciate that one of the great difficulties is the very heavy wastage among young women teachers. With the number of authorities moving over to middle schools, courses which concentrate entirely on infant work for the five-to seven-year-olds may not be as suitable as infant-junior courses which enable authorities to reorganise on middle school lines.
    Mrs. Renée Short: What steps are being taken to train more nursery school
    612
    teachers and so to implement the Plowden Committee's Report?
    Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that at present a nursery class requires a full-time qualified infant teacher. I understand that there has not yet been agreement in the profession on the proposals of the Plowden Committee on the rather different qualifications for some nursery school assistant teachers.

    Independent Boarding Schools
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will revise Rule 16, in view of his policy of discontinuing the registration of independent boarding schools which are not recognised as efficient.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. These rules are very general in character and it is the interpretation of terms in them, such as "suitable", "satisfactory", "efficient", which matters. I do not intend that the new policy shall be applied inflexibly.
    Mr. Turton: Does not this rule specifically state that it is for conferring
    "a special mark of the Secretary of States's approval"
    and does not attempt to cover the small educational establishments? Is it not, therefore, ill-designed for laying down minimum standards and does not it require revision?
    Mr. Short: I gave the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite the assurance last week that I want to deal with this matter in a flexible way. He is showing great concern about the proprietors of these schools, but we have to consider the children in these schools as well. I do not think hon. Members opposite would send their horses to an unqualified vet, or put them in an inadequate stable, but they are willing to do this with their children. We have to show some concern for the children in these schools.
    Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will strike some of us as a little unfair and one-sided? My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is showing a perfectly proper concern for proprietors who do mind about educational standards. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this point again?
    Mr. Short: I understand the point of view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). I know his concern and I do not want to be unfair to him, but hon. Members opposite have gone on about this for quite a long time. I have given them an assurance in explicit terms that I will deal with the matter in a careful and flexible way. I hope that they will accept that.

    Children (Admission to School)
    Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children in England and Wales who had attained the statutory age for school attendance have been refused admission to school during the present term; and if he will indicate the areas in which this has happened most.
    Miss Bacon: This information is not available. I know that a few authorities have had difficulty recently, among them, Ealing, Birmingham and Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is indeed a problem in some parts of the country? Will she bear in mind that to attend to this end of the educational scale is just as important as the extension of the school leaving age?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, I know this is extremely important. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Gurden: Will the Minister of State now answer my earlier question? Will she ask her colleagues to inform her of the number of immigrant children coming to the country so that the load on local authorities may be established?
    Miss Bacon: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. Gurden: Will the right hon. Lady now ask her colleagues to tell her how many immigrant children are coming to the country so that she can tell the local authorities the load to expect in the schools?
    Miss Bacon: We know how many immigrant children come into the country but, as I explained to the hon. Member when I answered his question, the difficul-
    614
    ties he had in mind in Birmingham were not produced by the immigrant children but by the general shortage of places.

    Nursery Classes
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities have instituted nursery classes consisting of several groups of children in charge of nursery assistants, but supervised by a trained infant teacher, as recommended in the Plowden Report.
    Miss Bacon: I am not aware of any such arrangement.
    Mr. Hill: Is not this recommendation so crucial to the making of any progress in this most important sector of education that it is highly desirable that the Department should encourage such an experiment to be carried out to see whether the proposal works in practice?
    Miss Bacon: I agree with the hon. Member that this is very important, but, as he will recognise, I have had many Questions this afternoon about the shortage of teachers for those who have attained the age of five. When we overcome those difficulties we should like to make a start in the educational priority areas.

  RHODESIA
  Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister what further arrangements he is now making to resume negotiations for a settlement of Rhodesian problems.
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 25th April and 7th May.—[Vol. 763, c. 481; Vol. 764, c. 212.]
  Sir G. Nabarro: Has the Prime Minister observed the continuing decline of British financial and economic influence throughout Africa, the latest example of which is now reported of £11 million of economic aid to Malawi from South Africa, all of which should have been a British province? Will he not take early

  615
  steps, therefore, to reopen negotiations before we lose all our African trade?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be delighted to know how much our trade with African countries north of the Zambesi has increased since U.D.I. Although he will recognise the difficulties of making the resources available, I take note of his desire for an increase in the aid programme for Commonwealth countries in Africa. So far as negotiations with Rhodesia are concerned, he will be aware of recent statements by Mr. Smith in which he not only refused any idea of supporting majority rule in any foreseeable time, but in which he said that he has never believed in it.
  Mr. Wall: Has the Prime Minister rejected the opportunities offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) for reaching a compromise? Is he planning an economic war of attrition designed to create violence among unemployed Africans?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what was said in recent debates. When he studies the words of Mr. Smith, the hon. Member will realise that there never was a suggestion of compromise on the part of the régime which fitted in with the six principles. Anything of that kind of agreement would not, I hope, be accepted by most hon. Members.
  Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend think of any explanation for the strikingly different attitude taken by many Conservatives towards immigrants in this country and that adopted towards immigrants in Rhodesia?
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister give us a White Paper setting out the terms of the apartheid-type legislation which the Smith régime has recently put into force?
  The Prime Minister: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to consider whether more information should be given, but my right hon. Friend will remember that in the debate on Rhodesia recently I went at some length into the intensification of apartheid and denial of educational opportunity being practised by the
  régime.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the conduct of relations with Rhodesia through Press statements and the sort of statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made is totally absurd? This is a serious matter, not a question of what Mr. Smith is reported to have said to newspapers, but a question of the negotiations which should be undertaken with Mr. Smith.
  The Prime Minister: There have been plenty of opportunities and the most recent was the visit of my right hon. Friend to Salisbury at the end of last year. We have no reason at all now to accept that there was any genuine desire on the part of Mr. Smith, or if there were, that he was allowed to further those desires. His most recent statements make this crystal clear.

  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister, following the reallocation of responsibilities for Ministers and Departments concerned with prices, incomes, productivity, labour, economic affairs and associated matters, to what extent it remains his policy to be directly concerned with the work of the Department of Economic Affairs.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers I gave to Questions on 11th April—[Vol. 762, c. 1585.]
  Sir G. Nabarro: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that there is continuing confusion as to his personal responsibility for economic and financial affairs? Does he recall that, only yesterday, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) told him that the trade unions were about to desert the Labour Party? In these circumstances, will he not go to the helm at once and restore order in his own party?
  The Prime Minister: Recognising the hon. Gentleman's consistent record for party loyalty over the past three or four weeks, should I consider that the situation called for any action on my part, I should not necessarily come to him for advice about it.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am giving it.
  The Prime Minister: I gather that it was being given to me, but I was not accepting it.
  On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, about alleged confusion, the answer is, "No, Sir".
  Mr. Christopher Price: Do not recent mergers point to the great success of the Government's industrial and economic policy, but will my right hon. Friend make sure that there is a particular Minister directly responsible for dealing with the grave injustices which can occur when particular mergers take place, for example, the redundancies announced yesterday at Witton?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The House will have noted the great success, for example, of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation—which, of course, was opposed by hon. Members opposite when it was set up.
  I have on previous occasions expressed my concern about the way in which labour relations following closures after mergers have sometimes been handled, for example, in the Woolwich area. I have only just seen today the account to which my hon. Friend refers regarding the forthcoming redundancies in the Birmingham area. I shall certainly discuss this with my right hon. Friends and see that my hon. Friend is brought into the picture.
  Mr. Heath: When will the Prices and Incomes Bill be published, and will it contain all the proposals in the White Paper?
  The Prime Minister: I expect that it will be published next week. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to study it and form his view about it.

  PRIME MINISTER (DEPUTY)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister which Minister now acts as deputy Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must be well aware of the Answer I gave on 25th April to virtually the same Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 763, c. 77.]
  Mr. Marten: But does the Prime Minister recall that in that reply he said that there were no standing arrangements in force for this office? Is not the country entitled to know, as a matter of confidence in the Government, who acts as Prime Minister of this country when the Prime Minister himself is unable to be at his duties? Could he name somebody?
  The Prime Minister: In accordance with long-standing practice, if I were out of the country on public business, I should nominate a deputy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The House should be well aware that I should nominate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in those circumstances.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Could my right hon. Friend tell us which shadow Minister now acts as deputy Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the position of deputy Prime Minister one which is, fortunately, not known to our constitution, which provides only far an alternative Prime Minister in the person of the Leader of the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and in my Answer on 25th April I said that there was no such known office as that of deputy Prime Minister. Arrangements are made ad hoc when, for any reason, the Prime Minister is not able to be present at Cabinet and similar meetings. I leave to hon. and right hon. Members opposite questions about the Opposition.

  PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
  Mr. Brooksasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite President de Gaulle to visit London for discussions on the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 2nd April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig).—[Vol. 762, c. 74.]
  Mr. Brooks: Does not my right hon. Friend deprecate the presence of more gall than cordial in the entente, and on this, the anniversary of the victory in

  619
  Europe, would he not consider it appropriate to stress the immense dangers to European collective security and democracy in any further deterioration of Anglo-French relations and, in particular, in failure to pursue a common policy regarding Germany's nuclear rôle?
  The Prime Minister: Our bilateral relations with France have been perfectly cordial over the last year. The real difficulty has been the attitude of the French Government regarding the British application for entry into the E.E.C. and the other Community organisations. This does place some strain on us. By far the greatest and most serious consequences of it are not just for us or for France but for Europe as a whole and for the hopes of those who want to close the technological gap between Europe as a whole, including Britain, and the other side of the Atlantic.
  On the question of proliferation of nuclear weapons and Germany's position, I have nothing to add to the many statements which have been made.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not the Prime Minister realise that association on matters to do with technology does not mean that we ought to sign the Treaty of Rome?
  The Prime Minister: What I realise and have said many times—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree—is that for a proper fulfilment of what can be done in technological co-operation we need a single market. With the size and expense of the research and production programmes called for nowadays, not many firms will go as far as they could if they were not limited in the size of their market. That is why technological cooperation and integration involve market integration.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Prime Minister what discussions he had when in the United States of America about the appointment of a successor to the present head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Why does not the Prime Minister press for a British commander to
  620
  succeed the present Supreme Allied Commander in Europe? Would it not be a reminder to our political friends and others not so friendly that we have a deep commitment to the defence of Europe and also to the E.E.C. itself?
  The Prime Minister: I think that our deep commitment to the defence of Europe is accepted by all our friends and even by those who may be, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, less friendly. I do not think that that would be either increased or derogated from by any pressure for a British officer. When the vacancy occurs, we shall enter into discussions with our allies in the normal way.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Lord President of the Council at Birmingham about devaluation on 28th January represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: While sympathising with the hon. and learned Member, who has so far deferred this Question four times in the hope of an oral answer, I would draw his attention to the fact that, in the interval since he first tabled it, I have answered six Questions and three supplementaries, including one from the hon. and learned Member, on this speech of my right hon. Friend. If the hon. and learned Member would care to study these answers, may I refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th January, 20th February, 5th March, 7th March, and 12th March.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister now say whether devaluation, the January measures or the Budget was the most giant of the three "giant strides towards Socialism"—and what does the deputy Leader think about it?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I answered that supplementary question earlier. I cannot now remember whether it was on 30th January, 20th February, 5th, 7th or 12th March, but I shall look it up and inform the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am, however, delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so obsessed with my right hon. Friend's speeches that he obviously lives with them

  621
  beside his bed. He must be getting a lot of instruction from them.
  Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the Prime Minister a question on this which has not been asked before? Will he give an assurance to the House and the country that there is not likely to be another devaluation this year?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir—and the whole House will join in that. The extent to which we can make an active success of the opportunities available to us as a result of devaluation will depend upon more than one factor. Many exporters are now getting orders on a very big scale, even if some are showing disappointing results and there is not the progress in import replacement that we should all like. But our success in turning these things into a really massive surplus will depend on the full co-operation of this House and both sides of industry on a whole range of measures, some of which are unpopular and, because of that, can be misused politically by those who do not agree with them.

  ALUMINIUM SMELTERS
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he intends to make a statement on the siting and fuelling of the projected aluminium smelters.
  The Prime MinisterI would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 24th April to Questions by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).—[Vol. 763, c. 202.]
  Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say at this juncture whether a statement will be made in the next fortnight, as the talks with our E.F.T.A. parners seem to be either concluded or shortly to be concluded? Further, is it still the Government's intention to site all these aluminium smelters, however many there might be, in development areas?
  The Prime Minister: I have been in day-to-day touch with this problem and I have had full reports on the negotiations.
  622
  My hon. Friend will understand our disappointment at not being able to give an answer earlier, but the delay arises not not so much from our discussions with E.F.T.A. as from the very detailed negotiations with the three firms with which we have been in negotiation regarding proposals to build all three in development areas. There are still some difficulties to be sewn up. The fact that there are three and we want to be fair as between the three, and the need to be extremely careful about commitments with regard to Government expenditure or Government assistance on the projects, are the reason why the matter has been delayed longer than I should have wanted.
  Sir F. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny that one of the principal obstacles to his making a statement is the opposition of the majority of our E.F.T.A. partners to certain aspects of the proposals, and that as things stand today his only ally in the matter is Portugal?
  The Prime Minister: It would not be particularly helpful to talk about discussions now going on in the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council. There have been difficulties here, and there are some views expressed by some of our E.F.T.A. partners on the matter with which we do not agree. The main reason for the delay—and I had hoped that we could have an announcement even before Easter—is the reason I have given: not so much discussions with our E.F.T.A. partners as detailed and intricate negotiations which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been carrying out with the three firms.
  Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. The Prime Minister commented adversely just now on the fact that he had to answer Questions from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) which corresponded closely to a number of Questions he had been asked before. If the Prime Minister answered the Questions when they were first put to him the need for this would not arise.
  Mr. Speaker: Very ingenious, but not a point of order.

SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD (PASSPORT)
Sir Alec Douglas-Home Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement about the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport at Heathrow on Tuesday.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained in the first paragraph of the statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Commonwealth Secretary on 25th January, 1966.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is an abrupt and most unsatisfactory answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an official of his Department gave Sir Frederick the reason for taking away his passport that he was seen in the company of Rhodesian Ministers at a Rhodesian trade fair? Is he aware that Sir Frederick has been president of the trade fair for six years, but during that time has come constantly to this country, and since U.D.I.?
Will the Minister therefore say what change there has been which justifies the confiscation of Sir Frederick's passport? What redress has Sir Frederick against this very arbitrary judgment? If the reason is industrial, is the Minister aware that nickel is not on the list of items to which mandatory sanctions at present apply? Again, if the reason is industrial, is it the Government's policy to take away the passports of any British chairman or director associated with a foreign company or a company in South Africa which has incidental trade with Rhodesia?
Is it, for example, that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take away the passports of the chairmen or directors of oil companies which import oil into South Africa which subsequently goes to Rhodesia? Will he give us an answer to some of these specific questions?
Mr. George Thomson: In answer to the two main points of the right hon. Gentleman's very long supplementary question, first, with regard to the reasons for impounding the passport, I think that the House will realise that it is not in the
624
public interest to disclose the information——
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help at all.
Mr. Thomson: It is not in the public interest to disclose information on which decisions in these cases are taken, but I am satisfied——
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Fascists.
Mr. Thomson: I hope that the House will at least listen to what I have to say, and then if hon. Members disagree with it I shall be very happy to try to answer their questions. I am satisfied that Sir Frederick Crawford's conduct and activities since U.D.I. have been such as to bring him within the class of people referred to in the statement of January, 1966.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second main point, Sir Frederick Crawford has been president of the trade fair, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for about six years. Last year, as president of the fair, he acted as host to the gentleman, Mr. Dupont, who purports to be the representative of the Crown in Rhodesia. I think that in many parts of the House hon. Members will feel that Sir Frederick Crawford, with his distinguished record of allegiance to the Crown in the past, should not, under those circumstances, have acted in that way.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Fascists.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of the rights of an individual——
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to shout "Fascists" in this Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear anything like that.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home Sir Alec Douglas-Home rose——
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Fascists.
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. I take it that you have now heard the use of that word, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right in his surmise that I have heard

625
it. It is in order for hon. Members to use words which they would not use about an individual about a group of Members in the House. Even so, I deplore them.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that the evidence on which he has taken away Sir Frederick Crawford's passport is simply that he was host, as president, at the trade fair in Salisbury?
Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I am not. I was seeking to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if his supporters will give me a little silence I can perhaps clarify the matter. I said that it was not in the public interest to disclose the reasons for impounding the passport. But I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of Britain, which it is the duty of both sides of the House to uphold, to allow this gentleman to travel around to other countries.
With regard to the trade fair, I answered a specific question asked by the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that Sir Frederick is reported as saying that he always tries to see both sides of moral and political questions. In the case of a rebellion against the Crown it should be quite clear to any former public servant which side of the question should prevail.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for a Government who talk of legality, the imposition of arbitrary punishment without trial comes ill, and that liberal opinion in South Africa will be astonished that the representative of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, the strongest influence for liberalism in South Africa, should have been selected for this arbitrary punishment?
Mr. Thomson: My hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. There is no punishment in this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Passports, as my hon. and learned Friend knows better than many hon. Members, are issued under the prerogative and in the discretion of the Crown. What the Government must do is to decide whether it is in the interests of Britain that a particular individual should be allowed to travel around to other countries. Under the law as it stands Sir Frederick Crawford is perfectly
626
entitled to stay here for as long as he likes, but what he is not entitled to do is to travel to other countries where we consider it is against the public interest.
Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State must realise that he is evading the main points at issue by his last statement. To impound the passport of a man with the distinction of Sir Frededick Crawford is not only immensely damaging to him and his reputation, but damaging to him in his private and business capacity. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Sir Frederick was told that the reason for the withdrawal was that he had acted as host at the trade fair to members of Mr. Smith's Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated this, thereby confirming it, and at the same time is refusing to announce the matters which he says it is in the public interest to withhold.
This is not justifiable in these circumstances. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give a reason which will appear to the House to be fair and justifiable, the country can only conclude that this is a nasty, petty, spiteful, arbitrary act.
Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. There is no spite or pettiness or vindictiveness in this. Sir Frederick Crawford is in receipt of the pension to which he is entitled as a former colonial Governor and that pension is still being paid to him. But I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, however much he disagrees with our decision, will at least allow the House to be clear about the reasons for it. [Interruption.] The Commonwealth Office—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to the answer.
Mr. Thomson: The Commonwealth Office did not state yesterday to Sir Frederick, in a long interview with him, that the reason for impounding his passport was his presence as president of the trade fair. Indeed, the situation is that he, apparently feeling on the defensive about this, volunteered the information as to his presidency of the trade fair as an explanation of his association with Mr. Dupont. [Interruption.] I am seeking specifically to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about the trade fair and I am bound to say that in my view it is quite wrong for a former

627
colonial Governor, with a distinguished record in the past of allegiance to the Crown, to set an example in this case by acting as host to a usurper of the Crown's functions in Rhodesia. I should be interested to hear the personal views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite about that.
But these were not the reasons on which we impounded the passport. It is not the practice, as right hon. Members opposite know, to give reasons for impounding a passport. The decision in this case was taken by my predecessor, Lord Aylestone, as far back as June last year, but I have been carefully over the papers in this matter since it was raised with me yesterday evening and I am taking this decision on my responsibility. I am satisfied, having studied the papers, that it would not be in the interests of Britain for Sir Frederick Crawford to be given our permission to travel to other countries.
Mr. Richard: Can my right hon. Friend go a little further and confirm that the reason the passport was impounded is that, in the opinion of the Government, there are reasonable grounds for believing that this gentleman's activities have served to assist the régime in Rhodesia? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, accept from me that we on this side, while recognising that this is a very grave step to take, feel that, though regrettable, it is right?
Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must resist the temptation he offers me, just as I resisted it from right hon. Members opposite, to go into the reasons.
Mr. Wall: What right of appeal——
Mr Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall seek to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that one does not give notice in that way.
Mr. Wall: What right of appeal has an individual against the arbitrary action of the Executive in this situation? Is not this action low compared with even the lowest standards of the most unpopular Government in living memory?
Mr. Thomson: I fully expected the hon. Gentleman to take that view, but I am surprised that he should feel so heated at this stage because what has been done is the implementation of a decision announced to the House on 25th January, 1966.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the warmest support of the country for this action, which will make sure that British citizens, however distinguished, understand that they must loyally help in applying sanctions?
Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Hogg: Will the Secretary of State explain to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) that there was once a time in this country when a man was innocent until proved guilty? Will he also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the refusal to publish any reasons, however much this may be said to be in the public interest, is to reduce this country to the level of a police State?
Mr. Manuel: A bunch of traitors you are.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—[Interruption]——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear the point of order being put to me.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire shout to right hon. and hon. Members on this side, "A bunch of traitors you are". If we are to debate in peace and quiet, may we ask for the protection of the Chair?
Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the régime in Rhodesia is illegal and in rebellion against the Crown, that those who support it are guilty of sedition, and that sedition is not allowed in this House under Standing Orders?
Mr. Speaker: I ruled earlier that unpleasant epithets hurled at groups of Members in the House as distinct from individuals may be in order, but that I deprecate them equally from both sides.
Mr. Thomson: I understand the very deep feelings of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about this matter, but I remind him that the authority under which this passport was impounded has been exercised under the prerogative by successive Governments. He is a former Minister of the Crown and knows that perfectly well.
I assure the House that this action is only taken in rare circumstances and after very careful consideration indeed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a gibe about a police State. After his magnificent defence of liberal tradition in a recent debate, I would have thought that he would feel that a country like this, which exercises this exceptional action only in the rarest cases, might be supported in its efforts to end what is undoubtedly a police State in Rhodesia.
Mr. Shinwell: Could we not more readily appreciate the passion exhibited by some right hon and hon. Members opposite if they had protested as vigorously against the detention of persons in Rhodesia and other subversive activities indulged in by the Rhodesian authorities, which coincide more with the description of a police State than does the reference of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?
Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It occurs to me that I am meeting a great deal more passion and heat from the benches opposite than I have ever had on a number of issues of the kind my right hon. Friend has referred to.
I can only say in this case that there have been other cases of this kind, but I hope that the House will agree that it would be quite wrong to apply a different standard to a man of public eminence, however distinguished his past services, because he has the necessary connections to enable him to press his case.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, does he know Sir Frederick Crawford personally and well, as I do? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman turn up the record of the Uganda Independence Conference, held when I was Secretary of State and Sir Frederick was Governor, and read Sir
630
Frederick's speech, which was one of the noblest affirmations of the need for African advance that I have ever listened to?
Mr. Thomson: First, I do not have the advantage of personal acquaintance with Sir Frederick Crawford. Secondly, I was not seeking to suggest that he was against African advance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I sought to pay tribute to his past distinguished service. But that does not excuse him from his present position in Rhodesia.
Sir Dingle Foot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side of the House entirely share the admiration which is felt for Sir Frederick Crawford for his record, particularly in Uganda? None the less, is he aware that we share the view of my right hon. Friend, that those who give, or appear to give, aid and comfort to the rebel régime cannot expect to travel freely on British passports?
Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir.
Mr. David Steel: May I ask the Commonwealth Secretary whether it is not a fact that this is not the first case under the procedure agreed by this House when a passport has been withdrawn? If so, is it not the case that no different treatment should be meted out to a distinguished public servant than to anyone else, and that there is a case for arguing that his standard of conduct should be greater than anyone else's? May I ask whether it would not be in the public interest to give the reasons for the withdrawal of the passport, simply because I believe that these reasons might well serve as a warning to other persons engaged in similar activities?
Mr. Thomson: I am bound to resist any temptation to give reasons in a case like this. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that this will reassure the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House might wait before it says "No", to decide whether the reassurance is adequate. It may decide that it is not, but I hope that it will listen.
There have so far been four cases in the last 12 months of action taken in this country against holders of United Kingdom passports. There might be other categories of people acted against

631
in other countries, holding United Kingdom passports, but I could not, without notice, give that information to the House. There have only been the four cases in the last 12 months of action taken, and I hope that this will reassure the House that action is not taken lightly.
Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Sir Frederick has ever unequivocally subscribed to the Crown, and condemned the illegal régime? Should not the benefits of a British passport be available only to those who oppose the illegal régime in Salisbury?
Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend's question is presumably not directed to the grounds on which this action has been taken, and of which I refuse to give details. Sir Frederick Crawford has, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, represented the Queen with great distinction in at least two Colonial Territories in the past. It is true, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, that in his case any action which gives an aura of respectability to Mr. Dupont is very much to be deplored.
I have noticed that other distinguished representatives, judges and soldiers of the Armed Services, for instance, have all sought to avoid taking part in any public ceremonies involving Mr. Dupont. Sir Frederick Crawford not only acted as host to him a year ago, but only a few days ago acted in the same capacity.
Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he has said there have been only four such cases in the last year, in the last week there has been an instance of a man who has never been a supporter of the régime but who bears the identical name of a Minister in that régime, and who has been refused renewal of his passport, with no reason given? This is manifestly an error. What safeguard, what appeal, have individuals against arbitrary and cruel actions of this kind?
Mr. Thomson: I am very anxious indeed to avoid any miscarriage of justice in cases like this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Member has not already passed to me details of the case, I would be glad to have them, and will certainly investigate it thoroughly.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the yearly statistics since the war, showing how many passports have been taken back from British citizens, and in how many cases reasons have been given in those years?
Mr. Thomson: To the best of my knowledge reasons have never been given, and were never given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were members of their Government.
Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman find it easy to contemplate an action on the part of the Government more mean, petty and so characteristic?
Mr. Thomson: I would feel much more sympathy with the hon. Member if he had used the words "mean, petty and spiteful" about many of the actions of the illegal régime in Rhodesia, in the constant debates that we have had in this House.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? I wish to make an application for leave to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. Do I do so now, or after Business questions?
Mr. Speaker: The moment to do so is after Business questions.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to persist, without reason given, without the opportunity of redress, without any right of public or judicial investigation, to accord this treatment and put this slur on this gentleman? If that be so, is it not a gross violation of the rule of law and of the constitutional principles which we follow in this House?
Mr. Thomson: Sir Frederick Crawford had a long interview with an official of my office yesterday. I am certainly ready to hear any further representations that he may wish to make. They will be considered very carefully, but I repeat that the action that has been taken is no different from the action taken by Governments of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so distinguished a member.
Mr. Lipton: Is there not one reason for the passion displayed by hon. Members opposite—the fact that this gentleman, whose case we are now discussing, happens to be an old Etonian?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the day. Mr. Heath. Business Question.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. I tried to catch your eye at an earlier stage, Mr. Speaker. This House has an interest in this matter. At an earlier stage, the Commonwealth Secretary said that it was his view that this gentleman—and I took his words down—should not be given permission to travel to other countries. Has it not always been one of the duties of this House to preserve the rights of the citizen?
The right hon. Gentleman has made a clear mis-statement, I hope unintentionally, of what is the legal right of every citizen—he has the Attorney-General on his left—which is that at all times, having given some form of identification only, he shall have the right to enter and leave this country at any time that he so wishes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a point about which we are arguing. It is not a point of order.

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, 13TH MAY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]:
Debate on Tourism, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill [Lords] and of the Firearms Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
Prayer on the Fish and Meat Spread-able Products Regulations.
TUESDAY, 14TH MAY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Agriculture, in Session 1966–67 and the relevant Departmental Observations.
Motion on Members' Travel.
Third Reading of the Water Resources Bill.
Prayer on the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH MAY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]:
Debate on the T.A.V.R.III, on an Opposition Motion until 7 o'clock and thereafter on the Problems of the Fishing Industry, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill [Lords] and of the Firearms Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 16TH MAY—Second Reading of the Hovercraft Bill.
Motion on the Immunities and Privileges Order.
Procedure Motion on Questions.
FRIDAY, 17TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 20TH MAY—The proposed business will be:
Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Subject to progress of business, we shall propose that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment on Friday, 31st May, until Tuesday, 11th June.
Mr. Heath: There has still been no statement about Service pay. Can the Leader of the House tell us when a statement will be made? Secondly, if the Prices and Incomes Bill is published next week, as the Prime Minister earlier said that it would be, when is it proposed to have Second Reading, because he has given us an assurance that there will be plenty of time to study it?
Mr. Peart: On the question of Service pay, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I mentioned last week, this is still being discussed with the Prices and Incomes Board, and we must await its report. I am aware that there is feeling that there should be early action on this, and I am in touch with the Ministers concerned.
On the question of the Prices and Incomes Bill, what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, but I am dealing with next week's business and I cannot now

635
make a specific statement about the timing of the Second Reading.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we have a short debate on an important subject ahead and I hope that we can ration ourselves on business questions.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the decision of the Government to append to the Transport Bill their proposals for a new Channel Tunnel Planning Council will mean that there is no possibility of any discussion on Opposition new Clauses, or on four Government new Clauses, and that, in failing to give extra time or to introduce these proposals as separate legislation, the Leader of the House has failed in his duty to the House?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that argument. As the hon. Member knows, I did arrange a meeting with the Minister. I understand that my right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member with a view to trying to arrange adequate discussion on this.
Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tees-side there is increasing concern about the state of employment in the shipbuilding industry? There is also increasing concern about the national position in shipbuilding. Will he tell the House whether there is any possibility of giving some time for a debate on this subject?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot give time for a debate next week.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the letter which I have received from the Minister of Transport promises no extra time whatsoever? All he suggests is that this Clause has priority over Opposition new Clauses and the four Government new Clauses.
Mr. Peart: This question does not deal with the subject of the business of the House that I have announced. I have tried to seek arrangements whereby this can be discussed upstairs. I have the letter here; it seems adequate to me.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I am sorry to pursue this, but it
636
is a point which I put earlier on of which you, Mr. Speaker, had not had notice. Arising out of my hon. Friend's question, quite apart from what the Leader of the House or the Minister leading the Committee wishes, is it in order to have business added to a Bill on which the Guillotine has been applied, in view of the size of the Bill before the addition?
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order at the moment.
Mr. Christopher Price: In view of the savage and sudden redundancies which have been created by the General Electric Company at their Witton works in Birmingham, and as this is the second such incident arising from this important merger, can the Leader of the House tell us how soon we can have a debate on the subject of redundancies arising in this way?
Mr. Peart: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, but not next week.
Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House aware how very appreciative many of us are of his good nature, helpfulness and courtesy, particularly as we have been quite unaccustomed to receive such things from the previous Leader of the House?
Mr. Maclennan: Can the Leader of the House say whether next week there will be a statement made, or some indication given, of the views of the Government on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on which we have been promised a debate shortly?
Mr. Peart: I can give my hon. Friend and all hon. Members the assurance that I am very anxious that these Reports should be discussed on the Floor of the House. We start with the Select Committee on Agriculture. I will certainly arrange for the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to be debated.
Sir J. Eden: Why did not the Leader of the House use the opportunity of his Business statement to inform the House of the very large number of Standing Committees which will be engaging the attention of many hon. Members next week, and explain the widespread disclocation to the services of the House and the order of our business?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the amount of work that has been done by hon. Members in Standing Committees. We have an all-party Services Committee which examines the services of the House. If the hon. Member has anything more specific I will certainly look into it.
Mr. Roebuck: Can the Leader of the House say what has happened to the great debate on the Common Market? Has he observed the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the names of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), and other Members on both side of the House, suggesting the exploration of some new methods of trading? Would he give the House an opportunity to debate this at an early date?
[That this House, taking note of the present state of the negotiations to join the Common Market, believe that Her Majesty's Government should, in the meantime, begin a feasibility study of an open-ended Atlantic Free Trade Area initially comprising the United Kingdom, the European Free Trade Association, Canada and the United States of America.]
Mr. Peart: I have noticed the Motion in the names of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but I cannot give time next week.
Mr. Speaker: May I again remind the House that there is an important short debate ahead?
Mr. Bessell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the unsatisfactory reply that he was bound to give to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), he would consider introducing a Motion to alter the Guillotine in relation to the Transport Bill, so that we have a chance to discuss the many new Clauses which were tabled by backbenchers long before the Channel Tunnel Clause introduced by the Minister of Transport?
Mr. Peart: Many Clauses were withdrawn. I understand that time has been allowed for discussion on many matters. I hope that there will be discussion of the Channel Tunnel Planning Council in the Standing Committee.
Mr. Abse: Could the Leader of the House tell us when the long postponed debate on prisons will take place, in view of the fact that this will be an occasion when two reports could be discussed? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, in view of the public interest, that it is very important that we should have debates touching on Committee work which otherwise will go into limbo?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. My hon. Friend knows why there has been a change. I was not responsible for the last debate being curtailed. Not next week.
Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Leader of the House aware that by giving priority to the new proposals on the Channel Tunnel the Government have done exactly what I warned him about in my supplementary question last week, and excluded a great many new Clauses from discussion? Is this not outrageous treatment of a Committee at the end of its allotted time under a guillotine Motion and a long time after the Clauses which he mentioned have been dropped?
Mr. Peart: I cannot go beyond what I have already said on this matter. I am trying to ensure that there is adequate discussion upstairs.
Mr. Archer: Has my right hon. Friend considered Motion No. 271, which has been signed by 86 hon. Members, and which deals with the conservation of the ocean floor for peaceful purposes? Is he aware of the international discussions which are taking place at the moment? Is there any prospect of an early debate on this Motion?
[That this House believes the tune has come to declare the deep ocean floor conserved as a common heritage of mankind, and that steps be taken to draft a treaty embodying inter alia the following principles:
that the seabed beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction,

(a) be conserved against appropriation by nations or their nationals so that the deep ocean floor should not be allowed to become a stage for competing claims of national sovereignty;

639

(b) be explored in a manner consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) be exploited economically or made use of with the aim of safeguarding the interests of mankind;

(d) be conserved exclusively for peaceful purposes in perpetuity.]

Mr. Pearl: I have noticed this extremely interesting Motion. This matter is being discussed in the ad hoc committee of the United Nations, but I cannot find time for a debate on it in the House at this stage.

SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD (PASSPORT)
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Government to withdraw the passport of Sir Frederick Crawford."
I hope, Mr. Speaker, after the exchanges that have taken place across the Floor of the House, that I need not say much to convince you that this is a matter which is specific, important and urgent, and, therefore, appropriate to be dealt with under Standing Order No. 9.
It is a case which deals with an individual who has a most distinguished record in the public services and under the Crown, and who has up to now assumed that his right to come to this country and go from this country to other countries with a British passport is assured.
640
Secondly, the Commonwealth Secretary has refused to give any satisfactory reason for interfering with the right of an individual. The only one at which he has hinted is one which, to anyone who knows Sir Frederick Crawford's past, is patently ridiculous.
Therefore, this is important, and it is urgent, not only because Sir Frederick's travel plans have all been made—that is by the way—but because it is important that this House should immediately seek from the Government the criteria which will be applied to other cases, otherwise any day other people may be treated with similar injustice.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Government to withdraw the passport of Sir Frederick Crawford."
The House will remember that under revised Standing Order No. 9 agreed to on 14th November, 1967, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in that Order, but to give no reason for his decision.
In the light of the new provision, I now rule that the right hon. Member's submission does not fall wthin the provision of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD (PASSPORT)

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ARMED FORCES PENSIONS
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. May I remind the House that this debate, which means so much to both sides of the House, is curtailed because Private Business is to come on later. I urge every hon. Member who takes part in the debate to speak as briefly as he or she thinks reasonable.
4.11 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising that despite earlier increases in the awarded pensions of retired public service and armed forces personnel there is hardship, specially among older pensioners, urges Her Majesty's Government to make provision during the current Parliamentary Session for the improvement of such pensions.
The purpose of this Motion is to declare that the time has come for the Government to propose to Parliament measures to increase public service pensions. Timing is of the essence of this problem. The more time is expended, the greater the hardship which is growing day by day and month by month. In our view, vague assurances of good will from the Government are not enough and will not be enough. I know that there is strong support for this view on both sides of the House. I also know that many hon. Members wish to speak and, therefore, I will compress my argument into the minimum possible time.
The basic argument is hardship in the face of rising prices. We on this side are not arguing for the principle of parity, although many people believe in it and the Labour Party, at one time, were committed to it. We doubt its justification and think that its cost would be excessive. We argue that the facts show quite clearly that the time has come for another move forward on this front.
The Prime Minister, in his famous statement in December, 1964, said:
"We have also called for public service pensions to be linked to some economic in-
642
dicator, so that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices, but also receive their full and fair share in rising national prosperity."
That was the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, to which we now wish to hold the Government. There has not been recently very much rising prosperity, but pensioners are suffering considerably because of rising prices, and they are not receiving their fair share of the attention of the country or of the House.
The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity gave figures in the recent debate for the rise in real wages between 1966 and 1968. The more the Government stress the rise in wages, the more acute is the contrast with pensions, because if wages in real terms have been rising, despite rising prices, the fact is that, because of rising prices, pensions in real terms have been falling during the same period.
There is no doubt that prices have risen since the last pension increase became effective on 1st January, 1966. The price of food, accommodation, transport, fuel and lighting has increased and is increasing. I need not repeat what was said so clearly in the recent debate on rising prices. This is the basis of our claim today—the fact that the cost of living is going up substantially to the detriment of public service pensioners, civil and armed forces. This cannot be denied.
What will be the answer of the Government? They may say three things: first, that prices have not yet gone up enough; secondly, that National Insurance pensions have gone up substantially; or, thirdly, quoting the Financial Secretary, "It is a question of priorities of claims over resources". I wish to deal briefly with all three points.
Since the last increase in pensions, the Retail Price Index has risen by eight points, or about 7 per cent. That is a very substantial amount and a real cut in the living standards of all public pensioners. But how much more is in store for them in the way of increased prices? The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said in the recent debate that during the coming year there would be a 5 per cent. increase in the cost of living, bringing the increase to 12 per cent. since the last time these pensions were increased.

643
I believe that that was an optimistic assessment. The right hon. Lady's 5 per cent. was based on the assumption that the Government's policies, particularly on incomes, will work. There are few Members in the House who would like to bet too much money on that assumption. Therefore, in the light of these facts—the increase which has taken place since the last improvement in pensions and the increase in prices forecast by the Government—the case for an increase in these pensions now is overwhelming.
I notice that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), which you, Mr. Speaker, have not selected, proposes that something should be done when
"practicable during the lifetime of the present Parliament."
But this Parliament may go on for another three years, although I hope not, and I doubt it. But that will be a very long time for these pensioners to wait. What is meant by "practicable"? Why is it not practicable to increase pensions during the present Session? It certainly cannot be a matter of incomes policy. A Government who say that there should be a 3½ per cent. norm for wage increases can hardly neglect the case of people whose incomes have fallen by a norm of 3½ per cent. over the last two years. There can be no question of an incomes policy coming into this matter.
There is the argument used by the Financial Secretary on a previous occasion referring to the increases, and I agree substantial increases, in National Insurance pension. We totally reject this argument. We regard it as quite irrelevant. National Insurance pensions are received as of right by all citizens who are taxpayers and contributors. We are talking about something quite different, namely, the Government's obligation to people who have been employed by the Government in the public services—the Civil Service or the Armed Forces. This is the obligation which should concern them.
The Government talk about priority of claims on resources. The Financial Secretary argued that everything else that the Government propose should have priority over increased public service
644
pensions. Can this argument be sustained? Do the Government really say that they are better engaged in spending money on, for example, nationalisation schemes and maintaining the present very high level of the Civil Service. The Financial Secretary may smile, but this is a very good and valid comparison. Do they really believe, as they appear to be saying, that higher priority should be given to spending money on nationalisation than on higher pensions for people who have served this country well? That is all that can be meant by the argument about priority in resources.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science announced increases in student grants, at a cost of £5½ million. I have no doubt that those increases are justified. But if it is possible now to find £5½ million for student grants, is it not possible to find money for public service pensioners? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say why it is not possible, or, if it is possible, perhaps he will accept the Motion.
In his last speech on this matter the Financial Secretary stated that he could offer no prospect of any increase this year for these pensioners. I want to know clearly whether the Government stand by this. Is it still their position that no increase is foreseeable this year? If they have changed on that, if they can foresee an increase this year, I see no reason why they should not accept the Motion.
No one can doubt that hardships exist. Many hon. Members have examples to quote. I will not, therefore, go into them at any length. However, there are two special cases to which I will refer.
First, those who have long been retired from the public service. Surely the more elderly these people are the greater the claim that they have on the care and consideration of this House. To take only one example, officers who retired on the 1945 Code have had increases of only 68 per cent. in their pensions while the cost of living has risen by no less than 120 per cent.—a very sharp comparison indeed.
Secondly, I call attention to the position of widows. They are of great importance. I understand that over 3,000 widows are on the minimum rate

645
of pension. For a major's widow over 70, this is less than the single rate of National Insurance pension, for which many of them are not eligible. A lieutenant-colonel's widow over 70, on the 1919 Code, receiving a maximum Service pension, will be entitled to a supplementary pension on National Assistance of £22 a year if she has no other means. Can there be any doubt that in these circumstances there are cases of hardship which deserve the attention of the House?
We on this side have made our policy in these matters very clear. We have three main points. First, that there should be regular review of the level of public service pensions at two-year intervals; secondly, that increases should start at 55, not 60; and, thirdly, that all these pensions should be brought up to the level of 1956, taking into account the increases that have taken place since 1956. I hope that the Government will not oppose these points.
On previous occasions when my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued for a two-year review, the Government have rejected it, but their reasons, with respect to the Ministers, have been totally inadequate. They have said, first, that such a procedure is unnecessary. But his argument is in conflict with what many senior Members of the Government now have said in the past on this subject. They have said, "Wait for the complete revision of the social services." But this will take a long time, while inexorably, week by week and month by month, the cost of living continues to press up against the living standards of those on fixed incomes and small modest pensions.
There is overwhelming argument for saying that this rather haphazard process ought to give way to a regular review. I fear that the Government may be moving further away from the idea of a regular review. In this connection, we are deeply concerned with the evidence given by the Government's departure from the principle of a two-year review on Forces pay. We hope that this principle will not go further from this whole problem.
Secondly, reducing the age to 55. We think that this is of great importance for those many people in particular activities—the Armed Forces, the police, and the
646
fire service—who retired below the age of 60.
Finally, I think that we are right in choosing 1956 as the date for equating pensions, because it is since 1956 that the regular process of Pensions (Increase) Bills has been introduced.
To sum up, because I said that I would present this matter briefly, we are not arguing for parity. We accept the arguments against parity are very strong. We say that there is great evidence of cases of hardship arising from increased prices and that the prospects of further price increases, revealed by the Government, are very severe. We say, therefore, that the Government must move soon if they are to carry out the promises given by so many members of the Government, promises to which the whole country fully subscribes. If they do not act as we ask them to act, they are breaking their undertakings. If they say that they cannot act this year, then certainly we condemn them, and condemn them out of hand. If they say that they can act this year, then they can accept our Motion.
5.25 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): This is the third occasion during the past 15 months on which the House has debated the question of public service and Armed Forces pensions. I make no complaint about this. These people have given many years of their lives to the service of their country and it is entirely right that in their retirement they should not be forgotten, but should continue to attract the anxious concern of the House. Indeed, far from complaining, I must express my lack of enthusiastic admiration for the way in which either party when in power—we all do better in Opposition—has treated this most deserving class of people.
This does not mean, because we are traversing well trodden ground, and doing so today in a short debate, that we have no new idea to canvass before the House. I will try to speak briefly, and I will speak in reply with the utmost brevity, and then only if the House wishes me to do so.
In the debates on this question in recent years, a great deal of attention has been focused from both sides of the

647
House on the inadequacies of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, under which pensions have been increased from time to time to relieve the hardship to public service pensioners from increases in the cost of living. I do not suppose that any hon. Member would care to argue that these Acts have proved a wholly satisfactory way of dealing with these pensions. I am certainly not going to advance any such proposition this afternoon.
No Member of the House is kept more continuously aware than I of the views of the pensioners and of their real difficulties at the present time. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has asked us to institute a two-year review. It is not just a form of bromide words when I say that I earnestly and continuously keep this problem under review. My colleagues write to me about it, and I receive representations continuously. It is not just an academic concern I display or a soothing form of words when I say I keep it continuously under review. The fact remains that, despite these shortcomings, the Pensions (Increase) Acts have done much to protect the purchasing power of pensions—particularly of the smallest and oldest pensions, many of which have, indeed, outpaced the rise in the cost of living.
Moreover, in considering the relief of hardship, it is quite wrong, despite the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, to look at occupational pensions alone to the total exclusion, as he would have it, of the flat-rate National Insurance pension, for which well over 9 per cent. of all public service and Armed Forces pensioners now qualify on reaching the appropriate age. The increases in the National Insurance pensions, which have run far ahead of increases in the cost of living, have made an important contribution to the well being of very many of our pensioners.
Let me repeat that it is not my aim to suggest that the present system for increasing public service pensions is ideal. On the contrary, we have made it clear that we are well aware of its limitations, and that we intend to do something about them. But we have also made it clear that we do not believe that a satisfactory long-term solution can be devised until the problem can be studied in the light
648
of our general review of the social security system. That has nothing to do with the present difficulties. I am talking about the longer term comprehensive solution of the problem.
When we discussed the Public Service and Armed Forces Pensions Review Bill, I reminded the House that over the three years between the effective date of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, and the last Act, which came into effect on 1st January, 1966, the cost of living rose by just over 11 per cent. The 1965 Act gave increases ranging up to 16 per cent., so that the older pensioners, with whom we are particularly concerned this afternoon, were more than fully compensated up to that time for the cost of living increase since the previous Act. To that extent something was done to repair the deficiencies of earlier Measures.
I went on to point out that the cost of living had not gone up by more than 6 per cent. since 1st January, 1966 so that the great majority of public service pensioners, but not all, stood to benefit from the up-rating of the National Insurance retirement pension which took effect last autumn. I concede that I am talking about the vast majority. It does not apply to all of them and we cannot ignore the claims of the 10 per cent. who did not get any benefit at all from that. I concluded, when I last addressed the House on this, that the figures did not support a claim for immediate action in our present economic circumstances.
Since that debate, the cost of living has gone up by just over a further 1 per cent. That is, the increase since the last Act took effect is now just over 7 per cent. as compared with just over 11 per cent. between the effective dates of that Act and its predecessor, and with the increases of up to 16 per cent. which the Act provided. This means that I cannot accept that the case is yet made out for an immediate Pensions (Increase) Measure.
What about the prospects for the future?
Lord Balniel: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak very briefly, so I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting. He is correct in saying that 96 per cent. of the Civil Service pensioners receive the National Insurance pension. Would he also accept that 30

649
per cent. of the retired officers are either too old or too young to receive a National Insurance pension? This is a very important point, surely.
Mr. Lever: I have tried to emphasise that about 90 per cent. of the whole get these pensions, but that this does not relieve us of our responsibility to the remainder. One can pick out figures to highlight this, but the fact remains that there is a minority of about 10 per cent. of this entire class who do not get this National. Insurance pension benefit and we cannot ignore their situation. I want to proceed to deal with that and to examine the prospects for the future.
We fully recognise that the immediate outlook is for a more rapid increase in the cost of living than we have experienced over the past two or three years. Some of the figures that one hears mentioned from time to time may well be exaggerated, but I tentatively offer the assessment given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State in the House on 1st May, that in the coming year we face an increase of 5 per cent. in prices due to devaluation, the Budget and the rise in nationalised industry prices.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was relying on that figure. I have no hesitation in agreeing that a rise of that order, on top of the increase of about 7 per cent. since the last Pensions (Increase) Act which I have just described, would represent a serious additional burden on our pensioners. But none of us can yet foresee precisely how the position will develop in the months ahead and it would be quite wrong for me today to commit the Government to take action by any specific date on the strength of that forecast. Nor would it be right for me to define any specific figure for the rise in the cost of living, although people may make any reasonable judgment they wish in the light of what I have said.
I cannot commit myself to any specific figure that should trigger off action. A decision to introduce a Bill to increase these pensions has to be taken in the light of all the circumstances, and that is a fact which cannot be blinked away. The right hon. Gentleman can make agreeable debating points here and there, but he knows that any increase of a substantial character in public expenditure
650
at a time like the present has to be weighed in the light of existing general circumstances.
Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the rise in the cost of living between now and the end of the year may be less than 5 per cent?
Mr. Lever: It may be more. All I am saying is that to come before the House today and, on the basis of what is necessarily a tentative forecast, to say that on such and such a date or in such and such circumstances I will bring in a Bill, would not be proper?
Dame Irene Ward: Why?
Mr. Lever: Because I do not think that the Government can act on a forecast. They have to see what the situation will be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Lady will wait in patience they will see what my approach is. One cannot commit oneself on a forecast, but that does not mean that one has to stand idly by and wait to see what happens and then go slowly into action. Hon. Members are aware of the problems of increasing public expenditure. This happens to be their day for clamouring for it: tomorrow may be their day for lamenting it. But we must all be aware of the problems of substantially increasing public expenditure and I will not waste time on this theme, which has been fully aired by many better or more enthusiastic speakers than I.
It follows from what I have said that the Government are not able to make a firm commitment to introduce a Pensions (Increase) Bill during the current Session. I think that hon. Members should wait for a moment and see whether it is reasonable to take up the position that I am not entitled to act on a forecast. Anxious as I am to remove uncertainty, it is inevitable that the date of Government action must remain undecided until a decision can be taken in the full knowledge of movements in prices and our economic situation.
But the House must not draw any wrong inferences from the inevitable caution which a Government must exercise when it comes to a prediction, even of the not-too-distant future. I welcome this debate because it enables me to put

651
publicly on record that we recognise that the time is not too distant when a Pensions (Increase) Bill will be necessary. We are already active in this matter.
Dame Irene Ward: How?
Mr. Lever: These are not mere words. The preparation of a Pensions (Increase) Bill is an elaborate affair, but we are putting all the necessary work in hand. This is not meant as a mere token of our sympathy with the case for an increase in public service pensions. It has the practical effect that the inevitable delay in deciding when a Bill can be introduced need not put back the time at which the increase in pensions can become effective. As soon as the decision to go ahead is taken we shall be in a position to act without any technical or procedural delay whatever.
I hope that when I take this stand about refusal to make particular and detailed firm commitments based upon tentative forecasts of movements of prices or in our economic situation there will be some sympathy from responsible Members on either side and that nobody will draw any pessimistic inferences from this. I never tire of telling my hon. Friends, and there is no reason why I should not tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that in these days genuine compassion does not consist in writing post-dated cheques but in working hard to see that the money is there in the bank to meet the cheques when they are drawn.
Miss Margaret Herbison: When my hon. Friend and his colleagues are examining all the factors upon which they will finally reach a decision to bring forward the Bill which we are told is being prepared, will they take very much into account the fact that those who have no State pension because of age are also the people with the very smallest pensions, again because of age; that they are the people who, because of the increase which has already occurred in the cost of living, are even today in need of an increase, and that it will, therefore, be very important that the decision is taken as soon as possible?
Mr. Lever: I have all that firmly on board and I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have the point very much in mind.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: The burden of the Financial Secretary's speech seems to be that when the Government make up their mind, they will make up their mind. Can he not accept from us that they will find no obstacle to doing something about it if only they will make up their mind?
Mr. Lever: We have made up our minds that when the point is reached at which we think action is necessary we will act, and there will not be any procedural or technical delay because we recognise that that necessity for action will be in the not too distant future.
Sir T. Beamish: Gobbledygook.
Mr. Lever: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know that that is not gobbledygook. I would not come before the House and say these things were they not earnestly meant as a serious token of the Government's position.
I would not have taken steps to ensure that work was put in hand for the Bill if that was intended as a mere bromide. It is a tangible sign that we are of the opinion that action will be called for in the not too distant future. What I am candidly refusing to do is to give a firm date, to give a firm prediction which the country, in its present situation, and with the cost of living and prices still uncertain—they may move fast, or more slowly, ahead than has been predicted—cannot meet.
What I am saying, and not as a kind of sleight of hand oral fraud on the House, is that I have given instructions for the Bill to be prepared. I assure the House that we stand poised ready to act without any unnecessary delay when we see how prices move, and how our economic situation goes.
Mr. Maudling: The last time the hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject he said that it was unlikely that there could be any increase this year. Is he changing his position on that?
Mr. Lever: No. I am not making any statement in connection with the position as it seemed at that time. I am taking into account how things stand now, and the possible movement of prices at the present time. When we have seen how prices move, and how our affairs move, we will have the two determinants

653
for action. I am saying that action cannot be delayed beyond a very limited period of time. No Government with responsibility for our affairs in the present situation could go beyond that in terms of prediction.
Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward rose——
Mr. Lever: I really want to get on with my speech.
Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman has given way to others.
Mr. Lever: Very well, but the hon. Lady must allow me to say that without my giving way to her she has made as many interventions as everybody else put together.
Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The hon. Gentleman says that he has put into operation the preparation of a Bill so that it will be ready when it is needed. Will not the Bill be based on forecasts?
Mr. Lever: No. The hon. Lady must not take up my time with points that are not really relevant. All the legal framework for an increase will be there.
Dame Irene Ward: I can give the hon. Gentleman a Bill now.
Mr. Lever: We shall be grateful for any amateur drafting that the hon. Lady does. If it has the same precision as her interventions in the House, maybe we shall not altogether abandon the services of Parliamentary draftsmen.
I have made the Government's position clear. What is the difference between the right hon. Member for Barnet and myself on this? He wants me to pledge the Government, in all circumstances, in advance, to act this Session. It must be in October or November, not in December, January, or February. Is that the real division between us on this subject? Is the division between us a question of weeks or months in taking action?
Mr. Maudling: The division between us is one of precision and imprecision.
Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knows that were he Chancellor of the Exchequer now—[AN HON. MEMBER: "We would not be in such a mess."] Let
654
us say that if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer it would not be the same mess, but a different mess. I cannot see the fine point of distinction which has been introduced. Immediately after the 1964 election there was not quite such an indulgent view of the right hon. Gentleman's achievements. The situation has improved as the results of the Gallup Polls have improved.
The right hon. Gentleman is a substantial figure in the House. As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer he knows that it is not honest for a Chancellor to predict what he will do in October or November of this year in terms of public expenditure, in advance of a possible rise in prices and in advance of knowledge of how our economic situation will move at this crucial time. It is irresponsible for anyone to say, "You are spending money on nationalisation and on civil servants; why not spend it on pensions for these people?"
One may deplore nationalisation, and expenditure on civil servants, but how, with his knowledge and experience, the right hon. Gentleman can dare to equate spending on increased pensions with spending on the nationalised industries or on civil servants baffles me. I appeal to his more responsible self and ask him not to turn what should not be, and is not, a football of party politics into one in today's debate or in any Division that follows.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: As I understand, the division between the two parties is that hon. Gentlemen opposite want something done this Session, and my hon. Friends and I in our Amendment want something done within the life of this Parliament. Only a small sum of money is necessary to deal with this urgent problem, and I hope my hon. Friend is not saying that the national situation is the reason for the difference in the time scale. I hope that my hon. Friend will stick to what he said earlier—that work on the Bill is in hand, and is being treated as a matter of urgency. I hope that he will say that if the work in the Department can be completed in time the Bill will be brought in this Session. The difference between the Motion and the Amendment is so small that it is a technical matter.
Mr. Lever: These interventions will probably save me having to ask the leave

655
of the House to wind up the debate, because I shall have answered almost every interjection. I hope that it will not be thought that I am taking too long over my speech.
I am not saying that action is dependent on the preparation of the Bill. What I am saying is that we are preparing the Bill to ensure that when we feel obliged to act, and able to act, we will not be delayed for a moment by any technical or procedural matters. Had the Amendment been selected for discussion I would not have had the slightest difficulty in accepting it and voting for it. I am happy to say that if it reassures my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter).
I cannot forbear to refer to the fact that the Motion is in identical terms to a Motion put down by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)——
Mr. J. C. Jennings: No.
Mr. Lever: It is in virtually identical terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It seems that there is a division of opinion in the party opposite. That is rather rare. It seems that the right hon. Member for Barnet agrees with me that this is substantially the same Motion that was put down by the hon. Member for Burton, and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and that calls for some comment.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman enjoy the highest regard of both sides of the House. Nobody doubts their sincerity or integrity. Their good faith in this matter is beyond question. I regard it as a privilege to know them both well, and I do not wish anything that I say to reflect on them; rather the contrary. I have no doubt that they tabled their Motion in good faith.
I know that their concern in this matter is wholly genuine. They invited my hon. Friends in large numbers to subscribe to the Motion, which my hon. Friends in large numbers did. I am not sorry that they did. This was an expression of all-party feeling, which was absolutely right. Now that that expression has been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House, are we to feel that it should be translated into some kind of party political advantage?
656
I know that hon. Members would not want that. I appeal to the hon. Member for Burton and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone to do their best in this debate to retain this sense of united expression of feeling for these people who have earned so much gratitude from their country, but have not always received speedy and practical recognition.
I want this debate to send out a message of the united opinion of the House that we recognise our duty to this deserving group. It gives us an opportunity to recognise the high priority due to them for the alleviation of their difficulties—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but he has heard what I have said about commitment. It is for him to decide. He should reflect whether he wants to turn a warmhearted, compassionate and genuine expression of feeling by both sides on behalf of these people into a somewhat unattractive party political football, which will give an utterly false impression outside, instead of that which I have sought to convey. I hope that the debate will convey our united determination and our recognition of the high priority which their claim has now achieved.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. J. C. Jennings: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on his fresh appearance today after an all-night sitting, at which I joined him, dealing with the finances of the nation. This afternoon we are dealing with the finances of a broad section of the community who need help, and I cannot congratulate him on his speech. Over the years, this section has always lagged behind the rest of the community in getting its share of what used to be called the "national cake". This is the position now. The classes concerned divide broadly into two groups—retired Armed Forces personnel and retired public servants of all descriptions.
Let me deal immediately with the two Motions, because the story behind them is important. This Motion, which was down in my name and those of hon. Members from all the three major parties, and the Welsh Nationalist—[Interruption.] I did not manage to get around to the Scottish Nationalist: she was so evasive at times that I could not catch

657
her. Nevertheless, this was an all-party Motion. The organisation behind it came from the Public Service Pensioners' Council, whose leader, Dr. Stanley Barnes, conducted a nation-wide campaign, the result of which was that hon. Members were inundated with letters from all sorts of people.
This Motion, which I put down as early as February, has been signed by no fewer than 301 hon. Members, which is a substantial proportion, almost half, of the total. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House announced this debate, and when I examined the Opposition Front Bench Motion, I found that it was almost identical to mine. It is no good my right hon. Friend saying that they are not identical. I have them here, and the wording in the Front Bench Motion has been lifted from mine. I am both proud and flattered. I offer my Front Bench colleagues congratulations on this fact and add, in the most friendly spirit, that, if they ever need inspiration and help in future, I am entirely at their disposal.
Therefore, I am delighted that this matter is being debated again. As I said, I could not altogether congratulate the Financial Secretary. What he told us was not even a step forward, although it is an edging forward. He said that, when the country has enough money to spare, he will have a Bill ready so that immediate action can be taken. That is the total of the crumbs which he offered us. I understand that both Governments—mine when in power and the present one—from time to time have needed considerable prodding. The attitude of a party in opposition differs from its attitude in power. I remember hon. Members opposite, when in opposition, fulminating against my right hon. Friends on this very question and arguing strenuously not only for an increase, but for parity, which both Governments ruled out.
We all recognise, therefore, the need for some action. This campaign has been waged nationally. It is an example to every other organisation which lobbies hon. Members, having been done quietly, persistently, thoroughly, moderately and on sound democratic lines, without demonstrations, flag waving, noisy scenes or inflammatory speeches. The result is
658
to be seen in hon. Members' post-bags, the 301 signatures on my Motion and today's debate.
The need always has been great in this respect. I want to ask two simple questions. First, have they a case? Second, what is that case? It is proved by the signatures that they have a case, but let me call in aid a prominent Member of the House, no less a person than the Prime Minister. This is another illustration that an Opposition Leader tells a different story when he gets behind the Government Dispatch Box. In October, 1964, before the General Election, the Prime Minister is on written record with the following words, part of which were repeated earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling):
"Since we feel the position is a positive disgrace, we have persistently brought this matter up in the House of Commons and criticised the Government for its meanness. We have also called for public service pensioners to be linked to some economic indicator…".
If I had no other evidence, that would prove the case.
Reduced to its simplest terms, what is that case?
Mr. Harold Lever: Is it not right, at this point, to mention that, in 1965, one of the earliest measures which we introduced was precisely an increase of 16 per cent. overall in these pensions?
Mr. Jennings: This is true, and if I were asked to defend my Government I would say that we brought in no fewer than four Pensions (Increase) Bills, amounting to something like the percentage which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and it was we, when in power, who brought in the estimator scale which gave those who had been retired much longer than others a far bigger share. The Prime Minister was convinced in 1964 of the rights of this case. How much more so now? He did something, in 1965, after considerable prodding, but it did not come into operation until 1st January, 1966. The Labour Government were returned in October, 1964 and it took them all that time to bring into operation their pre-election pledges.
What is these people's case? Reduced to its simplest terms, it is that, despite all the economic difficulties which this country faces, others get pay rises—despite devaluation, despite incomes policy, despite tough Budgets—while this

659
group, which is large in numbers, remains at pension levels which are years out of date. I have plenty of figures with me, but I will not bore the House with them. One incontrovertible fact, however, is that, if there is no rise this year, this will be the first Government ever, the only Government, to let more than three years go by before giving a rise. If I said nothing else, that fact must be met.
I have two practical suggestions—the hon. Gentleman can check up, and, if I am wrong, I will withdraw my claim, but I am sure that I am right—[Interruption.] I repeat, this will be the only Government who, if they do not give a rise this year, have gone longer than three years between rises——
Mr. Harold Lever: Does it not follow from that that the hon. Gentleman could wait until the three years was up before he made a condemnation in advance on the basis of this charge?
Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman is so skilled in Parliamentary affairs that he knows that there are only a few months of this Session left and that the legislative programme is overloaded. If anything were to be given to these people for 1st January next, the Government would have to get moving now with a Bill. Therefore, it is not right to say that I am condemning in advance. The whole point is that something should be done now.
I have two practical suggestions. First, to give a rise now would cost money, of course, but it is a question of priorities. We give family allowances. Are children more valuable than elderly people? It is a different story during General Elections, when politicians are talking to the old age pensioners' associations. We give family allowances and students' grants. Are these people to be behind those classes in the list of priorities?
Within the Government's prices and incomes policy, they could be given a rise of 3½ per cent., but by next January they will be three years behind. Therefore, if they received 3½ per cent. for each of those years, the Government could, even within their own policy, give them a rise of 10½ per cent. I know the reason given, which is valid—that
660
these people should wait until there has been a review of the social services.
Mr. Harold Lever indicated dissent.
Mr. Jennings: For far too long the excuse has been, "We must await the review of the social services." Those people cannot afford to wait.
Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I have not suggested, and I do not suggest now, that a rise in pensions must await the comprehensive review of the social services. A satisfactory, permanent and honourable way to proceed is for the matter to be completely put right by that review, but certainly I am not saying that we must await that review before increasing pensions.
Mr. Jennings: In the long-term, that must happen. I appreciate, however, that a Bill is to be drafted, ready for action, whenever the opportunity arises. That is something for the immediate problem, but I urge that these people be given some priority and their position looked at immediately.
If the Government cannot do this for the broad mass of pensioners in this category, I suggest that there is a section of pensioners who are very badly off. I refer to those who retired many years ago and whose pensions were geared to low salaries. As a result, they are drawing low pensions. Can at least this section of the retired community receive priority? I accept the Financial Secretary's sincerity. I trust that he appreciates that if nothing is done bad feeling will be exacerbated and that there will be disappointment and frustration among an ageing section of the community who deserve help and support now.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: My feeling about these pensions is less one of, as the Financial Secretary put it, compassion, as of ordinary honesty. "Pensions", in this context, is a misnomer. We are dealing with deferred pay. Over the generations the government received service of high quality for a considerably lower wage than industry and private enterprise had to pay for similar service. That service was received at a lower price because the Government promise4 to look after the future of their servants

661
and widows. That promise is being performed with bad money.
It may be said that private enterprise would also fulfil its bargains with bad money. I agree, but private enterprise is not responsible for making the money bad. Successive Governments have done this as a matter of deliberate policy. To a considerable extent they have been right, because I am heritical enough to feel that a full employment policy requires an element of inflation, and I doubt whether we could have got by without it. However, this should not be an excuse for defaulting on our bargain with the people whom we persuaded to serve the nation and who have served well.
Britain grew great on this service, which in a sense was a hereditary one in that the families of public servants—officers and non-commissioned officers of the Army and other Forces—were a great recruiting ground for the Service. From their earliest childhood the members of those families were brought up in the atmosphere of the Service and they provided the real morale and esprit de corps which we wanted.
Successive Governments have killed that recruiting ground. Few people do not have an uncle, aunt or other relative who does not feel a sense of real and bitter injustice. Instead of making those families, which for so many years have had a public service tradition, the recruiting ground, there is now a strong anti-Service feeling within them.
It is not only dishonest; it is not good sense. It is also bitterly unjust. Men served as professional soldiers in the First World War with the rank of major-general and brigadier-general. I suggest that we who served in the last war got off lightly compared with the earlier generation and the conditions in which they fought. These men and their widows now find themselves being pensioned at a lower level than a young major prematurely retired at the age of 40—at an age when it is not difficult to step into good new employment. This is a bitter injustice. We are speaking of men who served on the basis that they would be assured a dignified retirement for themselves and their widows.
In the battle which we have often tried to wage against poverty my hon. Friend
662
and I have been keenly aware of the bitter indignity of poverty. Affluence is a relative matter. To some it is a full rice bowl. To others that same rice bowl is starvation. It is a matter of relativity between various people. I would say that one is affluent if, each year, one is a little better off, and that one is impoverished if, each year, one is a little worse off. A declining standard is a cruel standard, and that is the standard which, year after year, has been imposed on these people—each year feeling that they have economised to the utmost but finding that an additional economy is necessary.
Without apology, and contrary to the views of both the great parties, I believe in parity; that it is only honest to pay for the same service in the same kind, so that there should be the same pension for the same service, whenever and wherever it was rendered. After all, that was the specific pledge given by the Labour Party when in opposition. I had the misfortune of giving that pledge from the Front Bench in two successive years. That pledge had been carefully considered and it was given with the full authority of my party because we thought that it was just. I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not equally feel that it is just. It is on this matter that I have on previous occasions felt it my duty to vote against my party.
But that is not the issue tonight and I hope that there will not be a Division on the question of timing. If there is to be yet another Pensions (Increase) Bill, then whether it is introduced in October, November, December or January is not a matter on which the House should vote—that is, for any reason other than party advantage. The Opposition have had assurances which should satisfy them. Although what they want is not what I want, I hope that, for the sake of the dignity of Parliament, we will not have a squalid party Division in which each of us will be expressing feelings which we do not really hold.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I had the honour and privilege to sign the Opposition Motion.
The House listened with attention to the noble speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I

663
am sure that he will agree that it is surprising that a Minister representing the Armed Forces is not on the Government Front Bench. Although that is a pity, the hon. and learned Gentleman can be said to represent the spirit of the Forces on the benches opposite. Indeed, many of us regret that he did not achieve the Ministerial office which I believe was due to him.
The answer given by the Financial Secretary to the debate has not been satisfactory. I accept that it is easy for debates of this kind to become party slogging matches and, looking back on the record of my party, I admit that our record was not all the best in these matters.
Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
Mr. Fraser: The older I get and the longer I am in Parliament the more I believe that it is the first duty of the House to carry out its obligations. I departed from my hon. Friends on the question of our obligations to the Asians in East Africa. I believe that we have obligations in the matter we are discussing and I completely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that the greatest obligation of those who legislate for the country is for those who have worked in the service of the nation.
It is true that, by and large, these people had a good life and enjoyed their service, whether in the Armed Forces or the Civil Service. They enjoyed it because they had a sense of duty properly fulfilled. The tragedy is that they are now reduced to penury compared with others and that they and their children feel that the State has defaulted on them.
The Motion, which has great support in the House, should be pressed to a Division. We must make it clear that we believe that, no matter the economic problems of the nation, we have certain obligations which must be fulfilled. Unless a clear statement is made that these obligations will be correctly fulfilled—the statement of the Financial Secretary so far is not sufficient—there must be a Division.
The Minister's statement was charming and full of good will. The hon. Gentleman positively exudes charm. I
664
say that in the friendliest manner and I prefer to call him my hon. Friend, because I have a great personal regard for him and know that his heart is very much in the right place. The answer we have had from the Financial Secretary so far is not the answer which he would wish to have given. I see a more sinister figure, Svengali beside Trilby, on the Front Bench now. We know that behind them is the iron resolution of the Treasury not to yield an inch. The Financial Secretary has told us that his fountain pen is ready to sign the Bill, but that gives no comfort to those who are waiting to benefit from the Bill. I hope, whatever has been said by hon Members opposite, that the House will divide on this Motion.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. John Horner: I think that the House will agree that an advance has been demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary this afternoon. There seems to have been some progress made in the Treasury.
We were told in January that when the time was appropriate the machinery would be put into operation. Now we are told that the machinery is in operation. Therefore, there is some advance. I must confess, however, that I was puzzled by what my hon. Friend said. I sought to hear from him the factors which would have to be taken into account before the machinery produced the end result.
I want to know whether the Government feel that the disproportionate increase in living costs which these pensioners have suffered since the last Pensions (Increase) Act warrants an increase in pensions at this moment, or is it, as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, that when the money is there it will be shelled out?
I want to hear from the Government, when winding up the debate, what the factors are which will be taken into account when the machinery is finally put into top gear. I do not complain that he took the opportunity of telling the House once again of the Government's general policy in regard to regular review arrangements, but I was not wholly convinced that the arrangements which exist in the Treasury are appropriate and adequate.
My hon. Friend said that we ought not to worry, that hon. Members write to him from time to time expressing anxiety

665
but that everything is looked after and that in due course something will come out of the pipeline. I am very pleased indeed that, after the last few months and the support given on both sides of the House to the early day Motion, we have had this declaration from the Financial Secretary. As Shakespeare said:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly."
Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have not sought to belabour this point. We have not been given many statistics, but there is general agreement that this is an urgent matter and that we wait with impatience the outcome of the machinery which the Financial Secretary says has been set up and which is working at the Treasury at the moment.
We have heard in moving terms from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) of the position of the Armed Forces pensioners. I speak particularly on behalf of a group of public service pensioners. I make a special plea on behalf of those who have served in the police forces and fire services, who are now old and were obliged to retire because the regulations applying to the police forces and fire services require them to retire at what may be regarded as the comparatively early age of 55 after 30 or 35 years' service.
When a fireman reaches the age of 55 and has done that service he has had about enough. One cannot expect such men to undergo the rigours of fighting fires or active service on the beat in the police after that age, and the regulations say that these men must retire at 55. These men, who retired many years ago, are denied the benefit of the National Insurance retirement pension. There can be no automatic increase for these pensioners when National Insurance retirement benefits increase. I make a special plea on behalf of police officers and policemen and fire officers and firemen who retired in those circumstances in the past.
I know that the Treasury would not wish to deal with this matter piecemeal. It has been suggested that perhaps there are special groups who could be treated separately as a matter of immediate urgency. However desirable that may be, I understand the difficulties which face the Treasury at the moment. We are
666
glad to know about the regular review. I hope that this will be the last time we shall discuss a Pensions (Increase) Bill. I earnestly hope that we shall not have to wait too long for that Bill. I beg my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Treasury to see that when the Bill comes before the House—and I hope that it will come very soon—we shall be told a great deal more about the general review arrangements and that never again will the House be obliged to go through the situation we have experienced during the last few months.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press this Motion to a Division. What the Financial Secretary said this after-noon is an adequate assurance of anxiety to get ahead in this matter. I hope that this will be the last time we shall have to press the Government to introduce a Pensions (Increase) Bill.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) is rather more trusting in the Financial Secretary than I and a number of my hon. Friends would be. The Financial Secretary said two things which filled me with suspicion. I am sure that a number of my constituents will not fail to notice them. First, he said that he was ready poised to sign the Bill with his fountain pen, or something like that. I noted the words "ready poised".
Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Member must not attribute the fantasies or fancies of other hon. Members about my fountain pen being in my hand to my speech. At no point did I refer to this useful article in my speech.
Mr. Godman Irvine: I withdraw any reference to the fountain pen. There is no fountain pen in the hon. Gentleman's hand, but he is "ready poised" to do something, I wrote that down.
I regret that I no longer recall what he was poised and ready to do, but what I do recall, and what my constituents recall, is that when hon. and right hon. Members opposite originally managed to move from this side of the House to the Government side, they did it on election addresses stating that they were poised and ready to deal with the nation's economic situation. We have waited a good long time to see any fulfilment of that

667
promise. So if the Financial Secretary uses words like that he must not be surprised if they are not found to be very persuasive at least in my part of Sussex.
Second, the Financial Secretary said that he would deal with this matter in months, not weeks. That reminded me of what the Prime Minister said about sanctions against Rhodesia working in weeks, not months.
Mr. Harold Lever: This is all very cheap.
Mr. Godman Irvine: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but these are matters which will not be overlooked in my part of the country nor a great deal of the rest of it. In a little while, he will have opportunity to say what he wants to say. At this moment, I am pointing out that I am not satisfied with the general air of bonhomie with which he has tried to enlist our support. We want something more specific than he has been able to put to us so far.
It is all very well to say that at some time a Bill will be introduced. Week by week my constituents who live on small fixed incomes read about increases in telephone charges, postal charges and a host of other things. They constantly write to me expressing their anxiety. I had a letter only today complaining about the rise in the price of coke. This sort of thing goes on day after day and week after week. My constituents will not be satisfied by a suggestion that at some stage the Financial Secretary will move from his position of being poised and actually go into action.
The last Pensions (Increase) Act introduced increases of between 2 per cent. and 16 per cent. for various classes of pensioner, and those increases came into force in January, 1966. Since then there has been an increase of 7·3 per cent. in the cost of living. The Financial Secretary may say that that is not a matter requiring immediate attention. In that case, I come to my second point and ask him to look at the class of people who received inadequate awards at that time.
One of the first cases I came across when I became a Member of Parliament was that of a man who had been invalided out of the Royal Navy in 1899,
668
during the Boxer Rebellion. He was then aged 16 and serving in the Royal Navy as a boy. He received a 100 per cent. disability pension in 1899, and he received all the increases which were awarded in Pensions (Increase) Acts from 1899 until about 1955. The total result was that in 1959 his pension was £155 a year. I have urged that case on successive Financial Secretaries as an example of the class of people who need immediate assistance. I think that the hon. Gentleman need not worry about that man any more because I have not heard from him for some time and I believe that he is no longer with us. My efforts on his behalf were unsuccessful.
I have two further examples with me today which I want the Financial Secretary to consider. They are not examples of people who were serving in the last century; but both were serving at the beginning of the last war. One joined the Royal Navy in 1914 and was invalided out as a lieutenant, after 27 years' service, in 1941. He is now receiving £434 a year, including the last pensions increase of 16 per cent.
The other joined the Army in 1915, was demobilised in 1919, enlisted in the Territorial Army, and finally went to the Royal Air Force as a Regular in 1923. He was commissioned in 1941 and retired in 1948 as a squadron leader, a rank in which he served for six years. His pension is £494 a year. He received a gratuity of £300 after 30 years' service. Those who have been serving in the Royal Air Force and who retire today, after the same length of service, receive a pension of £1,000 and a gratuity of £3,000.
The folk I am referring to are becoming very senior citizens. It is not good enough to say to them that the Financial Secretary is poised and that he will act at some stage. He must act now. They cannot wait.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: Like other hon. Members, I have received many letters from retired public service pensioners. Many of them are apprehensive about the increased prices which they have to meet on fixed incomes. There can be no doubt that people on fixed incomes, who, in the main, are pensioners, are the first to suffer from a

669
situation of inflation, when prices are rising rapidly.
It has been said, with some justice, I think, that although the cost of living has increased in recent years, wage and salary increases have more than kept pace with the rise in prices. Whether they will continue to do so is doubtful. In the light of devaluation and the Budget, we understand that there is every possibility that prices will continue to rise, perhaps, 5 or 6 per cent. more before the end of the year.
Nevertheless, it is true that most wage and salary earners have received increases over the past two years—certainly since 1st January, 1966, the date of the last increase to public service pensioners—whereas public service pensioners have been waiting two and a half years or more. The recommendation at that time did not affect people who retired after 1st April, 1964, so many pensioners have been waiting four years or more since the last increase.
The improvement made on 1st January, 1966, gave increases ranging from 2 per cent. for those who retired immediately before April, 1964, rising to a maximum of 16 per cent. if retirement took place before April, 1957. The Financial Secretary, perhaps unintentionally, misled the House by suggesting that, although at that period the cost of living had risen by only 11 per cent., pensioners were given increases totalling 16 per cent. In fact, the increase of 16 per cent. applied only to people who retired before 1957.
I am particularly concerned about the pre-1957 public service pensioner. Many of the scales on which the pensions were paid—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) made this point—were based upon unrealistic wage scales. As a consequence, although there is an escalating scale giving bigger percentage increases for those who have retired longest, account is not taken of the erosion in the value of money over their 10, 15 or 20 years of retirement. These are the public service pensioners who are, therefore, beginning really to feel the pinch. They are suffering more than any other section of the community from the effect of rapidly rising prices.
It has been claimed from the Government Front Bench that this is a most in-
670
appropriate occasion, beset as we are with economic difficulties, to discuss the question of public service pension increases. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no political motives in moving the Motion, but they may have difficulty in reconciling the suggestion that we should pay out more money at the same time as they are promising to reduce taxation. However, I accept the sincerity of hon. Members opposite who have spoken. I hope that we can all persuade my hon. Friend and the Government that a case can be made for an immediate increase, at least to those who have retired from employment in the lower reaches of public service.
If the financial hurdle is so formidable—and we recognise that in present circumstances there is an argument that the Government could not afford the full cost of pension increases—why not consider, in particular, those in receipt of modest pensions and the pre-1957 pensioners? They are the people who are feeling the real impact of rising prices. It might be claimed with some justification that retired town clerks, generals, chief constables, higher civil servants and so on receive fairly substantial pensions and, therefore, perhaps suffer the minimum of inconvenience when prices increase.
But if the Government are particularly concerned in their prices and incomes policy about the impact of poverty on the lower-paid worker—and they have clearly said that it is their intention to do something about it, although I can see little evidence of this happening—they should also be concerned with the lower-paid pensioner. I hope that they will give some consideration at least to those at the lower end of the scale.
Some might claim that there is political motivation behind the Motion. But I think that the case has been stated on its merits. I am very disappointed to learn that although preparations are now being made to draft regulations that could be put into effect at the earliest possible moment, there is no possibility of introducing legislation. I think that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was quite definite about this. Even if it were introduced in the next Session it might well well take three or four months to get through Parliament, and as a result it might be 1st April, 1969, before any increase could be operated.

671
My hon. Friend has already told us that since the last general pension increase the cost of living has risen by 6 per cent. We are now told that there is a forecast that it will increase by 5 per cent, by the end of the year. It was all very well for my hon. Friend to say that the Government are watching developments very closely and will intervene when they consider the pensioners merit attention. Is that time to be when the cost of living has increased by 8 per cent., 9 per cent., or 10 per cent? Pensioners are entitled to ask how much of the impact in the increased cost of living they are expected to absorb before their pensions are reviewed.
Early Day Motion No. 149 had the support of Members on both sides of the House. There is genuine concern, particularly judging from some of the pathetic letters we receive from our constituents, that a great deal of hardship is being undergone by people on small fixed pensions. If the Government are to organise a drive against poverty they must look at this section of our population.
I appeal to the Government to consider if not a blanket approach to the problem with a general increase in pensions for all retired public service and Armed Forces personnel, looking at the people on the lower rungs of the ladder as an interim measure. Is not it possible as an interim measure, to do something to save them from the full economic consequences of devaluation and the Budget? I believe that such an interim step would be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: It is scarcely three months since the subject was last debated in the House, but there is certainly more injustice tied up in it than can be dispensed with in two debates, so I will not make any inference about the right hon. Gentlemen choosing it for their Supply day. A matter like this passes like a baton from party to party, but remains resolutely on this side of the House. Unfortunately, it will apparently remain here for some few months, because it will no doubt do so even if a Conservative Government should come to power.
I marvel at the effrontery of the Conservative leaders in putting down the
672
Motion. I accept that some Tory back-benchers have always been very interested in the problem, and very concerned about the hardship involved. But their party when, in power, did precious little to ease the burden of hardship. Under the Tories, it was really a case of public service and penury going together. The only principle they recognised in the matter, as far as I could ever see, was that under a Tory Government the older one got the poorer one would become.
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) mentioned the Government's refusal of a two-year review. My noble Friend Lord Wade, when a Member of this House, introduced a Bill in 1962 to provide for a two-year review, and consistently badgered the then Tory Government to bring in such a review. It was consistently refused, and the Conservative Government said clearly that they had no intention of bringing in such a regular procedure.
The right hon. Member for Barnet said that by turning down an increase because of the question of priorities, because they did not have enough to spend on it, the Government were in some way saying that everything in their programme was of a higher priority than this. The argument must have been precisely true during the 13 years of Conservative rule, and presumably applied to Blue Streak and the other £1,000 million wasted on defence during that period. The argument can work both ways. The Conservative party may well speak now with honeyed words, but precious little action was taken at the time. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said towards the end of the Conservative period that this blot on the Tory record was inexcusable.
Lord Balniel: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be misleading, and that he would accept that reform is always a continuous process. In the earlier Acts we abolished the means test. At the time of Lord Wade's suggestion we introduced what is called the escalator, whereby the more elderly people get additional help, and at the same time we introduced a special flat-rate increase for people over 70. We accept that not everything was done in our turn of office, but surely the hon. Gentleman can appreciate with a certain

673
degree of generosity that reform in this matter is a continuing process?
Mr. Pardoe: I accept that reform is a continuing process, but I wish that it would hurry up a little. One could say that the present Government, though I do not wish to defend them, made steps in this direction by increasing these pensions. The statement of the hon. Member for Tynemouth stands. This was an inexcusable blot on the Tory Government, despite all the advances which the noble Lord mentioned.
When the Conservative Government left office, they had failed to restore any officers' pension to the purchasing value of 1938. It would have required a rise of 200 per cent. in 1964 to restore the 1938 purchasing power. At that time, a general's pension would have had to be raised by 46 per cent., a colonel's by 52 per cent., a major's by 58 per cent. and a captain's by 70 per cent., so they were lagging a long way behind.
The cost of living has risen over 7 per cent. since the last pension increase in January, 1966, and as we have heard from the Officers' Pensions Society, in its brief for the debate, there is likely to have been a 12 or 13 per cent. increase since January 1966, when we come to the end of this year. As a result of the increase in the cost of living, there is obvious hardship, as all hon. Members accept, and some sections are suffering more than others.
More than 3,000 officers' widows are on minimum rates of pension and for many of them the pension is less than that of the single rate of National Insurance pension, while 35 per cent of officers' widows are too old for the National Insurance pension. It seems extraordinary that we still accept a standard of one-third of the husband's retirement pension as being the correct pension for his widow. We should have accepted half at least as the proper standard throughout the whole of the pension provisions in this sector.
The terms of the Amendment in my name show the difference between the Liberals and the other two parties, although I think that the Labour Party, in opposition, accepted the principle of parity. Both the major parties today apparently reject the two essential principles of parity and of dynamic pensions.
674
But unless we accept them we shall never get over the problem of coming cap in hand to the Parliamentary Order Paper, so to speak, for increases now and then.
Why is parity ruled out? Is it right that a major who retired in 1919 should have a standard of living at least one-third less than that enjoyed by a major who retired in 1965 or 1966? The principle of public service and Armed Forces pensioners receiving the same pension for the same service regardless of date of retirement is right, and if it is right we should find a way to implement it. I do not say that we should do so immediately. We have suggested that it should be done over a seven-year phased period. What I want the Government to accept is the principle and to say that they will implement it over a period.
The right hon. Member for Barnet was familiar with the arguments which he said the Government would use in countering his own. I was not surprised at that because they are precisely the same arguments which the Conservative Government used. For instance, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that it was wrong completely to insulate any section of society from changes in the value of currency. But it is equally wrong to leave one section of society completely free from the changes in the value of the currency.
Mr. James Allason: The hon. Gentleman is very safe on the Liberal Bench in pledging himself to parity, because he has not the slightest danger of having to implement it. Can he give an example of any private employer who has instituted parity?
Mr. Pardoe: I do not accept the argument that the public sector should always take its standards from the private sector. There is an argument for saying that if the public sector accepted this principle it would attract private provision to do likewise. I want to see the Government taking the lead.
Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman also quote any private enterprise which got its labour anything like as cheaply as the State did?
Mr. Pardoe: That comment stands by itself. There is no need for me to elaborate on it and I accept it.

675
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames went on to say that it was unfair to tax payers possibly earning less than public service pensioners to ask them to pay more in order to increase public service pensions. That was a ridiculous argument, because it would mean in logic that the Government could not even increase the salaries of public servants above the average level of taxpayers' earnings. The Government must pay not only proper salaries, but proper rates of pensions in the public service, and collect the money from the taxpayers as equitably as possible.
The idea of parity was also opposed by Mr. Profumo, on 20th December, 1962, when he had some responsibility for this matter. He said:
"Current pensions are part of a contract or bargain to which the man who retired a long time ago was never a party. Many features of the terms of service in his profession may have changed in the meantime, some for better, some for worse. The contract of service under which he served cannot be reopened."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 20th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1590.]
This, again, is a ridiculous argument. Of course, the conditions in which the contract was signed have changed substantially. But surely the contract or bargain was committed to a certain standard of living and degree of purchasing power.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Having turned what for the most part has been an all-party approach into an anti-Tory tirade, will the hon. Gentleman vote in support of the Opposition Motion?
Mr. Pardoe: I do not think that my speech can be interpreted as an anti-Tory tirade. I am reminding the House, and my constituents, I hope, of the not-all that handsome record of both the Conservative and Labour Parties in this matter. That is the only point I am trying to make. But putting down the Motion, the Conservative Party has turned this matter into a political issue and in my Amendment I have tried to show that the terms of the Motion are not strictly true.
The principle of dynamism, whereby pensions should increase automatically with increases in pay, seems to relate to the Prime Minister's promise in 1964 in a letter, when he spoke of linking these
676
pensions to some economic indicator. I ask the Government to accept that current active salaries are the proper economic indicator to link these pensions to. I do not say that it can be done immediately, but in the long term that is the principle we shall accept.
Both these principles of parity and dynamism are right and should be implemented. That is why I ask for them to be implemented in the social security review which the Government have promised us. I hope that the Government will take action now to help alleviate the hardships which exists. I hope, also, that they will write these principles into their long-term policy. It is only by accepting them that we can stop this business of fiddling continually with pensions, trying to get them square but never catching up. That is the only way to overcome hardship in the long run.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: The speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) lowered the level of the debate very considerably. I make it clear that, unlike him, what I have to say will be my own thoughts. It has not been necessary for me to be briefed by anybody. Among the admirable speeches we have heard, I want to refer in particular to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) and pick up a point he referred to in his concluding remarks.
Every time this subject comes forward for debate in the House, I feel some surprise that it is a subject for which it is necessary to legislate. After all, the public service and Armed Forces pensioners whose case we consider are not really in the relationship of citizen to Government but rather in the relationship of ex-employees to their employers.
It is not too much of a paradox to say that the pension scheme operated for their benefit is really a private pension scheme. The fact that, in this sense, their direct employer is the Government is fortuitous in a way. We are really considering a kind of pension scheme. No other private pension scheme requires legislative approval before a change can be made, and I am surprised that we should imagine that legislation is necessary now.

677
Another reason why I regret the necessity for legislation is that, while I entirely agree that the expenditure of public funds needs close scrutiny and control, I have been unable to see why we should infer from that that legislation is necessary. It is only right and proper that we should pass the pension arrangements for ex-Government employees under close and regular scrutiny. Any firm would want to review its own scheme, and if necessary decide what to do about it. We have a double obligation because we are dealing with public funds, but I cannot see why it should necessarily follow that we require legislation to bring about amendments.
Let us consider the existing pension arrangements and let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that all the existing pensioners and new pensioners were to live to the age of 100—unlikely but possible. If that occurred the number of people receiving pensions would be considerably increased, and consequently the amount of money paid out would increase correspondingly. No one would suppose that, of itself, that would require legislation. If a greater number of people continue to receive the same amount, and no legislation is required, I do not see why legislation is required if the same number of people are to receive an increased amount. The amount of public expenditure would be increased in either case.
This is hardly the time, and I am hardly the man, to embark on a definition of what is law, but I would suppose that such a definition would include some phrase to express a generality, that the law is something laying down a particular principle, and the application would be left to the courts, the ministry or an appropriate body. When we pass a Pensions Bill for public servants and Armed Forces we enact legislation, but what we are really doing is a mere administrative act, using the guise of legislation.
It is rather a pity that when we want to do something for these people it is necessary to go to the trouble of enacting legislation. I should like to see an absolutely automatic procedure, either by introducing the concept of parity or linking these pensions to any rises in the cost of living. When a pensioner first receives his pension what counts is the value. That is presumably the amount
678
which the country thinks he deserves, presumably an amount which the country thinks it can afford. The pounds, shillings and pence in which those values are expressed at the time are not of deep significance. If there is a cost of living increase, we should ensure, automatically, that the value of the pension is maintained at its original level. I have never been able to understand why we have arguments saying that we cannot afford that. If we could afford the value of the pension in the first place why can we no longer continue to afford that value?
In the last two years, in previous debates, Members of the Opposition have brought forward proposals for a review body. I quite understand that they have done so because, under a Private Member's Bill, our rules of procedure prevent them from advancing a thorough-going improvement in the position of these pensioners. That did not make their proposals any better. I felt, and still feel, that the review body is very much a second-best. It might say "No", and it can only make recommendations to the Government, which can say "No". We want an automatic decision, without the necessity of coming forward again and again to Parliament for these miserable Bills, taking a form of law, but merely administrative acts. It would be well if, with all-party support, we could take this out of the legislative sphere and make regular, formal arrangements ensuring proper levels of value for these pensioners for ever.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I have listened to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) putting arguments against legislation, about an automatic increase, and about having a review body. What I have not heard him say a word about is how he will vote. From the arguments he has put forward, I should have thought that he was bound to vote for our Motion, otherwise everything that he has said is pure humbug.
I want to make my position quite clear. I have made it perfectly clear previously that we should have a review body. We on this side of the House have tabled a Motion, following an Early Day Motion which many hon. Members opposite signed. We have listened to the charm of the Financial Secretary but we have not

679
"levered" anything out of him at all. All that he has done is to try to produce arguments which would provide hon. Members behind him with arguments to send to their constituents as to why they have gone back on a Motion that they had already signed. One has only to represent a division like mine, with a large percentage of pensioners, to know the kind of letters we receive when we write to the Treasury on these matters.
Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry that the hon. Member reproaches me for not declaring how I intend to vote. I hope that there will not be a vote, but I have expressed reasons why I think both Government and Opposition are at fault in this matter. Neither course is satisfactory to me.
Mr. Costain: I accept what the hon. Member has said, but I hope that there will be a Division, and I shall vote for the Motion. The wording of this Motion is such that it does not pledge us to keep parity. Anyone who expects parity in pensions is kidding himself. I shall go into the Lobby tonight and vote for the Motion, believing that it is the spirit that matters.
I wish that something could be done immediately. I do not accept the Financial Secretary's statement that he has a Bill ready. What eyewash! If the Government want a Bill, they can produce one overnight. The Financial Secretary is saying that there is a Bill ready to put before the House, and the signal to put the machinery into operation is the shadow of the next General Election. We know what they said they would do on pensions during the period between the two General Elections.
Those of us who are in close touch with pensioners realise that they want assurance for their short future. These elderly people have been brought up to be thrifty. They believe that the right thing to do is to depend not upon charity but upon their own resources. They want assurance that they need not worry.
Although figures have been quoted by the Financial Secretary on the rise in the cost of living, what has not been made clear is the extra expenditure incurred by elderly people on those items produced by nationalised industries. That is why they need better help under a
680
Socialist Government than under a Conservative Government. The biggest rise is in the cost of heating. The next rise will be in the cost of food, as a result of the Transport Bill. Old people can do without a new suit of clothes, but heating and food are the two essentials. If they attempt to make a saving in these two essentials it is at the cost of their health.
It is a matter of priority. Yesterday we gave extra grants to the students. Surely those who most need help should have the highest priority. The Financial Secretary could have made a real contribution by saying that those who are more elderly and on the lowest scales need the greatest help. He could have produced a formula to give special consideration to those who are over 80 years of age. This was the policy of the Conservatives, who saw the need and tailored their programme to suit it. Surely, the Financial Secretary could tell us what would be the cost of providing a proper standard of health for those over 80.
In my constituency there is a Civil Service retirement home which is an extremely well run place and a credit to those who run it. From such places one can get the facts and one can find out what the need is.
Older people need food and warmth and to feel that they are not a burden on the community. They want to be wanted. Whenever the House debates this question I feel that it is debating whether old people are wanted. It is necessary that the call should go out from this House tonight that they are wanted. We have a responsibility to look after them. For that reason, I shall vote for the Motion. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. James Allason: I wish to declare an interest as a pensioner. In 1953 I retired from the Army after 21 years' service and I received a pension of £490 a year. My pension has not increased during the past 16 years. It will not increase until I reach the age of 60.
The Treasury at one time adopted the principle of immutability. They said that a pension was granted for the service which had been given, and there was no obligation to increase it. That

681
principle has since been breached and some increases are made, but they are insufficient to compensate in full for the rise in the cost of living.
The increase of 16 per cent. quoted by the Financial Secretary is an increase on the basic pension. If there is a rise of 100 per cent. in the cost of living since the basic pension has been awarded, and a further increase of 11 per cent. in the cost of living, the increase is equivalent only to 8 per cent. In no case do the pensions increases meet the full rise in the cost of living. The first step we ought to take is to try to make pensions increases at least meet the rise in the cost of living.
The suggestion of parity is ludicrous. The Labour Party promised it when they were in opposition and abandoned it very quickly on coming to office. It is now being offered by the Liberal Party, who are in absolutely no danger of being faced with having to introduce the principle of parity. It is a great disservice to pensioners to suggest that parity is a feasible proposition. The suggestion is completely out of touch with reality. No private pension scheme provides for parity. We ought to try to bring pensions to a level which would cover the rise in the cost of living. We have not achieved that.
The Financial Secretary has told us today that there will be a straight improvement in the pension at some time. He says that it is not necessary yet because the increase in the cost of living is not sufficient. But, remember, it is 2½ years since the last increase. He says nothing of improving pensions generally, as opposed to the Tory pledge to bring pensions at least up to the 1966 level, rather than moving just a step in the direction of parity while not achieving it. The proposals of the Financial Secretary are extremely disappointing. There is no improvement in the situation.
In a time of economic ruin great care must be taken in promising future benefits. The Government have a duty to their public servants who are now suffering hardship. As an employer, the Government should be setting a good example. The duty of hon. Members is to see that the Government behave well towards their employees. Individually we have the duty to force this on the Government, and I therefore believe that
682
we should support this Motion. We know that the Government's proposals are inadequate, and I hope therefore that everyone who has signed the Motion will come into the Loby with us tonight.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. J. T. Price: I should like to make it clear that I have no axe to grind in taking part in this debate. I have been briefed by nobody. What I say is entirely my own opinion.
If I were tempted to follow the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I should be led into a very polemical discussion about which party had done most for the pensioners—the Labour Party or the Tory Party. I should stand on our record during the three and a half years that we have been in office in contrast to that standing to the credit, or discredit, of previous Administrations. Therefore, we shall not argue about that point.
We have heard a lot in previous debates in the House on the treatment of old-age pensioners—and I refer specifically to retirement pensioners who come under the National Insurance Act—about selectivity. We on this side of the House often speak at cross-purposes about the desirability of making advances right across the board irrespective of the recipients' need. I have been in a minority of those on this side who have pleaded with my right hon. Friends in the Government to be more selective about the way in which they dispense public money. This does not mean that I am mean, niggardly or parsimonious. I agree that those in real need should get a lot more. But if this country goes on dispensing public money in the way it has been dispensed right across the board, regardless of whether those who have a title to it require it, we shall be in deeper trouble than we are already.
I wish to refer to what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said about Service pensioners. I should like a clear distinction drawn between Service pensioners—time-expired officers and Service men—and war service disability pensioners, who are often in a different category. Many Service pensioners are members of this honourable House. Many high-ranking officers have found their way on to the green benches

683
in this Chamber and have played a distinguished part in our proceedings. One would never suppose that the mere fact that at some period in their career they occupied an important post in the Army or Navy and at 50 years of age were time-expired meant that they were not entitled to seek admission to the House and become very useful servants of it.
As an ordinary democrat representing, as I do, a Socialist constituency where we are always talking about social justice, am I to support a system which automatically writes into our pension legislation an automatic escalator to shelter people against the effects of inflation regardless of whether they need it or not? These are moral questions, but also very important administrative questions.
Captain Walter Elliot Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton) rose——
Mr. Price: I promised to sit down at 25 minutes past six. I do not wish to be unfair to anybody. I should have preferred to have had a good deal of time to develop this argument more rationally and coherently than I am doing under the pressure of time.
While I would give my support to any Government who did their utmost so far as the national Exchequer would permit with prudence for those in greatest need, I should strongly resist any system which built in an automatic escalator.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke as an ex-serving officer in Her Majesty's Forces with particular knowledge of this question. He pointed out, quite rightly, that time-expired officers who may take their Service pension at 50 years of age or in their early 50s could not automatically expect an advance until they were 60. This is the administrative procedure under our existing Royal Warrants. But the hon. Gentleman did not say that under the Pensions (Increase) Acts which have been introduced regularly at periods of about two years—the last one was in 1966—an escalator is built in under which those who have been longest retired get the highest increase and those who have been retired for shorter periods get the lowest increase. The escalator—and I am speak-
684
ing entirely without documents—runs from 18 per cent. for those who have been longest retired to 2 per cent. for those who retired more recently. If an officer retired at 50 and is now in his 60s or 70s, he will automatically get an 18 per cent. increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
I shall finish shortly because I wish to keep faith with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is looking worried. I do not want him to get into more trouble because he has enough trouble in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs. However, he must be wary about propagandists who always talk about building in an escalator to protect a privileged section of the community against the continuous effects of inflation. If we do that, we must apply it to the rest of the community. We must apply it to prices and incomes. If I had time, I should be very awkward about that. I am no propagandist on this matter; I merely give a warning shot across the bows.
For goodness sake, do not let us fall for the old argument that we must build in an automatic escalator. No private pension fund does this. I have a great deal of knowledge and practical experience of private pension funds. I am not boasting about it; it happens to be one of my hobbies. No private trustees would ever write an automatic escalator into their trust deed. It cannot be done. The State should be equally prudent in resisting temptations which are delicately peddled forward by hon. Members who have been briefed on this matter. I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary says.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Balniel: The purpose of this Motion is to try to bring help to a group of people for whom the Government and every hon. Member feel a special sense of responsibility. The House owes a debt of gratitude, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and the many Members who have signed the Motion calling attention to the problems facing Armed Forces and public service pensioners.
Broadly, we are discussing two groups of people. There are those who, in their

685
working lives, served the Crown in the Armed Forces—some of them have been through two world wars—and their widows. The other group consists of those who, in their working lives, were civil servants, teachers, firemen, policemen, National Health Service employees, or overseas civil servants.
It is impossible for me to say exactly how many people are involved in the subject matter of this debate, but when we last debated it on a Government Bill in 1965 there were over 700,000 such pensioners. There were 236,000 ex-civil servants; 98,000 ex-teachers; 125,000 ex-local government officers; and 574,000 ex-policemen, firemen, National Health Service employees and civil servants from Pakistan, India and Burma. In the other group, there are 125,000 ex-Service men, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), having declared his personal interest in their problems, spoke so eloquently. In addition, there are 10,000 overseas pensioners.
These are not people who have a union to protect their interests. Of course, they have their staff associations, which do their utmost to assist. But the prior claims on staff associations are made by their existing members. There are the voluntary societies and councils which try to protect the interests of these pensioners. In passing, I pay a very warm and sincere tribute to the work done by the voluntary societies and councils. But, of course, they are not negotiating bodies. They do not have the resources to enable them to act as negotiating bodies. Indeed, the Government have never regarded these societies and councils as being negotiating bodies.
These are not people who demonstrate. They do not go marching down Whitehall. They cannot wield any real economic sanctions to frighten the Government and so force their hand. I speak from personal knowledge when I say that they are people who are very unhappy and reluctant to write to their Members of Parliament asking them to organise pressure or a campaign to bring them the help which they reasonably regard as being theirs of right.
As I say, they are not people who are prepared to demonstrate, but they are people for whom the Government—I
686
mean any Government of whatever political complexion—have a special responsibility if they value their name as a good employer. The Government were their employer in earlier years and, therefore, they have a responsibility to ensure that they receive a fair pension with appropriate purchasing power related to the length of service which these men and women have rendered to the community during their working lives. There is a strong moral obligation on the Government to protect them as far as they are able.
Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has made an eloquent appeal for those who have been in the Army and Navy. I accept that they have no trade union to negotiate for them, but surely civil servants belong to an organised body, and so have someone to speak for them.—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the teachers"] Yes, and the teachers.
Lord Balniel: I have said that the staff associations try to help; but it is fair to say—and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has considerable knowledge about this—that the main emphasis on staff association negotiation tends to be to protect the interests of existing members. I fully appreciate the point—I thought I had made it clear—that the staff associations help.
I was talking about moral obligation. Apart from that, if the Government neglect their responsibilities to the Armed Forces and public service pensioners, the long-term effect for this country could be very grave indeed. Morale in the Armed Forces is not very high at the moment. For instance, in 1966, 70 per cent. of the officers who retired did so on their own volition before the official retirement date. Recruiting into the Armed Forces and the public service, where we expect a very high standard of service, duty and responsibility which we invariably receive, will be adversely affected if people feel that they will not be fairly treated in old age.
For this reason, and because of the rapid drop in the value of pensions today, we were profoundly disappointed by the Financial Secretary's statement:
"But, on the facts which I have given, the Government must hold the view that, in our present circumstances, we cannot promise any further increase in pensions; and it is not

687
likely, I am afraid—it would be misleading for me to suggest it—that a case will be established for further increases in public service pensions this year Beyond that I cannot go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 796.]
We were very disappointed in that statement. We also regret the fact that during the past two years the Government have voted down two Bills—one introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), the other introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor)—which would have set up an independent commission to review the pensions of these people. The purpose of the commission would be regularly to review public service pensions, but the Government turned this proposal down. Therefore, we, as Members of this House, and the pensioners, once again, have to embark on the process of importuning, begging and persuading the Government to give them help.
I feel—and, from what I have heard today, I suspect that the whole House feels—that this irregular ad hoc system is incompatible with our obligations to these men and women. It is incompatible with their dignity. Like the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), I think it is unnecessary for this House to go through this process every two or three years. The time is overdue when we should establish a regular system of review for public service pensioners. Indeed, the pensioners had every right to expect, from the promises which were made, that a new reformed structure would be introduced. The Financial Secretary said today that he was poised to introduce a Bill.
Mr. Harold Lever indicated dissent.
Lord Balniel: I remember that the then Opposition, before the election, were poised for instant action. They remain poised for instant action, except that now they are covered with cobwebs. After three and a half years in power there is no indication how they intend to set this review on a regular basis.
Our policy includes the establishment of an independent commission which would review public service pensions and make recommendations to the Government, but of course the final decision would rest with the Government. It also
688
includes a proposal to lower the age at which pensions could be received to 55. That is of special value to those who are forced to retire early from the Armed Forces, the fire service and the police. We are also pledged to bring up the pensions of all those who retired a long time ago to the level of the pensions of those who retired in 1956.
I accept that these are steps in a continuing process of reform, and they follow other changes which we made when in power—for instance, the introduction of the so-called escalator whereby additional percentage increases are given to those who retired a long time ago.
Why do not the Government accept this proposal? It would do away completely with the necessity of regular campaigning and pressuring. It would also bring—and this is far more important—a degree of certainty and security into the lives of former public servants. The Government cannot hide behind the general review of social recurity, which is their usual excuse for inaction.
It is quite true that the review should cover, for instance, the possibility of establishing some kind of dynamic relationship between the National Insurance and public service pensions. That is something which should be included in the general review of social security, but the question of the level of public service pensions has been specifically excluded from the general review of social security.
Why cannot the Government accept this regular review? They accept a regular review for the pay of Service men and their future pensions. This regular review was introduced after the Grigg Report which stated, quite rightly I think, that it was
"essential that inflation should not be allowed to eat away the real value of service emoluments."
If that is a correct and proper attitude to take for the future pensions of the Armed Forces today, why is it not the correct and proper attitude to take for the pensions of those who served in the Armed Forces and public service in the past?
I know what the Minister will say. He will say that there is in the Treasury a body which is continuously reviewing the public service pensions. He said that

689
again today. I am bound to reply that it appears to be active only when pressure is brought to bear on it. I accept his word that this continuous review goes on. But the important thing is that the recommendations of this review are secret: the House does not know what they are. And, with all respect to the Treasury, they are not the people I would automatically select to be my trustees to protect my interests in old age.
The Government have rejected our proposal for an independent commission. They have rejected our proposal to alter the age of payment to 55, which is particularly important to the Armed Forces, the police and firemen. They have rejected the proposal to give the help which we would give to the older pensioners, bringing up the long outdated codes of the earlier retired pensioners to the level of those who retired in 1956. We have chosen that base date because, since 1956, the Pension (Increase) Acts have in broad measure compensated for the increased cost of living. They have rejected our proposals, but I would ask them what has happened to their promises.
They promised to link the public service pensions not to the cost of living but to earnings. They promised to introduce the principle of parity. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) very bravely and honourably takes on his own broad shoulders responsibility for that promise, but it is not his shoulders only which ought to bear the responsibility. The Chairman of the Labour Party, in a letter to the Chairman of the Officers' Pensions Society just before the election on 14th September, 1964, said:
"What I think you will find I said is that pensions will be linked to earnings. This link will mean that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices, but also receive their full share in rising national prosperity."
Are they linked to rising prices?
The Chairman of the Labour Party went on:
"As to your further point, you will know that we are favourably disposed towards the principle of 'parity' and that we would open negotiation with interested bodies to see how reforms along these lines can be introduced."
Have these negotiations been opened? With whom have they negotiated? When may we expect to hear the outcome of
690
those negotiations? Or am I right in believing that no negotiations have been initiated? Are those two promises just part of that vast catalogue of betrayal which is the Labour Government's record?
I turn now to the last argument which I wish to develop in the very short time at my disposal. It is basic to the Motion we have put forward. It is the argument of the cost of living. The last Act came into effect on 1st January, 1966. The effective date of the previous Act was 1st January, 1963. That was a gap of three years. Between those dates the cost of living rose by 11 per cent., and the 1965 Act gave increases which ranged from 2 per cent. for the most recently retired pensioners to 16 per cent. for pensioners who had retired many years before.
I want to make one comment about this because these percentage figures tend to be misleading. The 16 per cent. for the very oldest pensioners was a substantial increase, and I accept that. It was, however, an increase on a very small pension indeed. But it is the future that matters. Since 1st January, 1966, when the present level of pensions was fixed the official index of prices has risen by 7½ per cent., and price rises are now flooding in. The pensions of the 1965 Act are being steadily eroded away.
In the months which lie ahead—and this is important—there will be an absolute deluge of price increases as regards food, clothing, electricity bills, gas bills, coal bills, domestic coke bills, rents, rates, postal bills, telephone bills and bus fares. Almost all these prices increases flow from Government action: from devaluation, or as a consequence of Budgets which have increased taxation by £2,250 million, or from Selective Employment Tax, which will bring a further spiral of increased costs this autumn, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has pointed out, from the nationalised industries, which have the greatest impact on elderly people because they control the costs of fuel and lighting and the other elements which go to increase costs for housebound elderly people.
Mr. J. T. Price: Inflation is going on in every other country, also.
Lord Balniel: Because the Government have rejected our suggestion to set

691
up an independent commission to review these pensions, the responsibility falls firmly and squarely on this House to protect the interests of those pensioners. In our Motion we call for provision for an improvement to be made during the current Parliamentary Session, three years after the level of public service pensions was last fixed.
We have to look at what is likely to happen during the remainder of the year. Between 1st January, 1966, and December, 1967, the cost of living rose by 6·5 per cent. and it now appears that prices will rise by about 7½ per cent. during the course of 1968. These are not my figures, they are the figures of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Before the Budget N.I.E.S.R. estimated that prices would rise by 5½ per cent. in the couse of 1968 and the Secretary of State for Employment and Production has stated that they will rise by a further 2 per cent. as a result of the Budget. So it seems likely that the total increase in prices from January, 1966, when these pensions were fixed until the end of the Session will be about 14 per cent.
If the Government do not accept the Motion, and do not introduce provisions, as we call on them to do in this Motion, they will be allowing a larger erosion of pensions than has been allowed at any time since the war. The 1959 Act compensated for a 6·4 per cent. increase in prices. The 1962 Act compensated for a 10·4 per cent. increase in prices. The 1965 Act compensated for an 11·3 per cent. increase in prices. If the Government wait until after the present Session they will in all probability have to compensate for an increase in prices of over 14 per cent.
My final words are these. The Minister has asked us not to divide the House on this issue because we all feel so anxious to secure the interests of these pensioners. I would point out that it is he who will be dividing the House. The Motion is before the House and, if he objects to it, it is the Government who are dividing the House on this issue.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: May I have the leave of the House to reply briefly to the debate?
692
In so far as the Motion of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has been an occasion for what I believe to be a genuine display of concern by people on both sides of the House on behalf of these pensioners, I welcome it. In so far as it has made possible the superimposition upon this compassion of unseemly party political arguments, I regret it very deeply.
The hon. Member for Burton has got one or two things wrong, and I hope that he will listen to what I have to say before he decides whether to follow his hon. Friends into the Lobby. The 1965 Act was the only Act to be passed within three years of the passing of a previous similar one. That is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman, in good faith, believes to be the case. That was the only time when there was not a greater interval than three years. That Act provided the most costly and generous increase in pensions of any Act of its kind, and within the briefest interval. My hon. Friends should bear that in mind when they hear the beating of cracked party soap boxes on occasions such as this.
The hon. Member for Burton genuinely believes that unless we act in this Session, in accordance with the Motion, if we think we ought to act in January, 1969, to increase pensions we will not be able to do so. I assure him that that is not the case. The reason for my being able to assure the House that we have put work in hand on the Bill is to enable us, should we decide in the later part of this year that action by January, 1969, is necessary, to enact that Bill immediately and to provide the increases in January, 1969. If we do we will again enact an Act within a period of less than three years. It is dishonest for the Opposition on the basis of the January, 1969, forecast of the standard of living, to ask for action before then. If the January standard of living justifies action in all the circumstances, we will be in a position to do it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
Now that the Official Opposition have taken charge of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, which has been signed in good faith by many of my hon. Friends, and I am sure in good faith by the hon. Member for Burton and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh

693
Fraser), the hon. Gentleman might ask himself why the Opposition have been seeking to score the kind of cheap points that we have heard today about what the Prime Minister said on Rhodesia, and what was promised and predicted in a general way in relation to the specific assurance that I have given the House.
Mr. Jennings Mr. Jennings rose——
Mr. Lever: I have only five minutes in which to speak, and I still have some ground to cover.
Mr. Jennings: A matter of honour is involved in the charge made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lever: I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's honour; he knows that. He knows that I have the highest respect for him. He made no party political points. I concede that he has the highest political and personal honour in this matter.
The hon. Gentleman might ask himself why the Opposition demand action now, and a commitment now, after a 7 per cent. increase in the cost of living, at a time of extreme economic difficulty, when they had never acted on a 7 per cent. increase in the cost of living. That was not mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). They waited until there had been a 14·4 per cent. increase in the cost of living before they acted. In 1962 they waited until there had been a 10½ per cent. increase in the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman is bound to ask why the Opposition have seized his Motion, signed by back benchers in good faith and with the same good intentions as the hon. Gentleman has, at a time when there has been only a 7 per cent. increase in the cost of living, to press for a commitment from a Government who, whatever the reason, are faced with a difficult economic situation. Why are we being asked to take on an improper formal commitment to future action at a time and in such circumstances that it becomes even more in-appropriate when they have never taken on any such commitment in advance of action? Why do the Opposition wish us to act in under three years since the last pension increase, the most generous ever, when they never acted except after a period longer than three years?
694
I now address myself to one or two other points. Ought we to do something piecemeal for the harder cases? I take the point made by the hon. Member for Burton, but he has his favourite hard case, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) has his favourite hard case. It is very difficult to know which are the hardest cases, and it is particularly objectionable to take piecemeal action when I have said that we can regard as proximate general action, which is the only kind of action that is proper and appropriate in cases of this kind, and is not liable to make invidious distinctions between one class and another. If I were asking the House to wait indefinitely before we took general action there would be a strong case for piecemeal action, but it would be ridiculous to take piecemeal action in this Session when, within a short time, we will take the general action that will obviously become necessary.
I have been asked why the community cannot, in real terms, meet the obligations that it took in the past in relation to these and other claimants. I have listened, somewhat startled, to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who knows the answer, asking why it is that if wages can go up faster than the cost of living these people have to be held back? He says that we must put them up. That is an astonishing argument from somebody who has held the offices that he has, and who knows what he does. He knows that the excessive rise of wages and other incomes beyond the cost of living is not an argument for putting up these pensions, but is the reason why we are not able to put them up as promptly as many of us would like. It is precisely because, in spite of growing prosperity, some people, the strongest, are able to edge out the weaker and make a claim on the resources of the country, and because this is not within the Government's power to control, that we are not able to grant as rapidly as we should the fulfilment of some of these obligations.
It is odd that that should be used as an argument by the right hon. Gentleman whose Friends are opposed to the attempt to impose some sort of discipline on our society to make sure that it is not the weakest and the most deserving who are always driven to the wall, and that the fair treatment of these people is preserved

695
by organising some kind of discipline among the strongest. Those who have doubts about the incomes policy might reflect on the relationship of that policy to what we are discussing today. If we are to relate the genuine compassion of hon. Members on both sides of the House more closely to the action of Governments, we must do more to attend to the distribution of wealth in our community, and not leave it to "the devil take the hindmost" principle.
For those reasons, I say that the sad thing about the debate is that in the midst
of the sweetest sound of genuine compassion we have heard the somewhat jarring and grinding noises of political axes. Unhappily, apparently we are now faced with a Division on this matter where there is no real significant division of opinion in the House. I deeply regret and deplore it. I hope that the House will reject the Motion if it is asked to decide, and that the public outside will draw the correct conclusions from it.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 258.

Division No. 138.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Fisher, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Longden, Gilbert

Astor, John

Fortescue, Tim

Loveys, W. H.

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

Foster, Sir John

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Awdry, Daniel

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

MacArthur, Ian

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

Balniel, Lord

Gibson-Watt, David

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

McMaster, Stanley

Batsford, Brian

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Glyn, Sir Richard

Maddan, Martin

Bell, Ronald

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Maginnis, John E.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Goodhart, Philip

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Goodhew, Victor

Marten, Neil

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Grant, Anthony

Maude, Angus

Bessell, Peter

Grant-Ferris, R.

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Biffen, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Grieve, Percy

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

Black, Sir Cyril

Gurden, Harold

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Blaker, Peter

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Boardman, Tom

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Miscampbell, Norman

Body, Richard

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

More, Jasper

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Braine, Bernard

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Murton, Oscar

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hawkins, Paul

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Neave, Airey

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Heseltine, Michael

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Bryan, Paul

Hiley, Joseph

Nott, John

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

Hill, J. E. B.

Onslow, Cranley

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Burden, F. A.

Holland, Philip

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Campbell, Gordon

Hooson, Emlyn

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hordern, Peter

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hornby, Richard

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Channon, H. P. G.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Clark, Henry

Hunt, John

Percival, Ian

Clegg, Walter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Peyton, John

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Iremonger, T. L.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cordle, John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pink, R. Bonner

Costain, A. P.

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pounder, Rafton

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Crouch, David

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Crowder, F. P.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Prior, J. M. L.

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Jopling, Michael

Pym, Francis

Dance, James

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Quenneil, Miss J. M.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Kershaw, Anthony

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

Kimball, Marcus

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Doughty, Charles

Kitson, Timothy

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Drayson, G. B.

Lambton, Viscount

Ridsdale, Julian

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Eden, Sir John

Lane, David

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Royle, Anthony

Emery, Peter

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Russell, Sir Ronald

Farr, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Scott, Nicholas

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

Webster, David

Scott-Hopkins, James

Teeling, Sir William

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Sharples, Richard

Temple, John M.

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Silvester, Frederick

Tilney, John

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Sinclair, Sir George

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Woodnutt, Mark

Speed, Keith

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Wright, Esmond

Stainton, Keith

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Wylie, N. R.

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Younger, Hn. George

Stodart, Anthony

Wall, Patrick

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Walters, Dennis

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Tapsell, Peter

Ward, Dame Irene

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Weatherill, Bernard

Mr. Hector Monro.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Ledger, Ron

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Alldritt, Walter

Fernyhough, E.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Allen, Scholefield

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lee, John (Reading)

Anderson, Donald

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Archer, Peter

Foley, Maurice

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Armstrong, Ernest

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Lipton, Marcus

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lomas, Kenneth

Barnes, Michael

Ford, Ben

Loughlin, Charles

Barnett, Joel

Forrester, John

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Freeson, Reginald

McBride, Neil

Bidwell, Sydney

Gardner, Tony

MacColl, James

Binns, John

Garrett, W. E.

MacDermot, Niall

Bishop, E. S.

Ginsburg, David

Macdonald, A. H.

Blackburn, F.

Gourlay, Harry

McGuire, Michael

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Booth, Albert

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Gregory, Arnold

Mackintosh, John P.

Boyden, James

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Maclennan, Robert

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Bradley, Tom

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

MacPherson, Malcolm

Brooks, Edwin

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hamling, William

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Hannan, William

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mapp, Charles

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

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Marks, Kenneth

Buchan, Norman

Haseldine, Norman

Marquand, David

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

Hattersley, Roy

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Henig, Stanley

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mayhew, Christopher

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hilton, W. S.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cant, R. B.

Hooley, Frank

Mendelson, J. J.

Carmichael, Neil

Horner, John

Mikardo, Ian

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Millan, Bruce

Coe, Denis

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Molloy, William

Conlan, Bernard

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Moonman, Eric

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Crawshaw, Richard

Howie, W.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Cronin, John

Hoy, James

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Huckfield, Leslie

Moyle, Roland

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Murray, Albert

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Neal, Harold

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Newens, Stan

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Hunter, Adam

Oakes, Gordon

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Hynd, John

Ogden, Eric

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Irvine, Sir Arthur

O'Malley, Brian

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

Oram, Albert E.

Delargy, Hugh

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Orbach, Maurice

Dell, Edmund

Jeger, George (Goole)

Oswald, Thomas

Dempsey, James

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)

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

Dewar, Donald

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Paget, R. T.

Dickens, James

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

Palmer, Arthur

Dobson, Ray

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Doig, Peter

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

Park, Trevor

Driberg, Tom

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Dunn, James A.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Judd, Frank

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Kelley, Richard

Pavitt, Laurence

Eadie, Alex

Kenyon, Clifford

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Ellis, John

Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

English, Michael

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Ennals, David

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Ensor, David

Lawson, George

698

699

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Whitaker, Ben

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Slater, Joseph

White, Mrs. Eirene

Price, William (Rugby)

Small, William

Whitlock, William

Probert, Arthur

Snow, Julian

Wilkins, W. A.

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Spriggs, Leslie

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Rees, Merlyn

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Reynolds, G. W.

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Richard, Ivor

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Swingler, Stephen

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Taverne, Dick

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Winnick, David

Roebuck, Roy

Thornton, Ernest

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Tinn, James

Woof, Robert

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Varley, Eric C.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Ryan, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Sheldon, Robert

Watkins, David (Consett)

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Weitzman, David

Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Wellbeloved, James

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order>
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker in the debate, I should say that it would help the Chair if hon. Members who wish to speak would let me know whether they wish to speak for or against the Bill or if they are neutral, as this will help me to secure a balance of debate.
7.13 p.m.
Mr. Mark Woodnutt: The Bill is promoted by the Covent Garden Market Authority, a public authority constituted under the Covent Garden Market Act, 1961, which charged it with the duty of rebuilding the whole-sale market for horticultural produce which had been in existence for no less than 300 years.
Covent Garden Market is the largest market for the bulk selling of horticultural produce in the United Kingdom. After the passing of the 1961 Act, it was found impracticable for the Authority to rebuild the market in the Covent Garden Market area, but by 1964 it had found a new site at Nine Elms, south of the river. In the 1964–65 Session, the Authority promoted a Bill to authorise the removal of the market to this site. A Select Committee was set up, which sat for one of the longest periods of any in recent years, having 22 sittings. The Bill was, in fact, carried over to the next Session and became law as the Covent Garden Market Act of 1966. This Bill arises from directions which Parliament gave in that Act.
I am introducing the Bill because, of the four hon. Members on the Select Committee, I am virtually the only one left to do it. One, regrettably, died, another has the distinction of being an Opposition Whip and the third is a Chairman of the Committees. I do not intend to explain the provisions of the Bill, which I hope will be done by the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, but I wish to facilitate further and early consideration in Committee.
702
I understand that the only questions which the Government have raised with the promoters related to the provisions of Part II and the associated provisions in the Preamble and Part I. They arose from the Select Committee's adjudication, incorporated in Section 35 of the 1966 Act and in the Preamble of the Bill. These items are the essence of the Bill. The Committee decided that three things had to be done and they are set out as follows in the Preamble:
"(a) to prohibit, as from the date on which the Authority's powers to provide market facilities at Covent Garden are determined, the use of land in the Covent Garden Area (as defined in the Covent Garden Market Act 1961) for dealing in bulk in horticultural produce or the storage of such produce or of empty containers therefor;"
The Select Committee's reasoning here was that, as we were to spend about £30 million on a new market south of the river, no one would wish to see a residual market left in Covent Garden.
"(b) to provide for the disposal, not later than the said date, of the lands of the Authority situated within the Covent Garden Area and of any lands situated within that area in respect of which, or of part of which, there is in force on a date to be specified in the said Bill a licence under section 21 of the said Act of 1961;"
The Select Committee wanted this incorporated in the 1966 Act because it did not wish to see a large part of Central London deteriorate and become an eyesore.
"(c) to provide for the basis of compensation payable on the disposal of such lands as aforesaid;"
The intention here, of course, was to ensure that a fair basis for compensation was laid down by Statute, which it was not when the Committee considered the Bill.
I understand, from both the Government and the promoters, that the latter have agreed to submit amendments to the Committee to meet the Government's objections. On this basis, the Government have agreed not to oppose the Second Reading, and the Opposition have taken the same view.
Parliament first decided to rebuild this market over seven years ago; we are now dealing with a residual problem which should not be allowed to delay the rebuilding of Covent Garden Market at Nine Elms. It is in the interests of the

703
wholesale horticultural industry, retailers, consumers, market tenants and the future planning of an important part of our capital city—indeed, in the interests of the whole country—that this rebuilding should proceed without further delay and that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: My main interest in the Bill is that the Nine Elms area, to which it is proposed to move the market, is almost wholly in my constituency. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said, this project has now been thoroughly—indeed laboriously—discussed with all the authorities and interests concerned. Two Bills on the subject have already been passed.
Wandsworth Borough Council, the local authority which covers this area in my constituency, has been very thoroughly consulted over the Nine Elms end of the operation and is entirely in agreement with the project as it now stands. Indeed, it is anxious to see it going forward as quickly as possible. In my view and in the view of the council this area is suitable for a market of this kind, with its excellent rail access points as well as road access points which are being developed. Most of the area would be unsuitable for housing. The railways, gas works and other industrial operations there do not make it a suitable neighbourhood for housing.
I regret to some extent that it has not been possible to find a little more land for new housing on the fringe of the area, although some will become available on the river front at the Vauxhall end. Despite that, and in view of all the consultations that have taken place and the clear attitude of my local authority, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, even if the plan is not yet perfect, it would not be sensible to revise it now. 'I suggest, therefore, that the right course is for the House to wish it well on its way.
I hope that in carrying out the plan the Covent Garden Market Authority will seek, in those places where there are houses and flats abutting on the neighbourhood of the new market, to plant trees and generally ensure that the
704
appearance of the market is as pleasant as possible and agreeable to those living in the neighbourhood. This is important in view of some of the unsightly operations which we have experienced in this area in the past.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Charles Doughty: I, too, support the Bill, having opposed the original plan to have a sort of sample market in Covent Garden with a bulk store somewhere on the outskirts of London. There were obvious objections to that proposal, which I am glad to say has died a happy natural death.
The present situation of Covent Garden as a market for anything, but particularly for fruit, flowers and vegetables, is entirely unsuitable. There are no rail or air connections—a great deal of foreign produce is flown in nowadays—and no sea connections. It occupies an expensive site, slap in the middle of London, and tremendous hold-ups are caused every morning as lorries go to and fro and congregate in the narrow streets in and around the area. It is the only means by which goods can go into and out of the market, even if they originally come by rail or air.
It has for long been obvious that this state of affairs could not continue. A proper site for a full market had to be found, not only where samples could be seen and the bulk delivered somewhere else, but where trading in bulk articles could take place. Like all hon. Members, I am glad that a suitable site has been found at Nine Elms. I am sure that when the present site of Covent Garden Market is sold it will fetch a tidy sum and that that will help to meet expenditure on the new market.
I entirely agree that if the market is to move to Nine Elms, everybody must move. We cannot allow a residue to be left behind trying to retain a market which has closed down. For that reason the part of the Bill which is designed to ensure that that will happen is important.
I hope that in Committee we will examine the compulsory powers aspect of the Bill to ensure that compensation at more than the barest minimum rates is given. When doing compulsory purchase for a market, one needs to be more generous. The market will make a good deal of money, and rightly so in view of

705
the tremendous amount of business that will be done there. It will be a trading concern, even if it will have the national interest very much at heart. We must be careful when making compulsory purchase orders. If we are not, we will be faced with difficulties, arguments and a great deal of discussion. I hope that we will take the same attitude as we did over the Brighton Marina Bill and see that perhaps 10 per cent. more than the actual value is paid in compensation. That will avoid a lot of trouble when acquiring compulsorily for the new market.
I hope that the Bill completes all its stages quickly and that, when it is passed, the new market will be built quickly so that, in the near future, the centre of London will not be clogged by the traffic which necessarily goes in and out of the present Covent Garden Market and that we will have a bigger, better and more convenient market at Nine Elms.
7.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I welcome this opportunity to explain the attitude of the Government to the provisions of the Bill. As the House knows, there was, during the passage of the 1966 Act, a good deal of discussion about the inclusion of provisions to deal with the future of the lands occupied by the Market Authority and market traders in Covent Garden after the move of the market to Nine Elms. The Government were then of the view that no special provisions were required, since the Covent Garden market would die a natural death after the move, and the ordinary compensation code should be applied to any land acquired by public authorities.
The Select Committee reached no decisions on these issues, other than to include Section 35 in the 1966 Act, requiring the authority to promote a Bill this Session to deal with the discontinuance of the present market, the disposal of lands and the basis of compensation. The present Bill, as deposited, contains provisions which, in the Government's view, depart from fundamental principles of planning and compensation law to such an extent that if the choice lay between accepting and rejecting it as it stands, the Government would have had no choice but to advise the House to reject it.
706
There have, however, been protracted discussions between the promoters and my Department and, as a result, the promoters have given an undertaking to bring forward in Committee certain Amendments to the Bill, of which I will give details later. They will be seeking the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place to bring forward these Amendments by means of a petition for additional provision. Assuming that this approval is given, and that the Standing Orders Committee recommends compliance with Standing Orders as to the dates of service of notices be dispensed with, the Bill which would come before the Committee would be substantially changed from the form of the Bill as deposited.
It is on this basis, and only on this basis, that the Government are willing to see the Bill proceed. Whether or not the Bill is given a Second Reading is, of course, a matter for the House; but for the Government's part, on the basis of the undertakings given by the promoters, we would not object to the Second Reading.
It is right that I should explain to the House in some detail, and some of it I fear is rather technical, the nature of the Government's objections and the ways in which it is proposed that they should be met. Some of them relate to the vesting provisions, others to compensation.
Clause 6 deals with vesting. It provides for the vesting in an acquiring authority of the Market Authority's land and any licensed land within the Covent Garden Market area, unless the owner opts to retain the land. The acquiring authority may be the Greater London Council, or, if agreement to that effect is reached, a consortium of that Council and the Westminster and Camden Borough Councils. It could also be the Land Commission or some other body.
The Government accept that it is reasonable for the Market Authority's land itself to vest in an acquiring authority because it would inevitably need to be redeveloped with the removal of the market and no useful purpose would be served by requiring the Authority to dispose of it on the open market. But the Government do not accept that it is reasonable for the acquiring authority or

707
authorities to be compelled to accept vesting of any land in which there is a licensed property without any consideration being given to whether the value of the owner's interest had been destroyed by the removal of the market, or the trader himself had suffered hardship.
This would mean giving the traders the same right as if their property had been blighted, without needing to prove blight. We requested, therefore, an undertaking from the promoters that a Clause would be introduced into the Bill in Committee which, very broadly, would provide that the acquiring authority could resist the vesting of the land on the grounds that there was still a reasonably beneficial use of the land.
We think that in these circumstances a trader should nevertheless be able to require the acquiring authority to purchase his interest if he can show that he has tried to sell that interest but, because of the removal of the market, has not been able to sell it except for substantially less than he would have got before the market moved, and that the new Clause should provide accordingly.
It is the Government's view that such a Clause would strike a fair balance between the interests of the acquiring authority and the traders. It may not go as far as the acquiring authorities themselves would like, but whether it should go further is a question which the Government are content to see argued in Committee and decided in the manner the Committee thinks most appropriate. The Government consider that a provision such as this is the minimum requirement necessary to avoid an entirely unfair burden on a public authority.
The second part of the Government's opposition to the deposited Bill lies in its provisions which relate to compensation. The essential provisions are contained in Clause 11. The House will know that it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments to ensure that the compensation code is applied uniformly over the whole of the country whenever land is acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion. The powers under which a man's land is taken from him should not affect the basis on which his compensation is assessed; it should not make any difference to the amount he receives whether his land is
708
taken for planning, housing, highways or other public purposes, or whether it is taken by virtue of a Public General Act or a Private Act.
This is not a question of whether the general compensation code is right or wrong or whether or not it could be improved; what we must ensure is that everyone in his dealing with the public authorities is treated according to the same rules. In pursuance of this policy successive Governments have opposed provisions in Private Bills which have attempted to enact special provisions about compensation which differed substantially from those in the general law.
The Covent Garden Market Bill, as deposited, does include such provisions. Their effect would be that market traders, and the owners of premises in which they traded, would receive compensation on a different footing from every other person whose land was compulsorily acquired. For these purposes I think that we must take land that is vested under the Bill as being equivalent to land which is compulsorily acquired. It is true that the compulsion in this case is being applied to the acquiring authority, but this is not a reason for increasing or varying the right to compensation.
The Government find this departure from the normal compensation code objectionable in principle. The question is not so much whether the basis proposed by the Bill would have resulted in market traders obtaining more or less money under the Bill than they would have done under the general law, but whether it is right to depart from the basic principles of the universality of the compensation code and the question of equity as between individuals.
To give a concrete example, why should a market trader, or, indeed, any person owning an interest in licensed land, be paid compensation on one basis if this is vested in the acquiring authority by this Bill, whereas a café owner, say, whose trade equally depends on the market and whose property is compulsorily acquired by the planning authority for redevelopment must be compensated on a different basis?
The specific provisions in Clause 11 to which the Government took objection are detailed ones, but I think I should refer to them: First, there is the provision in Clause 11(1)(a) that compensation

709
should be paid as if the acquiring authority had purchased the land in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order made for purposes involving development in accordance with the scheme of the Act of 1966; secondly, there is the assumption—in subsection (1)(b) that the notice to treat was served on the "relevant date". I will explain that later.
Thirdly, there is the provision in sub-section (4)(a)(i) that no account be taken of changes in value resulting from the provisions of the Act of 1966 which require the removal of the market; fourthly, the provisions in subsection (4) (b) that the assumptions relating to the planning permission shall be those which are applicable on the 5th December, 1967; and fifthly that, as provided in sub-section (4)(c), there shall be no payment for disturbance.
The first and third provision which I have mentioned can be considered together because the essence of both of them is the same. It is to ensure that compensation shall be assessed as if the market were still operating in Covent Garden and was not moving to Nine Elms. It may be suggested that this is in line with the provision in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, that any increase or decrease in the value of land to be taken which is attributable to the scheme for which it is to be taken is to be ignored.
The fallacy in this argument is to think that the scheme under which the land will be acquired by the future acquiring authority will be the removal of the market to Nine Elms. It will not be that, but the scheme of redevelopment for which the Covent Garden area is acquired. It is only because the Government consider that an acquiring authority will need the land for redevelopment that they have agreed to the vesting provisions at all.
It is true that the removal of the market is a prerequisite to the redevelopment taking place; but it is not part of the scheme of redevelopment itself and there is no reason to disregard any of the effects of the removal for the purposes of acquisition for the redevelopment.
Let me refer back to the example I gave some time ago, of the café owner whose trade is dependent upon the market and whose property is compul-
710
sorily purchased for the redevelopment of the area after the market is left. The compensation in his case is not affected by this Bill and it will not be assessed on the basis that the market is still in Covent Garden, but in the light of the situation as it exists at the time of the notice to treat.
The second provision I mentioned as being objectionable is Clause 11(1)(b) under which the date on which it is to be assumed that the acquiring authority has served notice to treat is the "relevant date". The effect of this assumption is to provide that the date of the assumed notice to treat, and, therefore, the date at which compensation is to be assessed, would be six months before the Nine Elms Market is opened and before any of the traders have moved to Nine Elms.
One effect of this would be that disturbance payments would have to be made for all the traders, were it not for Clause 11(4), which provides that no disturbance payments should be made. But, as I have said, the Government is not just concerned with the question whether more or less money will be paid, but rather with the general principle of some-one being compensated on a different basis from that which prevails under the general law.
What, then, should be the proper date for the assumed notice to treat? As I said earlier, the Government regard the vesting of the land under this Bill as equivalent to a compulsory purchase. The Bill should, therefore, provide that the date of the assumed notice to treat falls at an equivalent stage under the procedure provided for by this Bill to the stage at which it would fall under the normal compulsory purchase procedure. A notice to treat is the final decision of the acquiring authority that they will take the land in question. Once it has been served, the procedure for acquisition is set in motion and, to all intents and purposes, is irreversible.
The corresponding point under the procedure provided for by this Bill is the appointed day. The appointed day fixes the day of discontinuance on which the land vests in accordance with Clause 6 of the Bill in the acquiring authorities; it makes clear when the new market is to open for business and it sets a term to trading in the Covent Garden

711
Market area. As from the appointed day the length of the life of the Market is irrevocably fixed.
Therefore, to carry through the principle that the persons affected by this Bill should be treated on the same basis as those affected by normal compulsory purchase orders, the Government have requested, and obtained, an undertaking from the promoters that they would make an amendment to alter the date of the deemed notice to treat.
The fourth provision to which I referred was the requirement, in Clause 11(4)(b), that the assumptions as to planning permission which were to be made were to be those which were applicable on the 5th December, 1967. I can understand the reasons which prompted the promoters to include this provision. No one is sure now what will be the planning position of the land to be vested at the appointed day, and the promoters thought it desirable to instil some certainty into the expectations of compensation which the traders had by specifying that as a basis for compensation the existing development plan should serve.
It might be that, at the time of the appointed day, the then planning position would provide a more profitable basis of compensation. Equally, it might prove less profitable. The promoters considered that certainty was preferable. But the provision offends against the general principles which I have stated.
Under the general law, if this land were to be acquired compulsorily in 1971, it would be the planning position in 1971 which would be relevant for the purposes of compensation. To come back once again to the café owner, if his land is bought compulsorily in 1971, he will be compensated on the basis of the planning position then existing. The Government could not agree, therefore, to this provision in the Bill passing and have received an undertaking that an amendment to delete it will be sought.
The final provision to which objection was taken by the Government is that in Clause 11(4)(c), that no disturbance shall be payable. The subsection was, no doubt, inserted because, without it, the effect of the other compensation provisions might have been to give greatly
712
inflated compensation, which the promoters quite accepted would be unreasonable to expect the acquiring authorities to pay. It should, therefore, disappear simply as a corollary of the other amendments which they have undertaken to make.
But I would go further. It should disappear also, because it is yet another example of a provision which puts the traders and owners dealt with in this Bill in a position different from that of other land owners. The Government cannot accept that promoters of Private Bills should alter the compensation code to pay themselves or anyone else to whom the Bill applies either more or less than the general law provides.
I apologise for wearying the House with such a lengthy exposition of technical matter on a Private Bill. But I felt it necessary to make clear why the Government are taking the line they are and what the effects of the provisions, if unamended, would be. The promoters have contended during the discussions that these amendments would be unfair in their effect and that, without the certainty of the compensation and vesting provisions contained in the deposited Bill, traders would refuse to move to Nine Elms when the time came. The Government do not accept these contentions. Unfairness can be tested only by the way other citizens would be treated in similar circumstances. It is the Bill as deposited that is unfair because it treats the owners of land affected by it differently from other owners whose land is compulsorily purchased.
Nor do we believe that the alteration of the compensation provisions will cause the traders to refuse to go to Nine Elms when the market authority itself withdraws from the Covent Garden Market. If the economics of operating at Nine Elms were to prove such that the traders needed greater help than they would already get from the Government through the grant for the new market, then we would have an entirely new problem which would have to be discussed with the interested Departments. But the Government cannot accept in any circumstances that the right way to help the traders would be by bending the compensation rules to their advantage at the expense of the acquiring authority.

713
Finally, as the House will know, it will be open to authorities or persons affected by the Bill to petition against it in its amended form. I should make perfectly clear to the House that the Government are not saying that the Bill must be passed in its amended form; all we are suggesting is that in its amended form it does provide a reasonable basis for consideration in Committee. At the same time, I hope I have made clear to the House that the Government are not prepared to see the Bill pass into law in the form in which it was deposited or in a form which contravenes the points of principle on which we feel we must insist.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: Covent Garden is in my constituency, and my constituents are divided about this Bill. They are not divided on the principle of moving the market, but they are divided on questions of acquisition and compensation. These questions, as we have heard, are extremely complicated, and I speak about them, therefore, with the freedom of ignorance.
It seems to me that, although Nine Elms will, no doubt, suit the traders better—I certainly hope so—the traders are nevertheless being moved, rather than moving of their own free will. Therefore I hope that all property at Covent Garden which is compulsorily purchased will be purchased at full and fair prices, a procedure which, as my hon. and learned friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said a few moments ago, has certain other advantages as well. For myself, I should regard as a fair basis compensation as though the market were continuing in Covent Garden; but I recognise that this is a technical and difficult matter.
On this point, I say only that I should not care to accept the argument on uniformity put by the Minister of State. I distrust uniformity. I thought his arguments, though doubtless correct, a little inhuman and mechanistic. Uniformity is of service only in uniform situations. But here land is not being acquired, as it practically always is in cases of compulsory acquisition, for a specific use; it is being acquired partly to prevent a specific use and partly, also, to make sure that the traders are able to sell their
714
property in time to set up shop in their new premises at Nine Elms.
In that connection—this is a detail—I do not see why the acquiring authority cannot take parts of buildings, but feels that it must take only whole buildings. It is a perfectly normal practice to acquire, and to dispose of, parts of buildings and interests in parts of buildings. Indeed, it may well be the smaller traders who are the occupiers of parts of buildings and whom we in this House would not wish to suffer loss.
There is another aspect of the move, though not coming directly under the Bill, which I wish to mention. I hope that the acquiring authority will have particular regard to the historic buildings in this area. There is a surprising number, some of them extremely well concealed. Having canvassed in this very old area, I assure the House that there are a great many hidden treasures to be found here.
In particular, I hope that great regard will be had to the market building itself, a building of the first half of the 19th century. It was built in a period which has never had the old glamour of being Georgian, although it is in a classical style, and it now suffers from not having the fashionable glamour of being Victorian. But it is an excellent building, and particularly suitable as a focus, which so many large schemes of redevelopment nowadays lack. Therefore, I hope that particular care will be paid, in any development scheme, to the preservation of the original central market building.
In general principle, most of us agree—and indeed we have agreed—that the market, with its tidal flow of heavy traffic, should go from Covent Garden, which is inconvenient for the traders and inconvenient for us. That is what the Bill is about. Moreover, it is promoted in compliance with directions given by us in the Covent Garden Market Act, 1966. For those two reasons alone, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that its complicated and technical provisions can be sorted out in Committee.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I too hope that the deadly uniformity the Minister is trying to impose will not

715
necessarily be forced on the Market Authority. We must bear in mind that the Covent Garden Market, the Covent Garden legislation and the whole situation we are discussing is absolutely unique. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the wishes of the promoters, the Market Authority, which itself is the creature of Government, should be deeply considered.
Those of us who had the great privilege the other night of attending the Danish Ballet, which ended just as the market was about to begin to trade, had borne in upon us to the full what a very unsuitable place it is for a great vegetable market. Those of us who know Denmark and Copenhagen remember the extremely good and modern market which the Danes put in a position comparable to the Nine Elms site in a very short space of time. I remind the Minister that the matter has dragged on since 1961 far too slowly. In announcing his 20th July cuts in 1966 the Prime Minister set the whole project back, in the same phrase in which he set back municipal swimming baths and so on. This treatment by the present Government of this great national project caused great offence both to the horticultural trade—it is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head, because it did cause great offence.
Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) reminded the House that the original proposal was not very adequate or work-able.
Mr. Wells: The original proposal was that of 1961. I had the privilege of abstaining then. I sat on the benches opposite as a comparatively new Member and disagreed with my own party that night. I went the whole way, perhaps further than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). But we do not want to go over old ground tonight.
I urge the Minister to help the Market Authority to assist the tenants and the Tenants' Association to obtain the most equitable compensation possible. I do not disagree with a word that he said on Clause 6, but I am at some variance with him on his lengthy dissertation on
716
Clause 11. I do not have his privilege of being learned in the law, but it seemed to me that he was a trifle doctrinaire in this matter. He spoke to the effect that the Government would bless the Second Reading and expected the promoters to put forward various alterations. If those which the Government favour were not accepted by the Committee I understood that the Government would turn sour upon the Bill. But they must have a Bill of sorts. It is essential if the country's horticultural trade is to have a great central focus. The 1966 Measure must be carried through to its conclusion.
The provisions of Clause 11 are very complicated to the layman, and are no doubt complicated enough for a lawyer. They make a set of conditions which seem to me reasonable enough for a unique operation. It is not as though it is the same as the hon. and learned Gentleman's mythical café being taken over. I understand that under the Land Compensation Act, 1961, compensation can be assessed in several different ways, but the cornerstone of the code which the Minister mentioned is existing use value, which represents the minimum amount the owner can expect to be paid. Existing use value can simply be described as the value of property on the assumption that it continued to be used for the purpose for which it was being used after the date of compulsory acquisition.
Compulsory purchase powers are normally sought where a local authority wishes to carry out a redevelopment of the sort the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined. In the ordinary course of events, such existing use value is clearly equitable, since there is no reason why a private landowner should be in any way different from any other member of the community. But the problem I find is the definition of existing use value that would apply in this case. Here I am perhaps speaking the thoughts of the market traders, because I have considerable horticultural interest in my constituency and I am Chairman of the Sub-Committee considering horticulture in the Select Committee on Agriculture.
It seems to us that horticulture in the broadest sense needs support from the Government. If the code in the 1961 Act

717
were applied, any redevelopment prospects arising from the removal of the market would be ignored in the assessment of the existing use value. The traders accept that that is reasonable, but the code would allow to be taken into account the effect of the existence of the new market at Nine Elms on the value of Covent Garden premises. But the Covent Garden Market and the new market at Nine Elms will never be in operation at the same time. The traders feel that this puts an artificial situation in the interpretation of the valuation terms. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not be too dogmatic in this.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) hoped that perhaps a few more houses could be squeezed into the Nine Elms site. We appreciate his interest in the housing well-being of his constituency, and I should not presume to speak about his constituency, except to remind him that the great European markets of the sort with which we hope that this new market will be on all fours have needed more and more land year by year. Although the great Continental markets within the E.E.C. set out as fine markets in new concrete and glass structures only a few years ago, they have nearly all had to develop further. I should hate to see the right hon. Gentleman's constituents put into nice new houses and then find them being compulsorily acquired on the Minister's terms only a few years later. Therefore, I hope that the Market Authority will not be artificially curtailed now that it has this great site.
There is a fundamental difference between the Nine Elms site and Covent Garden in that Nine Elms has a railhead which will make the whole style of market trading different. I believe that the British producer will not specifically benefit from this, but it is just possible that some of the long-haul broccoli producers from the South-West will benefit. It is essential for the Government, as its godfathers, not to try, as I fear the Minister of Housing and Local Government is doing tonight, to spike this Measure, which is really their own and should be brought in as a Government Measure and not as a Private Bill.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. John Nott: As I represent one of the principal horticultural areas and one of the most distant, I want to intervene to make a plea to the Government to hasten this Bill through at the earliest opportunity. For many years, horticulturists in West Cornwall have been waiting for the Covent Garden scheme and, with legislation now before the House, particularly the Transport Bill, there is deep concern, particularly among those growing broccoli and early produce in West Cornwall.
The matter which concerns us is the distance and time it takes to get horticultural produce from the far South-West to London. If the Nine Elms scheme could go ahead as fast as possible, it would bring great benefit to the horticulturists of the South-West.
For example, under the proposals now in the Transport Bill, it will be impossible for Cornish broccoli growers to reach Covent Garden in the statutory nine hours; this is likely to have a devastating effect on the potato and broccoli trade in my constituency. Covent Garden cannot be reached in nine hours and can hardly be reached in 10 under the new proposals the Minister of Transport is discussing. But the new site could just be reached in about 9½ hours. This is another topical reason why we hope that this scheme will go forward at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will quickly solve the problems he has over compensation and get ahead with the new site, because it will be of substantial benefit not only to my constituency but throughout the country.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Everyone who has spoken in the debate has been in favour of the Second Reading, indeed of hastening the Bill through. One would think that it would not in these circumstances have come to be debated on the Floor of the House. Let us be quite clear that this is a Private Bill, and Private Bills normally do not have their Second Readings on the Floor of the House, but that this debate has been forced upon the promoters and on the House by the Government.

719
The Government want some substantial Amendments to the Bill. Indeed. the Minister of State says that the Government would not be prepared to see the Bill passed in the form in which it was deposited. The Bill must be passed this Session if the Covent Garden-Nine Elms scheme is to go forward. It was ordered by Parliament in the 1966 Act that there should be a Bill on the lines now deposited in this Session, so the promoters have no room for manoeuvre in face of Government obstruction to their Bill.
I understand that the promoters have, therefore, given an undertaking to amend the Bill as the Government want it amended, and in a statement they have circulated they say, in paragraph 8, that they will bring up for consideration by the Committee to which the Bill is referred certain Amendments. But it is clear from what the Minister of State said, and from the tone of the promoters' statement, that they have been forced to do this by the Government and that the promoters are not happy that they have been obliged to concede the Amendments required by the Government.
The result in procedure is that a petition will have to be lodged by the promoters for additional provisions. That petition will have to go before the Standing Orders Committee because it is against Standing Orders unless that Committee so permits, and any of the petitioners or anyone else who does not think that the compensation provisions are fair will have the right to put a memorial before that Committee objecting to the petition for additional provisions.
Then the original petition and the new one will go before the Committee dealing with the Bill and there are already three petitioners who will wish to amend their petitions, no doubt, on the new basis of compensation and there may be possibly other petitions. Because of the obstinacy of the Government over this there is the possibility that the Bill will be seriously delayed.
What is the nature of these Amendments? As the Minister of State said, they deal mainly with compensation, that is to say, compensation to traders whose places of business will be compulsorily
720
taken away from them under this scheme. The Bill is obliged to include compensation provisions. This was laid down in Section 35 of the 1966 Act, which is quoted in paragraph 4 of the preamble to the Bill. Section 35 said that there should be this Bill in order
"…to provide for the basis of compensation payable on the disposal of such lands as aforesaid:"
Of course,
"…the disposal of such land as afore-said…"
means the disposal of land and buildings in the present Covent Garden market in order to transfer the market to its new site at Nine Elms. When land is compulsorily acquired for purposes involving development, in the normal way Case I of Schedule I to the Land Compensation Act 1961 applies—that is to say, one disregards, when valuing property for compensation, the purposes of the development scheme. One treats it purely and simply on what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) called the cornerstone of compensation, existing use value.
In this case, the Bill seeks to disregard, in assessing compensation, the 1966 scheme. This scheme was not merely the closing down of the Covent Garden market. It would be a nonsense to say that. It was to close down Covent Garden and to open a market at Nine Elms. That is the whole of the scheme.
Under the general law, the purposes of the development schemes must be disregarded in assessing the compensation. So the Bill, as deposited and before amended as the Government wish, says that compensation shall be based on existing use value of the property in Covent Garden, disregarding the fact that Nine Elms will be in existence at some time in future. I contend that that is perfectly fair and in accordance with the general law.
On the other hand, the Government want to say:
"Your places of business in Covent Garden must be valued on the basis that there is to be a new Market at Nine Elms. If there is to be a new market there, no one will pay much for the property in Covent Garden because Nine Elms will be the place to be in future."
No one will pay much for property under those circumstances, even if there were

721
no prohibitions on market trading at Covent Garden. It is quite disgraceful that the Government should force these Amendments on the promoters and the House.
The Minister of State has said that the promoters thought that these Amendments were unfair. I ought to say at this stage that these words have not been put in my mouth by the promoters. The promoters have come to an arrangement with the Government, one which seems to me to have been forced on them, and they would not wish me to say on their behalf that they want to break that arrangement. But in my opinion the promoters ought to be relieved of that undertaking. It was grossly unfair to impose it on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) made a very significant remark when one remembers that he served on the Committee dealing with the Bill in 1966 when the provision was inserted that there should be a Bill in this Session dealing with compensation.
My hon. Friend said that a fair basis of compensation was laid down by Statute, which was not the case when the matter was discussed in Committee on the 1966 Bill. Therefore, the Committee at that stage wanted some new provisions for compensation dealing particularly with this scheme, and that is what the promoters are now putting before the House. The Government want to cut down the compensation to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) called the barest minimum. This should not be so under a scheme of this sort, where it is so important that the scheme should run smoothly, that there should be the movement of the market traders from Covent Garden to the new site at Nine Elms.
The promoters have tried to carry out as far as I can see, the wishes of Parliament in 1966. They have provided, as the Bill is drawn, fair compensation on an existing use value basis, which in my submission is wholly in accordance with the existing law, namely, that the purposes of any development should not be taken into account in assessing the compensation.
On the question of obliging the acquiring authority to acquire the property, this is being very niggling on the part of the Government. Market trading is to be
722
prohibited in future on the Covent Garden site. Then the Government wish to say, "Oh, but you can use the property for some other reasonably beneficial use." Anyone who has dealt with town and country planning, with compensation and compulsory acquisition, knows the meaning of the words "reasonably beneficial use."
They know that Section 129 of the 1962 Act has been useless to any owner whose property is reduced in value by some development scheme. I can think of no occasion when those who will be left with buildings in Covent Garden will be able to show that the buildings cannot be used for some reasonably beneficial use. If the buildings are there, of course they can be used for something. In this, case the acquiring authority will be able to pick and choose and refuse to acquire compulsorily wherever it wishes. The market trade will have no case whatever when he tries to show that his property no longer has any reasonably beneficial use. This means any use at all. If the acquiring authority can show that the property can be used to some purpose then it can refuse to acquire.
The scheme was to move the Market from Covent Garden to Nine Elms as a whole. Each trader has to rehabilitate himself at Nine Elms. How will he do this when his capital is left in property at Covent Garden, because he is told that that the property can still be used for some reasonably beneficial use? I would have thought that Clause 6, as it stands, is perfectly fair, and that the acquiring authorities should be obliged to acquire.
It seems to me that the promoters, as they have lodged the Bill, have carried out what Parliament asked them to carry out in the 1966 Act. They have made provision for perfectly fair compensation; they have made provision for the acquisition of property by the acquiring authorities and altogether they have produced a reasonable and fair Bill. It is most unfair of the Government to force undertakings out of them for Amendments which do not give fair compensation to those displaced.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. MacDermot: With your leave and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will reply to some of the points raised.

723
I hope that when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has had an opportunity to study carefully the speech which I made a little while ago he will perhaps come to a more moderate conclusion than that which he reached as a result of his immediate reaction. On a few factual points, he said that the Second Reading was forced on the House by the Government. It was the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) who objected, but I do not make any pretence, and have not sought to throughout, that if he had not done so we would have, so as to give me an opportunity to explain to the House the reason for these objections which we made.
Mr. John Wells: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that I objected. I did on one occasion because I was anxious that this important matter should be debated, but I must point out that it was the Government Whips who objected on practically every other occasion.
Mr. MacDermot: I have said that we would certainly have objected, but the suggestion was that no one else wanted a Second Reading and that is not quite fair.
It was said that the Bill must be passed into law to enable the move to Nine Elms to take place. I must make it clear that this is not correct. I do not want it to be suggested that the Government are opposed to the Bill in any way. I have made it clear that we are not, and that provided that our requirements are met we are perfectly content that the Bill should go through.
We have always taken the view, and said so before, that in law there is no need for the Bill, in the sense that the Market Authority and the traders will be free and able to dispose of their old properties when the Market is moved and there is no need for an operation requiring these people, rather euphemistically termed "acquiring authorities" to acquire. It would not be essential to the scheme. One can see advantages all-round if an agreed framework can be found, but there is no legal necessity for it.
Equally, the effect of Section 35 of the 1966 Bill is not to require that an Act shall be passed. No Parliament ever can in an Act require that Parliament shall pass another Act. What it required is
724
that the promoters should promote a Bill dealing with these matters and use their endeavours to get it passed. That they most certainly have done, and I make no suggestion to the contrary. I must correct the impression that in some way, as a matter of law, the passing of this Bill is a necessary and essential preliminary to the opening of the Nine Elms market. It is not.
Mr. Graham Page: Surely, from a practical point of view, it is necessary. If the Bill did not exist there would be no complete prohibition on trading in the market, and no compensation.
Mr. MacDermot: Once the Market Authority moves to the new area, it is the view of the Government that the old market will die a natural death. Different views may be held on that. However, as the Committee included this provision in Clause 35, we certainly respect that, and are perfectly content to see a Bill pass through which gives effect to that in a way which does not offend against the general principles of the compensation code.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that the property of the traders will be compulsorily taken away from them. That is wrong. It will not. The effect of the vesting provisions is that, if they consent, the property will vest in the acquiring authority. We get confused by the euphemistic terms "disposal" and "acquiring authority".
This is not a compulsory acquisition by the acquiring authority. It is a statutory provision, telling whoever eventually becomes the acquiring authority—it will be the G.L.C. if nothing else is agreed—that it has to acquire, unless the owner of the property says, "No, I do not want you to; I opt to retain it." That is a very different transaction from the ordinary compulsory acquisition.
Mr. John Smith: Can the occupier or the owner opt to retain it, or must he obtain the agreement of the acquiring authority?
Mr. MacDermot: No, he has an absolute option to retain it, and I am advised that it is likely that a number of them will exercise that option, for the reason that a number of these properties are useful and valuable properties containing valuable storage space right in

725
the centre of London, which is something that is very much in demand. They may well, therefore, prefer to retain it, and it could be to their financial advantage to do so. May I say, in parenthesis, this is the explanation of the existing use provisions in the Bill.
The provision in Clause 11(4,aii) will ensure to the traders or the owners of licensed properties—not necessarily the traders themselves—that they will continue to have the benefit of their rights under the Use Classes Order. If the land is acquired, they can have it valued with the value of those rights for other ware-house purposes under the Use Classes Order.
The hon. Member for Crosby challenged what is the basic principle of the Government's attitude. He says that it is the accepted principle on compulsory purchase—and I am treating this as if it were a straight compulsory purchase—that you can ignore the effects of the scheme on the acquisition. I entirely agree.
The hon. Member goes on to say that the opening of Nine Elms is part of the scheme of the 1966 Act. I agree, but my point, and the Government's point, is that the 1966 Act is not the scheme of acquisition. If this is treated as a deemed compulsory purchase, then the scheme of acquisition is the purpose for which it is acquired by the acquiring authority, namely, the scheme of redevelopment of the old area after it has been acquired by the acquiring authority. That is why it is right to assess the compensation on the basis of the realities of the existing use at the time of acquisition, and on the basis of the planning position and the planning assumptions which are relevant at that time.
I come back to the café proprietor. The hon. Member for Maidstone said that these traders are not the café owners. Indeed they are not. They are in a much more favourable position than café owners. The café owners will be every bit as much affected by the 1966 Act, even more so. They will have their business closed down because it is tied to, linked to, and depends on the existence of, Covent Garden Market. That goes.
Assume that their land is required for the scheme of redevelopment, whatever
726
it may be. They do not have the advantage of being provided with an alternative market to which they can move, which is receiving a grant from public funds, to help them start up in business else-where. They will have to take the compensation code as they find it and take their compensation on the basis of the realities of the situation which prevails at that time.
It is not deadly uniformity that we are insisting on. We are insisting on the normal basic principle of compulsory purchase compensation which is, "Do fairly between people in a like situation." I am sure the hon. Member for Maidstone would be the first to rise in his wrath if we were to make provisions which would enable a person to be more favourably treated than one of his constituents in a like situation under compulsory purchase.
One may have objections to the compulsory purchase code. I am well aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have such objections. These matters are all under consideration, as I have made clear to the House. It may be that, by the time this comes into force, there will have been some alteration in the compensation code but, whatever it is, we say that that compensation code must, mutatis mutandis, be applied to this situation as fairly as can be, and on the basis of the same principles.
Mr. Graham Page: I fail to appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's café proprietor case. Are there to be no cafés? Nine Elms will be a miserable sort of place if there are no cafés. The principle is exactly the same for the market trader and the café proprietor. The café proprietor will be told that there is another place for him to go to, and therefore his property will be valued on the basis that there is somewhere else for him to go to.
Mr. MacDermot: All I can say is that the promoters of this Bill have not made any provisions for the café proprietors which would cover them in the way that owners of land on which traders are carrying on their business are protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

PASTORAL MEASURE
8.19 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move,
That the Pastoral Measure, 1968, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I should say that Her Majesty has given informal approval to the proposal that the appointments to the Redundant Churches Fund to be set up under this Measure should be Crown appointments, and that the Prime Minister is content with the proposed arrangements outlined in Clause 42 of the Measure.
This is the longest Measure ever to be brought before the House for its assent, and it is largely a matter of consolidation. It is based upon two very distinguished Commissions' deliberations. The Ilford Commission, which was chaired by a former distinguished Member of this House, was set up in 1954 by the Church Assembly to attempt to find solutions for the problems caused by the great changes in the population of parishes and other ecclesiastical areas which have taken place in the last 50 years. The Second World War gave immense impetus to developments of this kind. The trouble was that there were parallel and often conflicting procedures for dealing with these matters, and it was felt that there was a need to rationalise and clarify the structure of the legislation in the framework of which these changes might take place. It was also felt that improvements suggested by the Ilford Commission should be made.
Then there was the Bridges Commission on Redundant Churches. In 1963, the Church Assembly decided that its proposals should be incorporated in the draft legislation suggested by the Ilford Commission. In 1964, there was the report of Mr. Leslie Paul, making far-reaching proposals for parochial reorganisation. In particular, it recommended the setting up of team ministries for large parishes and of group ministries for groups of parishes. Finally, the Bishop of Thetford's Committee was appointed to consider these recommendations. In 1965, the Church Assembly instructed the Revision Committee of the Pastoral Measure to incorporate them in the
728
Measure, with certain suggested modifications.
That is how this Measure came into being. I make it plain that it was exhaustively debated in the spring and summer sessions of the Church Assembly in 1966, in the spring session in 1967 and in the summer session of 1967 when final approval was given to it by the Church Assembly without a division and with only one dissentient voice. When the Measure came before us, the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses, as Members can read on page 8 of its Report, pronounced that the Measure was "expedient".
As befits a creature of the magnitude and importance of this Measure, its period of gestation was long. But I hope that the House will feel that the labour was not in vain and that this is a real attempt by the Church of England to fit itself for the duties which lie upon it in the second half of the 20th century.
Parts I and II of the Measure deal with the procedure to be followed where pastoral reorganisation is necessary. This is to be effected by pastoral schemes, or, in cases of less importance, by pastoral orders. The main difference between the two is that in the case of a scheme, for the more important matters, the Privy Council is required to give its consent, whereas orders, for the less important matters, can be made by a bishop.
But both schemes and orders are launched in the first place by the Pastoral Committee and the bishop of the diocese concerned in consultation with all concerned—incumbents, pastoral church councils, patrons and planning authorities. The Measure is so designed that this consultation shall take place in the most early formative stages and will be continued throughout the proceeding.
I have said that this is mainly a matter of consolidation, but there are certain important changes, and I am sure that the House would expect me to draw attention to the more important of them. There is a shortened procedure for holding benefices in plurality. In future, benefices so held will continue to be held even when there is a vacancy unless either the bishop or the pastoral church council, by notice, terminates the plurality. Then the team and group ministries to which I have referred are to be set up.

729
In the former, the cure of souls in the parish or parishes of a single incumbency will be shared by a team consisting of the incumbent, to be known as the rector, and as many vicars as are necessary who, however, will also have the status of incumbent. In the latter, there is a group of benefices where the incumbents are obliged to help each other so as to make the best possible provision for pastoral care.
It will be possible for a scheme, although not an order, to come into operation without the consent of the incumbent affected by it. It is felt that an incumbent who refuses his consent ought not to be allowed to hold up a scheme thought by the Pastoral Committee and the bishop to be necessary in the interests of the pastoral care of the area. In other words, one man should not be allowed to block a scheme which is generally thought to be beneficial from a pastoral point of view.
If an incumbent loses his office by reason of reorganisation of this kind, he is given most generous compensation, which includes compensation for the loss of his free house. He has the right to state his objection right at the start to the Pastoral Committee. Later, he can object to the Church Commissioners and, finally, he can appeal to the Privy Council. On the amount of compensation, he has the right to appeal to an entirely independent tribunal presided over by a judicial authority.
There is a new power in the first two parts of this Measure to which I should refer. It will be possible in future to authorise a suitable use for a church yard or burial ground where the church is not redundant. Part III deals with a subject in which I know many hon. Members take a deep interest, namely, the subject of redundant churches. How right they are to take that interest, having regard to the wealth of the heritage, artistic, architectural and historic, which so many of these buildings have brought down to us.
Two new bodies are to be set up to ensure that the right thing shall be done. An Advisory Board for Redundant Churches is to be set up. The Members are to be appointed by the two archbishops, after consultation with the Prime Minister. Their duty is to give authoritative advice to the Church Commissioners on the historic or architectural
730
qualities of a church which it is proposed to make redundant, or to advice about its use, preservation or demolition. The House will note that the manner of the appointment of these members to the Advisory Board is calculated to attract the confidence of the Church, the Government and the people.
Secondly, there is to be a Redundant Churches Fund, a body corporate, whose duty it will be to hold and preserve for the Church and the nation the redundant churches committed to its care. Its ministers will be appointed by Her Majesty—hence my opening remarks, that Her Majesty has given informal approval that the appointment of Members to the Redundant Churches Fund shall be Crown appointments—after advice from the two archbishops has been submitted through the Prime Minister. It is understood that the Government will contribute a sum of £200,000 to the Redundant Churches Fund during the first five years of its existence and that the Church Commissioners will contribute a like amount.
Before a church can be treated as redundant, there must be a pastoral decision to declare it so by a pastoral scheme. The church is then vested in the Diocesan Board of Finance, which is responsible thereafter for its upkeep. The future of the church is decided after an interval of between one and three years in a redundancy scheme of the Church Commissioners. In the interval every effort will be made to find a suitable use for that redundant church. After the interval the redundancy scheme must authorise either a lease or sale of the redundant church for some suitable purpose, or its vesting in the Redundant Churches Fund for preservation, or its demolition and the disposal of its site.
There is one other very interesting proposal, that in special circumstances a church which is declared redundant, but which is of special architectural or historical merit, may be taken over by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. But, whatever happens, in no case can a redundant church be demolished without the advice of the Advisory Board.
In my submission to the House, this Measure reflects the determination of the Church to deal not only with redundancy in churches and with the problems

731
brought about by the shifts in population away from churches, but also with the need for pastoral care in large and sometimes growing new communities hitherto inadequately cared for. It may well be that, after considering the painstaking work with which this Measure has been produced and perfected, the virtual unanimity of the Church Assembly in its favour and the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses, this House will feel that, as regards those who have laboured to bring the Measure thus far, it too should wish them well and godspeed in their further endeavours.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I too, welcome the Measure in general and have no intention, of course, of opposing it, but there are one or two points which I should like to put before the House and I hope that the Church Assembly and its professional advisers will take note of the sentiments I am going to express.
This Measure, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has told us, is the largest Measure so far laid, a fat little volume. As we all know, this House can neither amend nor alter, it can only pass or reject. Therefore I deplore the fact that it is a fat little volume. I would have preferred it to have been three or four smaller volumes. The Measure falls into four separate parts, which I freely admit lead one from another, but I believe that this habit of laying before the House omnibus Measures, however praiseworthy, which one would feel an awful cad to say anything against, immediately puts hon. Members who have any doubts in a grave difficulty. Therefore, I hope that this fat little volume is not going to be looked upon as a crafty precedent by the professional advisers to the Church Assembly. I hope this is the last Measure of these dimensions that we shall ever see.
I would say in passing that I do not believe that the Measure which the hon. and learned Member slipped through a year or so ago in such a learned manner would have got through this House had other hon. Members been aware of some of the extraordinary experimental services that are being tried up and down the land today. I believe that the man in the pew is very disgruntled by that
732
Measure, which Parliament whistled straight through without any dissident voice. I would be out of order if I dealt at length with this, but I say to the hon. and learned Member that I very much deplore the passage of Measures which are only partly under-stood by the man in the pew.
This Measure is, in general, unexceptionable, but I see it as seeking to impose an urban ecclesiastical pattern on the Church of England. It is right that the Church of England should move itself, and be able to move itself, as the centres of population move, but until today the Church of England has been organised administratively primarily on a rural basis. I hope that this urbanisation will not have an adverse effect on rural parishes, which are by no means all scattered, because it is in the rural areas that the great bulk of ordinary simple Christian people who go to church regularly are to be found. There is a far higher percentage of regular communicants in the rural areas than in other areas, and I hope that this urbanisation pattern will in no way militate against their wellbeing.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention briefly the effect which this Measure will have on my constituency. Maidstone is about nine-tenths in the Diocese of Canterbury, and one-tenth in the Diocese of Rochester, which is administratively and pastorally most inconvenient to our clergy. The so-called vicar, who is in fact a curate, in charge of that part of the town which is in the Diocese of Rochester looks forward keenly to the passage of this Measure so that there can be the reorganisation of diocesan boundaries which it will bring about.
I must, however, look back about 18 months to what happened in Maidstone. The Archbishop sent us a high-powered committee, the Brown Committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) served. The learned commissioners, including my right hon. Friend, produced some very good points. They also produced some which some of my constituents thought were not so good, but during the year since the Committee reported to the Archbishop and made certain clear recommendations the Archbishop and his minions have taken a number of specific steps which

733
fly in the face of the Committee's recommendations.
It does not encourage distinguished churchmen of any sort, whether they are laymen or clergy, to serve on committees to work hard to put up schemes if their schemes are then rejected. I accept that there was some cause for alteration, but there are some recommendations of the Committee which cannot be brought into effect for some years because of subsequent acts. I therefore deplore this habit of setting up committees and flying in the face of their opinions. This is one of the risks that I see in this Measure.
I spent enough of my childhood in the lowlands of Scotland to be fundamentally suspicious of bishops. I believe that it is bad to move power, if one can call it power, away from this House into the hands of the episcopate—because that is where it is. It is not in the parochial church council and diocesan council, because few people except the very militant ever dare like saying "No" to the dear vicar, and even more do they dislike saying "No" to the dear, dear bishop. One of the unfortunate habits of church people is that if they disagree fundamentally, they go home and grumble, and then become Nonconformists or Roman Catholics.
On this question of giving power to the episcopate, one of the most notable examples is patronage. I apologise for the fact that the statistics which I have are about 10 years old, but they show that there were about 840 livings in the gift of the Crown and its various officers, including the Admiralty which had eight at that time. The diocesan bishops had about 3,000 livings, the deans and chapters about 700, the parochial clergy about 1,200 and diocesan boards of patronage 200. Thus, the purely ecclesiastical patrons about 10 years ago presented to over 5,000 livings. Universities, colleges and schools presented to about 850 livings and about 7,000 of the remainder were in the hands of private patrons.
It is my experience and that of most hon. Members that non-episcopal patrons take far more trouble in selecting prospective incumbents. The bishop tends to send down the only lame duck on his list and one has to have him, but a private patron will go to endless trouble. I do not mean only lay patrons, but the
734
universities, colleges, schools and officers of the Crown. Those who exercise the selection on behalf of the officers of the Crown do a splendid job and act as private patrons.
Lest the House think that I am a rabid Presbyterian because of my attitude to the episcopate, I must make it clear that I am not. But bishops are slapdash and idle in their presentation to livings and I hope that the power given to them by this Measure to deal with benefices will not in future encourage them in bad ways. I hope that private patronage, in the best sense, will not decline.
I hope also that the provisions for redundant churches will enable them to be offered for sale freely to other Christian denominations. They were founded and endowed by Christian men over the centuries who would not like their endowment and effort to go astray, but it has been represented to me that there are areas in which churches are almost certainly redundant where there have been difficulties in offering them either to Roman Catholics or to Non-conformists because of local lobbies. I hope that we may be assured that, provided it is a Christian denomination and the church is genuinely redundant, it will be on offer to them.
Referring again to redundant churches, because the donors of the past and those who have laboured through the centuries to maintain beautiful buildings, the Church of England has a great difficulty in that so much money is spent, on providing museum places rather than on the cure of souls as we should like. About half the money in the redundant churches' fund comes from the Government, but half still comes from the Church Commissioners. When redundant churches become purely places of architectural interest removed from the worship of God, they should be more largely secularised and I question the wisdom of financing this fund on a 50–50 basis. I apologise for dealing with a constituency point and reiterate that I am not a rabid Presbyterian.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has struck, as he is entitled to do, a somewhat critical note over this Measure, I should like to enter

735
a brief word of support for it. I do so as one who, a year or so ago, as my hon. Friend said, had a small and insignificant rôle in the work of reorganisation, to part of which this Measure is directed. For a few months, I had the honour to be on one of the Archbishop's Commissions under Sir Thomas Brown. By some strange coincidence our work, which led us into the very town represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, provided me at least with a little in-sight and perspective over Parts I and II of the Measure.
This is simply that, in many places, the physical structure of the church and the parish boundaries no longer conforms to the whereabouts of our population. This is especially true of new communities and of those in which there has been rapid expansion since the war. It was certainly true of the single area in which I have had experience of this work. Most of our churches were built a long time ago and most of our major changes in population have occurred very recently and rapidly. Therefore, in many areas, parish boundaries have become meaningless.
The town, part rural, part urban, in which we worked illustrated very well some of the difficulties and some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). My hon. Friend is entitled to say that Maidstone is typical of many places in England. In this regard, it faces a great dilemma, as do many other places of like history and structure. The boundaries of a dozen churches are situated some-where in the centre of the town, which once—but this is no longer true—was the main centre of residential population. Nearly all these churches are supported by congregations of differing sizes but all are devoted to their particular church and its needs and are willing to give freely and undergo great sacrifices to sustain their own church.
This is not the least of the difficulties confronting those who ordain these changes and they will provide not the least of the difficulties as these changes are gradually brought into being. There is a faithful laity as well as a faithful clergy and my experience is that, on balance, they can prove almost as tenacious.
736
Then, on the fringes, we have very large estates. In many of the new creations, the church of the former village constitutes a natural centre, but more often than not these new communities are not so endowed. I do not think that this is a situation which the Church can accept with complacency. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said something about a pattern of urbanisation emerging from the Measure. What else can we expect in this island? As a countryman, I must acknowledge that we are an urban and urbanised nation and that, therefore, many of our areas such as those I am discussing will become urbanised.
This is also not simply a matter of realigning boundaries, controversial though that may be. There may be a case—indeed, this is one of the principal provisions of the Measure—for establishing one principal church as a focal point and equipping it or its leader with incumbents who constitute a team, so making it possible or the team to work from the centre under the direction of their leader. In this instance we have provided that. Behind that lies the thought that a team or group can be directed from one centre. It follows that not only will boundaries have to disappear but that benefices and parishes will have to suffer dissolution.
I am aware that a great deal of heart-break is involved in this. Many loyalties and many strong associations, some going back for more than a generation, are involved, often with the same family having made sacrifices to maintain them. Family ties will have to be broken up as a result of what is being done. Nobody likes doing this and, in the circumstances, those who are responsible and who do the work on the Commission are frequently confronted with a feeling that they are being required to act ruthlessly. Yet sometimes it has seemed to me that it is essential to be, if not ruthless, then, at least, decisive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone said that the Archbishop had already countermanded some of that work. If so, far be it for me to question the wisdom of Lambeth. It does not alter the principle, which is that hard decisions must be made and that compromises must often be set aside. This will

737
inevitably produce hard feelings and a great many objections in detail. Otherwise, I fail to see how the Church will shape itself to the needs of the community, not in accordance with the needs of 1868 but of 1968, assuming that a Measure of this kind will not often be before us. We may not have another for a generation or more. This is an important aspect to bear in mind. We are now discussing a pattern which must be established and hailed until the end of the century, or beyond.
While I speak of compromise, I should, perhaps, refer to delay. It is possible for individuals to delay proposals indefinitely—or it might be possible if Clause 24—to which some exception has been taken, but which I believe is needed—were not included. On the other hand, there is need for safeguards and these seem to be contained in the Measure. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg adumbrated some of these.
There are certain matters of great importance for which safeguards are provided. However, where particular changes are proposed, it is inevitable that there will be criticism and bitterness in certain places. There are bound to be misgivings about some provisions. However, the main objective of the Measure and the thinking behind it is sound.
I have no doubt that we must accept the new physical pattern of the country and the need to conform to it. This is, in a sense, the Church doing what countless other institutions have had to do or will have to do. It is the need to conform to the need of a rapidly changing population. In my insignificant experience of these matters, the Measure accentuates the need for change and that is why I give it my unqualified support.
9.4 p.m.
Sir Frank Pearson: I wish to make only a brief intervention on this highly important Measure. It is worthy of note that possibly one of the most important Church Measures that have come forward in recent years is being debated at this hour in an almost empty House. I cannot think that would have happened 20 or 25 years ago. There would have been far more debate about it. It is a matter for some sorrow that
738
so important a Measure as this should be passing through the House with so little comment.
I pay tribute to all those people, within the Church and outside it, who have guided this Measure through its many stages. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) I am certain that this Measure is absolutely necessary.
I rather regret the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells) in regard to bishops. If he reads the Measure I think he will find that, either by the guidance of diocesan committees or in one way or another, we can rely on the fact that where a decision is taken which may check the rights of individuals, whether incumbents or patrons, those powers will be used with full responsibility and used rightly.
Of the necessity for those powers I have no doubt at all. As my right hon. Friend said, we are living in a rapidly changing world in which old parish boundaries are no longer valid, a world where the urban explosion has to be catered for, where churches and parishes are not in the right positions. Tribute should be paid to the Church and lay authorities concerned for the fact that they have faced the great difficulties inherent in this basic problem.
I give the Measure my support. I hope the House will send it on its way for, only by incumbents and patrons surrendering up to a point their vital and basic interests in the interests of the Church as a whole, shall we ever find a solution to this problem. When we work out the provisions of this Measure I am certain that we shall find there is very little hardship and no injustice involved. I give the Measure my fullest support.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) I shall address the House briefly. I want to speak on the section of the Measure relating to redundant churches. I wish to say how much I agree with the words, and the spirit behind them, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)

739
The Church has a great task in front of it. It needs this Measure as the machinery to carry out that task. Society changes very quickly. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells), it changes as quickly in the countryside as in the town. The motor car causes more and faster change in the countryside than in the town. The motor car is making an enormous difference to the whole pattern of rural life and that will be reflected in the sort of changes made under this Measure.
I also welcome the Measure because it provides for different forms of parochial experiment. We have a changing society and we need to be able to use different techniques. The fact that we can do this under this Measure is of the greatest value. Many of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone referred not so much to this Measure, which in general he welcomed, as to the broader question of patronage and deployment which is under discussion in the Church at the moment and which will ultimately be in a Measure consequent on this one.
I know my hon. Friend would disapprove more than anyone else had that been part of this Measure. Nevertheless, this Measure will not be complete until there is also adequate provision for deployment and patronage. When that is debated, I shall be agreeing with him in trying to fight against an over-centralised appointment system. I have already expressed my view on that in the Church Assembly.
I greatly welcome the provisions in the Measure relating to redundant churches. A few years ago, I had the honour to be asked by the Archbishop of York to chair a Commission to consider the problems of redundant churches in the City of York, where there are many magnificent medieval churches in areas from which the population has wholly or partially gone. We found, in our consideration, that a Measure of this sort was essential—I put it as strongly as that—to enable our suggestions to be carried out.
We need the flexibility and powers to deal with redundant churches which the Measure introduces but which do not exist at present. There can be argument
740
about whether these powers should be introduced in this Measure. For my part, I think that it is all part of a pattern, and I stress the absolute necessity for machinery such as is laid down here, with safeguards, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said, and with the right sort of advice. It is essential for this part of the Measure to be maintained.
Like other hon. Members, I wish to speed the Measure on its way. To the many people, clerical and lay, who will have the enormously difficult task of carrying it out, I wish the very best of good fortune.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. E. S. Bishop: I welcome the Measure and commend it to the House in the terms in which it has been welcomed already. I thought the comments of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) unjustly censorious and critical of the Measure. He alleges that this is a rather large chunk of change coming all at once, and seems to suggest that there is something sinister about it. But those of us who have read the Measure recognise that, if one makes changes in one respect, as we are doing here, other changes are inevitable at the same time. Moreover, there are real dangers in bringing in piecemeal legislation, bit by bit, when the hon. Gentleman and others might rightly ask what more was to come and why we could not have a glimpse of the rest at the same time.
I do not take up the hon. Gentleman's comments about the bishops being slapdash and idle. I speak tonight not as one of the Church Commissioners, having accepted the Archbishop's recent invitation to join that body, but as one who has some experience of the problems of the organisation of the Church, and having been a member of the Archbishop's Commission on London and the South-East. In that work, one appreciated the immense need for change. In my view, this Measure is long overdue.
It is a substantial Measure of over 100 pages and nine Schedules, and it repeals wholly or in part about 29 Acts of Parliaments. But all these changes are necessary, dealing as they do with the need for group and team ministries, the need for plurality in some areas, the

741
need to deal with the problem of redundant churches, and, perhaps most important, the need to safeguard the interests of those involved, incumbents, patrons and others who have a duty and a responsibility and whose rights should be protected.
The Measure is an attempt to make the best, most efficient and most economical use of the manpower, money and materials employed by the churches today. It comes at a time when the country is undergoing immense changes, scientific, medical, educational, moral and other in every part of our lives. The Church must keep pace with change, it must change itself to suit the conditions and times in which it lives if it is to fulfil its mission.
The question of redundant churches must be dealt with now. Such redundancy is inevitable in present times, not because some think the churches are less full and have no useful place in the future but because of the mobility of people. There are new areas in which people live, new housing estates and so on, which make many churches redundant in some central areas and create enormous demands for new buildings, churches and halls in other areas. There must be the degree of flexibility which is permitted by the Measure.
It is important to realise that when people have been worshipping in one community for some time they wrongly tend to think that their church is most important to them instead of having regard to the wider needs of the community at large. There is a real need for greater flexibility of outlook among church people in appreciating the needs of the wider community, rather than thinking of their own area with which they have become identified over a period of time.
Various hon. Members who are not present tonight have expressed views about the effects of churches being closed and the possible use of land on which they stand. I understand that there is some concern about churchyards in the inner and central residential areas of London and other big cities. These areas where churches are likely to become redundant give us an opportunity to have open spaces instead of falling for the temptation to use the land for other purposes. Churchyards sometimes provide
742
the only possible source of land for public open spaces, and I hope that those who are responsible in city and built up areas will have regard to the wider needs of the community to maintain the open spaces we have and to increase them wherever possible.
In the Measure there is adequate protection for the rights of parishioners, clergy and incumbents and all affected by the changes. As my hon. Friend said in moving the Motion, several Commissions have already looked at the matters involved. The Church Assembly has gone into them, as has the Ecclesiastical Committee. We are all satisfied that there is adequate protection for those who are affected by the changes, especially those who may be made temporarily redundant by group and team ministries. These are most important matters.
There is need to look ahead to the time when we have greater unity among our denominations. The Measure will allow changes which will make it possible for us to co-operate with other denominations at a later date. I think particularly of group and team ministries.
The Measure is long overdue. Changes of this sort, although we welcome them, can only be most effective and beneficial to the society in which we live only if people who work in the church at all levels recognise the challenge we face at present. We must use the changes in the best possible way to have the kind of involvement in the community which the country so greatly needs. Therefore, I welcome the Measure and hope that the church as a whole will make the fullest use of the opportunity we afford by these steps.
Mr. John Wells: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that he has sat down. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
Mr. Wells: On a point of order. I had desired to correct a remark that the hon. Gentleman made about my speech, but out of courtesy to him I waited until the penultimate moment of his speech. I thought that he was easing himself into his seat, but I did not think that he had actually sat down.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little late, but I shall be very lenient tonight. Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells: I only wanted to say that my strictures on bishops were not on them in their general capacity, because obviously they are excellent and hardworking men, but merely in their exercise of patronage, which I think is poor compared with the private patron.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: With the leave of the House, may I answer one or two points made in the debate. There was the point about bishops to which the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has just referred again. He should remember that in these days it is very hard for a bishop to act alone. He is rather like the Queen in Council. He is always surrounded by an advisory body of one sort or another, to whose opinions he has to pay attention.
Therefore, although I understand the origin of the hon. Gentleman's suspicions—way back in the past somewhere north of the Border—I feel that the position in this country at least is very different and that one need not have any of the fears to which he gave expression.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of this as being a Measure of urbanisation of the Church. I would be very much against it if it were, but how can it be urbanisation to deal, as it is the duty of the Church to try to deal, with the urban population, provided that it does not ignore the rural population? I understand that these proposals for group ministries might well have an effect which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would approve. It might well diminish the loneliness often felt by incumbents in the rural and sparsely populated areas. They can now feel that they have a chance of working together and helping each other. The same will apply to team ministries, which, I suppose, will be more likely to occur in urban areas. One obviously cannot ignore the urban areas and in not ignoring them one should not be accused of urbanising the Church.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was suitable that a church should be handed over to another Christian denomination. But this has been done already
744
under various other provisions. This Measure, in Clause 51(8), provides for this very thing and, of course, in the context of the Measure it would have to be another Christian denomination to which the building was handed over.
I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). I am sure that those responsible for bringing the Measure before the House and who have worked so hard at it will be greatly encouraged to hear that the House has taken the view which I think that it is now about to take.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Pastoral Measure 1968, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

CARAVAN SITES [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to restrict the eviction from caravan sites of occupiers of caravans and make other provision for the benefit of such occupiers and to secure the establishment of such sites by local authorities for the use of gipsies and other persons of nomadic habit, and control in certain areas the unauthorised occupation of land by such persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided in respect of rate support grant under the Local Government Act 1966 which may arise in consequence of provisions of the said Act relating to the provision of caravan sites by local authorities in England and Wales.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Terence Boston discharged from the Select Committee on Agriculture; Mr. Andrew Faulds added.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

R.A.F. STATION, HARTLEBURY (MAINTENANCE UNIT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
9.25 p.m.
Sir Tatton Brinton: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may continue in the absence of the Minister if it is the Minister's own fault.
Sir T. Brinton: I saw him approaching at a gallop, and I thought perhaps he would like to hear what I have to say.
I want to draw the attention of the Ministry of Labour, and also the Ministry of Defence, to the widespread concern which has been caused by the announcement on 19th April that the No. 25 Maintenance Unit R.A.F. at Hartlebury is to be progressively closed down over the next three and a half years. Some little time ago it was announced that a large factory in Woolwich employing 5,000 people was to close down, forcing 5,000 redundancies. This was a matter of national concern. Newspapers took it up all ever the country and it was a very serious matter in its scale.
The point that I want to make is that in scale the seriousness of these redundancies at Woolwich were certainly no greater, and I would suggest, possibly less, than the redundancies which will be caused in and around the Hartlebury Maintenance Unit. In this matter which affects a number of constituencies in the area I have been in very close touch with my hon. Friends in the area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams), all of whom have quite a number of employees of No. 25 Maintenance Unit as their constituents.
The main problem arises in my own constituency, although the Maintenance Unit is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. Out of 1,867 employees at the Unit 1,231 reside in the Kidderminster constituency. I am using figures supplied by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not propose to quote them exactly, because I am
746
not sure if they are really valid. Of the 1,230 people employed at Hartlebury who live in my constituency, there are 955 men and 276 women. The total number of employed persons in the Kidderminster employment exchange area is about 30,000, roughly 18,000 men and 11,000 women.
In the Stourbridge employment exchange area there are about 6,700 employed persons, that is, about 4,700 men and nearly 2,000 women. When one considers the size of these redundancies in relation to the not very large number of employed persons, it will be seen that this matter is of considerable seriousness for my constituency.
The percentage of people employed at Hartlebury, living in the Kidderminster employment exchange areas is 3·2 per cent. and in the Stourbridge area the figure is 4·1 per cent. The figure for women living in Stourbridge, expressed as a percentage of the total number of women employed in that area, is over 6 per cent. The closing down of this unit will obviously cause a very substantial problem in the area.
I want to pass to the human factors involved which should occupy the time of Ministers very seriously. The employees at Hartlebury are representative of a cross-section of the employee population of the country. Out of 1,121 men, 583 are over the age of 50. It is fair to say that of that number 217 are aged 60 or over, and a number are over 65. It might reasonably be argued that people of that age must expect to retire at about the normal retirement age of 65, and that they represent somewhat less of a problem, at any rate at the end of the life of Hartlebury in three and a half years' time.
None the less, that would still leave 366 persons between the ages of 50 and 60, quite a number of them men, with no special skills which would make them easily absorbed into local industry. Out of the 746 women at Hartlebury, 290, well over a third, are over the age of 50. The great majority of that number are between 50 and 60 and they represent a special problem, as they are people who will not be ready for retirement by the time Hartlebury closes down, and for whom special measures will be needed.

747
There are 77 registered disabled people at this establishment and another 22 who are on light work only. I am told—I have no other figures for this—that this is by no means the end of the story and that there are a number of other people who, for a variety of reasons, are not capable of a full hard day's work but who have been, rightly, employed as an act of common decency. Nonetheless, they will suffer particularly by this closure.
The question of location is obviously of grave importance. Established officers are liable, under their contracts, to move to wherever they may be required to go in the event of closure of the establishment at which they are working. None the less, it is extremely hard on people who are in middle age, or perhaps past middle age, who have worked for many years in an establishment in which they expected to finish their working lives to be asked suddenly to uproot themselves and go to other parts of the country.
The Government have introduced measures which recognise that when industry, through no fault of its own, is forced to dispense with services of its employees it owes them special consideration when it comes to asking them to move, not only their employment, but their homes in order to take up employment elsewhere. This was recognised in the Redundancy Payments Act. I served on the Committee which considered that Measure and remember this point very well.
It appears that certain concessions will be made to established officers of over 50 years of age, but I gather from what I have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary's colleagues that probably the normal rules will apply to people under 50 years of age. Does this mean that an established officer of, say, 45 years of age who may well have been working since the end of the last war will have to move perhaps to Stafford or Carlisle, the only other two maintenance units remaining open, or an establishment far away, or, alternatively, forfeit all rights to pension or severance pay? If so, the Government are treating their employees substantially worse than any private enterprise concern would do. I cannot believe that that is the case. If established officers say that they cannot move that
748
sort of distance, will they have any rights? I am not clear about the position.
The closure of a substantial enterprise like this, assuming that it is not followed by the setting up of another to take its place, must have an effect on the various other industries and enterprises in the area which provided services or goods for it. I give one obvious example, the firm of Messrs. Whittle, which on every working day runs 14 coaches from points all round the area to bring 600 people to their work in Hartlebury. Whatever the Government may propose, Whittle's alone would have to dispense with 15 people unless it can find other work for these 14 coaches. Another seven coaches were run by other local bus enterprises, making 21 in all. I give that as an instance of a service which will lose business as a result of this closure.
There is an obvious danger in the phasing out of any closure. In the absence of some clear assurance to the staff as to their future, they are likely to depart long before the date at which their employer wishes them to do so.
I would press the Government very strongly to make their position clear, otherwise I fear that their nicely phased withdrawal lasting for three and a half years may not work at all. The most enterprising, the ablest, and most active of their employees will be looking around in the area to find themselves equally good, or even better, jobs while the going is good, and before the effect of the large dispersal of labour on to the local market becomes too marked. If the staff depart prematurely there will be great difficulty in running Hartlebury and in phasing out its operation.
There is strong local feeling that this is an extravagant operation. Much money has been spent on Hartlebury. A computer has been installed. I am informed on the grape-vine that this is not as foolish as it sounds, because it will pay for itself in two years. If it does, it will be a more rapidly functioning computer than most computers with which I have been associated. It usually takes two years to get the "bugs" out. Assuming that the Government run their computer in a better way than most people do, perhaps that may happen. There has been substantial expenditure, not only on this, but on other forms of equipment such as high density storage.

749
It seems anomalous to local people that this expenditure should have been incurred so recently, when the whole place was to close down in such a short time. I mention that in passing, merely to set the picture as it looks to the people who will suffer. It is important that their point of view should be taken into account.
What action could the Government take to alleviate the obvious problems? I have made this appeal to the Government in the context of an assumption that the decision was irrevocable and, for reasons which I will not press the Government to produce, possibly correct. They had to cut down by one maintenance unit. They have chosen this one, and their reasons may have been good. I am not questioning that. I am assuming that they know what they will do to alleviate the effects of the closure.
I would suggest that they could transfer branches of other Government departments from the London area to the Hartlebury site, perhaps branches of the Ministry of Defence. Once the place is closed down, there will be excellent accommodation for from 300 to 400 staff. I understand that it is Government policy to disperse Government Departments, or branches of Departments, from the Metropolitan area to the provinces. Quite rightly so. People do not want to come into the high cost-of-living area of London, and the provision of office space in London is much more expensive than in the provinces.
Is there any possibility of alleviating the problem by telling the people who are affected that something else will be moved into the area, some quite different part of the Ministry of Defence, or another Ministry, to take up the slack created by the closure? It would be ideal if such an operation could contain a large element of non-industrial and industrial workers, in addition to staff, but, assuming that is not possible, have the Government any intention of letting or selling the spare space—there are enormous hangars—to industry, in order that industry may help to solve the employment problem.
I would remind the Government that very often when something like this happens far too long is spent in shilly-shallying between Ministry and Ministry
750
as to whether one Ministry or another can make use of a site which has been vacated.
Can we have a decision? Human lives are involved here. Human beings will inevitably suffer, human beings in my constituency and in the constituencies of Worcester, Bromsgrove, Dudley and Stourbridge, and possibly further afield as well. I do not have the figures here, but they are all gravely worried about their future. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a word of encouragement that they will not be forgotten and that something will be done for them?
9.40 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) would have been failing in his duty had he not expressed his concern about this pending closure. When he said that the Government acted in matters such as this worse than some private employers, I can only think that he has been reading different newspapers from those which I read about closures which have taken place during the last 12 months.
Sir T. Brinton: I sincerely hope I did not say that. I was not suggesting that the Government had acted worse. I asked whether, in certain cases of redundancy of established civil servants, they would come off worse that employees in similar positions in private industry under the Redundancy Payments Act. I did not intend to cast bricks at the Government—at any rate, not at this stage.
Mr. Fernyhough: I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the general principle of the closure. Representing a heavy industrial constituency, I wish to goodness we were able to give to the coal miners and the various employees of private concerns which have closed down during the last 12 months the same warning period that we have been able to give concerning this closure. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that to phase the rundown of a closure over a three-year period is at least showing some feeling and regard for the people who are to be declared redundant. If we could give all workers who are to become redundant that same notice, many workers would not feel so deeply aggrieved. The hon. Gentleman mentioned G.E.C.

751
If the workers there had the same time concerning their notices, they would have been much happier.
The workers, although predominantly from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, are drawn from a fairly wide area. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that is so, because he has spoken of the buses which bring them in. These men, or a proportion of them, have a wide variety of skills and experience.
I want to put this problem in its proper perspective. Seventy of the men and 50 of the women employed there are already over retiring age. A further 150 men and a further 50 women will retire before the depôt closes. In addition, an unknown number—we cannot say how many yet—of the established staff are likely to retire at 60, because they have the right to go on pension at that age.
To put the matter in perspective, perhaps I should give the hon. Member some figures. The employees come from Bridgnorth, Kidderminster, Stourport, Worcester, Bromsgrove, Stourbridge and Cleobury Mortimer. At Bridgnorth the unemployment rate at the present time is 1·8 per cent. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency it is 1·3 per cent., at Stourport 0·8 per cent., at Worcester 1·7 per cent., at Bromsgrove 1·2 per cent., at Stourbridge 2·1 per cent. and at Cleobury Mortimer 3·9 per cent. The average rate of unemployment for the areas that I have mentioned is 1·7 per cent., the average rate for the West Midlands is 2·2 per cent. and the national average is 2·5 per cent. I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman that we do not feel that this is going to cause us a major problem.
Sir T. Brinton: I, too, have been through these figures very carefully but, while I know that some of the women living in Stourport will retire, none the less at the moment there are 126 of them who will be thrown out of work by this closure. The total number of unemployed women in Stourport, according to the employment exchange, is two, so the potential increase is substantial. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can write off the unemployment question as easily as that because it is low now. This is a very substantial proportion of the people in the whole area.
Mr. Fernyhough: It is, assuming that there are going to be no further job opportunities, but the employment exchanges in the areas concerned place an average of 1,000 people each month and that is in vacancies notified to the exchanges. There are many other vacancies which are not so notified but which are advertised in the Press or which people find out about through personal contact. I am quite sure that some of these people will be able to find alternative employment.
As far as prospects with the Ministry of Defence are concerned, it is hoped to be able to offer jobs in other areas to most established staff who are under 60 and are willing to move. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he sought off the cuff but I will make inquiries and write to him. There is no means of knowing at this stage how many will accept transfers but we know as a result of our past experience in connection with similar establishments that it is likely to be only 8 or 10 per cent., which would account for probably 100 transfers.
If we look at what has been happening there, wastage at this establishment in the first three months of this year amounted to just over 100 workers. So wastage could account for up to 50 per cent. during the next three years, if our past experience is any guide. This means people who, because the establishment is closing down, have obtained other employment.
I want to make it perfectly clear that staff who are eligible will get all terminal payments, including redundancy payments where applicable, and if they wish to leave in anticipation of redundancy they will not lose their eligibility unless they are key people whom the Ministry would wish to retain for the purpose of maintaining efficiency.
Sir T. Brinton: Is it correct that redundancy payments are made only to non-established personnel, and that established personnel are dealt with on a different basis?
Mr. Fernyhough: I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer to his question. Even if they leave before they are given notice by the establishment because they have prospects of another job, they will not lose any of the benefits, and any employee who wishes to

753
have time off for an interview will be granted it.
The Ministry of Defence will watch the run-down of staff very carefully indeed to ensure that it conforms to the general plan. Every effort will be made to give a minimum of three months' notice to individual workers. Arrangements will be made for the employment exchange staff to go to the base to interview redundant workers well before they are due to leave, and to give them advice and information about other jobs, including retraining in suitable cases. The workers will be allowed all the necessary time off for interviews with prospective employers. My officials at the employment exchanges involved will make special approaches to employers to try and find suitable vacancies and to discuss with them the skills and qualifications of the workers who will become available.
There are 902 vacancies for males, and 809 vacancies for females in the area, but those figures are only a partial guide to the prospects of employment for workers made redundant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the factor which must be taken into account is that the redundancies will be spread over three years. There will therefore be no great impact upon the labour market.
The size of the area from which the workers travel will ease absorption, and there is in these exchanges a continuous turnover of vacancies. As I have already said, almost 1,000 workers are placed in employment every month. That figure does not include those who find jobs on their own. It is our experience that in an area such as this, where there is an obvious demand for labour, we are not likely to encounter much difficulty in
754
finding alternative employment for those who are likely to be displaced.
My Ministry does not want to see any-one unnecessarily unemployed. It has a fair amount of time in which to find alternative employment for these people and it will make special efforts to do so. I readily acknowlege that we may encounter some additional difficulties in dealing with older people, and the disabled people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. They will be a challenge to my Ministry and I hope that we shall be able to meet it.
The alternative use of the premises is not a matter for me but substantially for the Board of Trade, in deciding whether to give a licence. They determine each application on the facts and needs of the situation. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from the figures I gave that, whatever his problem, the development areas have a much greater one, and it would be unwise, since we have three years in which to try to resolve this difficulty, to take any benefits from the development areas to give them to his constituency and the neighbouring ones, which, the figures show, are still a prosperous area compared to other regions.
But I do not want the hon. Member to think that I am complacent. I will never be complacent, because of my experience of unemployment, both before and after I entered the House. No one who has represented Jarrow for 21 years could be indifferent to what is, after all, a very human problem, but I hope that time and the general prospects will prove the hon. Gentleman's natural apprehension unjustified.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Scientific and Engineering Courses
  Scientific and Engineering Courses
  Scottish Arts Council (Allocation)
  Scottish Arts Council (Allocation)
  Students' Grants
  Students' Grants
  Training and Supply of Teachers (National Advisory Council)
  Training and Supply of Teachers (National Advisory Council)
  Inner London Education Authority (School Building Programme)
  Inner London Education Authority (School Building Programme)
  Transport Museum
  Transport Museum
  Secondary Education Reorganisation Scheme, Breconshire
  Secondary Education Reorganisation Scheme, Breconshire
  Hard Wheat (Research)
  Hard Wheat (Research)
  Immigrant Children (English Language Tuition)
  Immigrant Children (English Language Tuition)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Huddersfield (Minister's Visit)
  Huddersfield (Minister's Visit)
  Infant School Places, Birmingham
  Infant School Places, Birmingham
  Children under 5 (School Attendance)
  Children under 5 (School Attendance)
  Central Advisory Council for Education
  Central Advisory Council for Education
  Youth Service Building Programme
  Youth Service Building Programme
  Youth Service Building, West Riding (Capital Allocations)
  Youth Service Building, West Riding (Capital Allocations)
  School Management and Government
  School Management and Government
  Common Cold
  Common Cold
  Polytechnics, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Polytechnics, Yorkshire and Humberside
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Voluntary Civil Defence Associations (Equipment)
  Voluntary Civil Defence Associations (Equipment)
  Immigrant Dependants
  Immigrant Dependants
  Alcohol in the Blood (Analysis)
  Alcohol in the Blood (Analysis)
  Immigration Control (Evasion)
  Immigration Control (Evasion)
  Immigration (Review of Areas)
  Immigration (Review of Areas)
  Taxicab Fares
  Taxicab Fares
  Suspended Sentences
  Suspended Sentences
  Detained Juveniles
  Detained Juveniles
  Immigrants (Drug Smuggling)
  Immigrants (Drug Smuggling)
  Immigration Officers (Interpreters)
  Immigration Officers (Interpreters)
  Indian and Pakistani Immigrants
  Indian and Pakistani Immigrants
  Illegal Immigration (Sikhs)
  Illegal Immigration (Sikhs)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries (Resources)
  Developing Countries (Resources)
WALES
  House Improvements (Grants)
  House Improvements (Grants)
  Leasehold Reform
  Leasehold Reform
  Road Construction and Improvements
  Road Construction and Improvements
  Usk and Cray Reservoirs (Proposed Transfer)
  Usk and Cray Reservoirs (Proposed Transfer)
  Mid-Wales New Town Development Corporation
  Mid-Wales New Town Development Corporation
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Dependent Territories (Constitutional Development)
  Dependent Territories (Constitutional Development)
  Gibraltar (Constitutional Discussions)
  Gibraltar (Constitutional Discussions)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Petrol Storage (Licence Fees)
  Petrol Storage (Licence Fees)
  Company Directors (Fees and Emoluments)
  Company Directors (Fees and Emoluments)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  H.M.Y. "Britannia"
  H.M.Y. "Britannia"
  Supplementary Statement on Defence
  Supplementary Statement on Defence
  PRIVATE INDUSTRY (FINANCIAL AID)
  PRIVATE INDUSTRY (FINANCIAL AID)
  PRICES AND INCOMES REPORT (SOLICITORS)
  PRICES AND INCOMES REPORT (SOLICITORS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Employees (Foreign Service)
  Departmental Employees (Foreign Service)
  Ulcerative Dermal Necrosis
  Ulcerative Dermal Necrosis
  Bacon Curing Industry (Stabilisation Arrangements)
  Bacon Curing Industry (Stabilisation Arrangements)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  North-East Development Council (Advertising Campaign)
  North-East Development Council (Advertising Campaign)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mount Charlotte Investments Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Mount Charlotte Investments Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Guardian Assurance (Dividend Distribution)
  Guardian Assurance (Dividend Distribution)
  Gill and Duffus Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Gill and Duffus Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Dividends (Take-Over Bids)
  Dividends (Take-Over Bids)
  Companies (Income, Dividends and Taxation)
  Companies (Income, Dividends and Taxation)
  Wormalds, Walker & Atkinson (Dividend Distributions)
  Wormalds, Walker & Atkinson (Dividend Distributions)
  Ever Ready Trust Ltd. and Jersey External Trust Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Ever Ready Trust Ltd. and Jersey External Trust Ltd. (Dividend Distributions)
  Indian and Pakistan Immigrants (Sterling Exports)
  Indian and Pakistan Immigrants (Sterling Exports)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Preventive Medicine and Health Checks
  Preventive Medicine and Health Checks
  Unvaccinated Immigrants
  Unvaccinated Immigrants
  Doctors (Annual Emigration)
  Doctors (Annual Emigration)
  Sea and Air Port Medical Officers (Language Qualifications)
  Sea and Air Port Medical Officers (Language Qualifications)
HOUSING
  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Rents)
  Nuneaton and Bedworth (Rents)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Coastal Areas (Development and Protection)
  Coastal Areas (Development and Protection)
AVIATION
  Scheduled Services (Cut Prices)
  Scheduled Services (Cut Prices)
SCOTLAND
  Salmon (Ulcerative Dermal Necrosis)
  Salmon (Ulcerative Dermal Necrosis)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Waiting Applicants, Loughton and Hainault
  Waiting Applicants, Loughton and Hainault
TECHNOLOGY
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
2.30 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will follow the example of the United States Food and Drug Administration, who plan to ask manufacturers of contraceptive pills to relabel them showing that the pills could cause potentially fatal blood clots in some women.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Government do not think that this would be the best method of conveying information to patients and doctors about the risks of taking oral contraceptives. As the noble Baroness is aware, in this country oral contraceptives are available only if supplied or prescribed by a doctor whose professional responsibility it is to give any advice or warnings he considers necessary to the patient concerned.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was the United States Food and Drug Administration which prevented the pharmaceutical industry of the United States from distributing thalidomide to doctors because they believed that it was dangerous; and this despite the loud protests of the pharmaceutical industry? Is my noble friend also aware that in consequence of that action no deformed baby was born in the United States as a result of thalidomide? Could we not well follow their example on this occasion?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the supplementary question put by the noble Baroness is addressed to another point on which she asked a Question the other day; namely the forbidding of the sale of these preparations. At that time I gave her some statistics about the risks involved and said that the Government accepted the advice of the relevant Advisory Committee that it would not be justifiable to prevent the sale of these pills. To-day, her Question is addressed to the necessity or otherwise of labelling the package.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that last week I tried to prevent the sale of those contraceptive pills? Their sale is prevented in the Soviet Union, where there are excellent scientists. Not having succeeded last week in my object of preventing the sale, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the next best thing is to do what is being done in the United States of America, that is, to put a warning on the package?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the Government thought it was a good thing to do, they would do it, but they consider that the best way to get the necessary public awareness of the risks which exist to the women taking these pills is through the doctors.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, in the controversy about the contraceptive pill, despite the gloomy forebodings of my noble friend it is just conceivable that some women would opt for a short life and a merry one?
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, through the same medium as that suggested by the noble Baroness, they will be prepared to warn intending mothers of the risks they run in regard to not having a completely normal pregnancy and normal development of the fœtus after taking these contraceptive pills for a considerable time? Are Her Majesty's Government aware that these contraceptive pills are suspect in the United States of America, in several European countries and in Cyprus, where the reason for gynæcologists' not prescribing them is that stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, together with the reasons I have mentioned, and not on religious or moral grounds?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked rather a lot of questions, and I am afraid I could not give the answer to all of them because they are all wrapped up in one sentence. But perhaps I should make the point that the risks of pregnancy and childbirth have been pretty well known to human kind for a considerable time. We are dealing now with a risk that has only recently become apparent.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord on whose advice the decision has been reached? Have women's organisations been asked, and, if so, what advice have they given?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the advice received by Her Majesty's Government has come from the Committee on the Safety of Drugs.

HOSPITAL CHARGES FOR PRIVATE BEDS
2.36 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average charge per day for a hospital bed, other than one in a mental hospital, for a private patient under Section 5 of the National Health Acts of 1946 and 1947 in teaching hospitals, and in other hospitals in England and Wales and in Scotland respectively.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the average daily charge for a private bed, other than one in a psychiatric hospital, is about £7 10s. 0d. in teaching hospitals and £5 15s. 0d. in other hospitals in England and Wales, and £6 10s. 0d. in teaching hospitals and £5 10s. 0d. in other hospitals in Scotland.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether his right honourable friend the Minister of Health will bear this differential in mind when applying the standard charge for which he is asking powers under the forthcoming Health Services and Public Health Bill?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.

RHODESIAN BOXER AND POLICE OPEN BOXING CHAMPIONSHIPS
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have asked the Metropolitan Police to withdraw their invitation to Corporal Larry Farran, of Rhodesia, to enter the police open boxing championships, and, if so, why.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): Yes, my Lords. It is the Government's view that it would be inappropriate for bodies connected with official organisations in this country to maintain relations of this kind with representatives of official organisations in Rhodesia.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him, without implying either approval of the Smith régime or disapproval of sanctions, whether he is aware that in the opinion of many people this kind of thing reflects a sort of pettiness which, on the one hand, seems unworthy of the governing Power and, on the other, can do nothing but embitter further the relations existing between the two countries, and therefore militate against the achievement of a negotiated settlement?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware that some people take the views mentioned by the noble Earl, but I am also aware that if the invitation had stood the illegal régime would probably have exploited it for political purposes to cast doubt on the seriousness of Britain's policy towards Rhodesia and to show that in fact relations between the two countries were normal. In the view of Her Majesty's Government that would not be true, and therefore it would be undesirable.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this championship is referred to as an "open" championship. Can my noble friend say whether it is open to organisations and individuals within this country or outside the borders of this country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, almost certainly it is truly an open championship. It is open to individuals within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Eire, and to Germany, Italy, and so on. I was present at the boxing championships myself on Monday night and four of the Italians each won a trophy.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is this supposed to be part of the process of "bringing Rhodesia to her knees", and, if so, is it not quite obvious that it will have precisely the reverse effect?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is unusually unaware of the situation. Perhaps he does not recall that on January 12, when addressing the Rhodesian Olympic Supporters' Association, and taking joy in the fact that the Olympic Games authorities had agreed that they should participate, Mr. Ian Smith said:
"What a tremendous achievement this has been. What a wonderful breakthrough for Rhodesia, not only in the sporting world but in general as far as Rhodesian acceptance throughout the world is concerned".
On these Benches, my Lords, we do not accept this régime or what it is doing.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may I then take it that the answer to my original question was a simple, "Yes"?

HOVERCRAFT CROSS-CHANNEL SERVICE
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans the British Railways have to order a second S.R.N. 4 Hovercraft to ensure a reliable Hovercraft cross-channel service; and whether any delay in the opening of this new service is expected.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I understand that the British Railways Board are considering whether they should acquire a second S.R.N. 4 hover-
1556
craft, but have not yet put any proposal about this to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. At present they anticipate no delay in their hovercraft cross-channel service, which they hope to start in August.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether the Government would not agree that one hovercraft cannot possibly offer a reliable new service? Would the Government also press the Railways Board for an early decision in this matter—it has been going on for some time now—to demonstrate that they have confidence in hovercraft, and allow the British Hovercraft Corporation a chance to deliver a second hovercraft in time for the new service?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, since it is not proposed to start this service before August of this year I think it can really be regarded as a trial run this year; and as £1- million in involved in the purchase of another hovercraft it would be wise to ensure that the first one is satisfactory in every respect before embarking further on this scheme. There is the further point that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has no power to direct the Railways to buy the hovercraft.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government do not feel that the installation of a reliable hovercraft cross-channel service might adversely affect the possibility of any profits on the proposed Channel tunnel?

RHODESIA: SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD'S PASSPORT
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement regarding the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be answering this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

WHITSUN RECESS (SPRING HOLIDAY)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I take the opportunity, with the leave of the House, to say that the arrangements for the Spring holiday, subject to progress of business, are that the House should rise on Thursday, May 30, and return on Tuesday, June 11.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is that the Whitsun Recess?
LORD BESWICK: I gather it is the "with it" term for the new holiday.

BERMUDA PETITION
2.43 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to present the Petition from the inhabitants of Bermuda, of which I have given Notice on the Order Paper. I appreciate that this is a very rare occurrence. I want to suit the convenience of the House and its business to-day and also to act in the spirit of courtesy which is so very characteristic of this House. I have been careful to look up Erskine May on this matter and I find on page 853 that on May 30, 1685, the Lords ordered that any Lord who presents a Petition "shall open it before it be read", which is rather amusing. But Erskine May goes on to say:
"At the time of presentation the Lord may comment upon the Petition and upon the general matters to which it refers, and debate thereon may ensue."
It is on that latter matter that I would seek to meet the convenience of the House at a later point. At this moment I do not propose to read the Petition, which is of some length, but only to summarise it.
The Petition comes in the names of the Leader of the Opposition in the Bermuda Legislature, the Chairman of the Progressive Labour Party, which is the Opposition Party, and a member of the Legislature who is a candidate in the forthcoming election. The Petition indicates—and this is the essential point—the desire that the election be conducted in circumstances which are fair, and submits that in present circumstances that is impossible. It reminds your Lordships that there were riots in April and a State
1558
of Emergency declared, and the complaint is mentioned that the Governor did not summon the Legislature within five days of the Proclamation of the Emergency, as provided for in the Constitution. The Petition points out that writs for a new election on May 22 were issued despite the State of Emergency, which prevented television, public meetings and canvassing as long as that State of Emergency lasted.
The Petition points out that the Opposition Party were already prejudiced by unfair constituency boundaries, the method of registration of electors, and failure so far to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the riots. I read the Prayer with which the Petition ends:
"Wherefor your Petitioners pray that your right honourable House will take into deliberation the conditions under which it is proposed to hold elections in Bermuda and in particular that your right honourable House will submit an humble Address to Her Majesty praying that an Order in Council be made under the Bermuda Constitution 1967 cancelling writs already issued for the election and ordering that. new writs be issued therefor on any convenient date immediately following the eighth day of May instant when the said State of Emergency was ended. And your Petitioners further pray that your right honourable House will take any further or other steps as to them seem appropriate in this respect."
The Petition concludes as required:
"And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray"—
and then follow the signatures of those I have mentioned.
I am very anxious to meet the convenience of the House and to act in the spirit of association which is characteristic of this House. If my noble friend the Leader of the House could suggest some other method than having an immediate debate now, so long as it was an urgent debate I would be prepared to put off that right which Erskine May gives to me of initiating a debate now. I am in his hands; but I think it probable that if I were to speak in a debate I should have to give a Motion, and my Motion would therefore be that the Petition which I have summarised should be printed and should be in the hands of the Members of the House.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration he has given to the convenience of the

1559
House. I will not go over the previous precedents. On the last occasion of this sort, when my noble friend Lord Stonham introduced a Petition, no further action was taken on it at that time; but we appreciate that in principle the Petition could be of an urgent nature.
I would make one point straight away. It is not in my hands; nor is it necessarily determined by Erskine May what your Lordships should do. Your Lordships are always in control of your own actions and the procedure in this House. But my noble friend is quite correct in his quotations from Erskine May, and, judging by such guidance as we have, it is appropriate that we should take that fully into account and, so far as possible, not change an established practice. The question as to how far there is an established practice in contemporary circumstances is rather arguable. I do not therefore wish to make any comments on the substance of the Petition which my noble friend has presented to your Lordships' House, although I do not doubt that there will be noble Lords who wish to do so. In particular, I should expect that my noble friend Lord Shepherd, on behalf of the Government and the Commonwealth Office, might wish to meet or refute certain of the arguments.
The purpose of my rising, for the reason which I will give in a moment, is to suggest that the debate on the Petition be adjourned until the conclusion of Public Business this evening. We are unorthodox in your Lordships' House. It is possible, I understand, for a debate to take place without there being a Motion before the House at all, but we shall see what happens this evening. It is quite clear that a debate could ensue on the comments that Lord Brockway may wish to make later. But we have a great deal of business to get through. Noble Lords opposite have been good enough to co-operate with the Government and to meet the convenience of the House in taking the Bills that we are hoping to take as soon as we have disposed of this point.
Although a copy of the Petition has been made available to certain noble Lords, I think that your Lordships will hardly have had time to digest what my noble friend has said, and certainly your Lordships have had no opportunity to look at the Petition itself. If your Lord-
1560
ships accept my Motion that the debate be adjourned, we will take steps to see that further copies of the Petition are available. At least we have more modern methods of reproduction of Petitions than existed in whatever year it was in the 1600's, when photocopying equipment was not so readily available. The House will thus have an opportunity of considering the Petition.
In conclusion, I should like to say that, since this matter has arisen, it may be that the whole question of the presentation of Petitions and the timing of debates could profitably be referred to the Procedure Committee. In another place they have an established procedure for dealing with these matters. In your Lordships' House we seek, if possible, to avoid confining ourselves within rules; but there are times when one is confronted with a situation in regard to which at least we should consider whether there is some more convenient way of dealing with it.
Whether or not my noble friend wishes his Petition to be printed will, of course, depend rather on what occurs tonight. It may even be possible for it to be first read in Hansard. But I think it is for the convenience of the House, if it is so inclined, to accept my Motion; and I therefore move that the debate on the Petition presented by Lord Brockway be adjourned until the conclusion of Public Business. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
House in Committee (on Recommitment).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' MUTUAL INVESTMENT TRUST BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTRYSIDE BILL
2.58 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 10:
Camping and picnic sites
10.—(1) A local planning authority and the council of a county district shall have power to provide in the countryside within their area camping sites for holiday and recreational purposes, to be used primarily as places for setting up tents.
(4) A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land required by them for the purposes of their functions under this section.
EARL HOWE: I beg to move Amendment No. 24 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Chesham. With your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendment No. 25, as both Amendments seem to cover the same point. This is a short Amendment. It is designed merely to confirm that the powers in Clause 10 could be used, probably in conjunction with other powers, to provide joint camping and caravanning sites, which is frankly understood to be the case. I understand that reference to mixed sites has already been made in another place. I should like some assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to permit this, and that the powers are considered to be appropriate for the purpose. With those few remarks I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("primarily").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD KENNET: I can give the noble Earl the assurance he requests There is nothing to prevent the operation of joint sites, and the use of the word "primarily", as it stands in the Bill, must by definition imply secondary uses, so that there may be sites or, which there is a mixture of tents and caravans, and such sites may be grant aided. I hope with that assurance the noble Earl will think fit to withdraw his Anendment.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for those remarks. I feel a bit happier about that now. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (1), ",with space for parking vehicles and a means of access to and from a road." The noble Earl 5aid: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. This Amendment is designed to confirn that the powers contained in Clause 10 in regard to camping sites will provide for parking space and access roads for motor vehicles to be included, since even in sites where provision is not made for caravans a high proportion of those using the sites will undoubtedly wish to travel there in their own private vehicles. This is the increasingly popular method of transport to-day. Subsection (2) of Clause 10 relating to powers to provide picnic sites, specifically refers to space for parking vehicles and a meals of access to and from a road, but no similar provisions are included in subsection (1) relating to the powers to provide camping sites. A high proportion of those using camping sites will want to travel to them in their own vehicles, and not just to park their cars and walk with their tents and camping gear on their backs. Perhaps I could be assured that my fears are groundless and that arrangements will be made to provide these facilities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, at end insert (",with space for parking vehicles and a means of access to and from a road.")—(Earl Howe.)
LORD KENNET: I am advised that it is highly probable that the situation is as the noble Earl would desire it to be under the Bill as it stands, but in order to put the matter beyond doubt I

1563
am prepared, if he so wishes, to advise the House to accept his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Before the Amendment is accepted, may I ask the Minister whether this will mean that an authority will not be allowed to set up a park for tent dwellers unless it has a road attached? If that is so, I think it would be a bad thing.
LORD KENNET: I should require a moment or two to study that matter. At first blush I am not sure that it would. If the noble Lord thinks that the Committee would do better not to accept the Amendment, I am not urging it in either direction. We could, if the Committee prefers, come back to it on Report if the noble Earl wishes to withdraw his Amendment. I have no advice to give on this.
LORD HAWKE: I would not wish to prejudice the chance of my noble friend having his Amendment accepted. Perhaps the Committee would accept the Amendment as it stands and the noble Lord the Minister could look into it at the Report stage to see whether the particular point I have made is safeguarded in some other way.
LORD KENNET: I am now in a position, having had time for further inquiries to be made, to inform the House that this clause is a permissive one and will not bind local authorities to do the things mentioned in the words in the Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I think that is of great importance because, of course, there may be many sites where tents may do no injury to the rural scene, whereas a lot of motor cars would do great injury. I think the matter is of great importance. On that I agree with my noble friend, Lord Hawke.
LORD KENNET: I do not want to confuse matters. The local authorities can make their choice.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: It might be of interest to report that so far as Ashdown Forest is concerned the present arrangement is that tents are discouraged, but there are definite parking places in the forest at defined intervals.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.5 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after subsection (3), to insert:

"()(a) A local planning authority and the council of a county district shall have power to provide in the countryside in their area:

(i) facilities for mooring vessels in any waterway;

(ii) facilities on the banks of any such waterway and on any adjoining land for persons embarking or disembarking from such vessels; and

(iii) means of access from and to a road from and to the banks of any such waterway or the adjoining land on which any facilities have been provided under the last foregoing paragraph.

(b) The provisions of subsection (3) above shall apply to the exercise of the powers of this subsection as they apply to the exercise of the powers of subsection (I) and (2) above and for that purpose a site shall be deemed to include any part of a waterway, the banks thereof or adjoining land in or on which facilities have been provided under subsection (3) above."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 27 on the Marshalled List. This is a point to which the river authorities attach particular attention, and the effect of the Amendment would, I think, among other things, be to improve the prospect of these authorities' maintaining the purity of the rivers and the waters for which they are responsible. In particular, sub-paragraph (ii), under which local authorities would be allowed to provide facilities on the banks of any waterway or any adjoining land for persons embarking or disembarking from their vessels, has a special significance because it would enable local authorities to set up sanitary stations for the service of vessels which are using the particular navigation waters for recreational purposes.
An outstanding example of this is to be seen on the Norfolk Broads, where many thousands of people—indeed, tens of thousands of people—now go every year to take their holidays. The cabin cruisers which they hire for the purpose have sanitary arrangements on board. Naturally it is most desirable that these should not be discharged into the waters, but unless there are sanitary stations on the banks in reasonable mooring places to which the boats can tie up, inevitably there is a danger of the water being polluted in this way. What is being asked for in this Amendment is that local authorities shall have power to do this, in

1565
addition to the other things that this Bill provides, so that they would be grant-aided in the same way as these other facilities are. I am sure that this would be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD KENNET: The purpose for which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has moved his Amendment is obviously a very good one. But I would point out, as regards the powers to provide places for the dumping and collection of sewage, and also the provision of mooring places, with or without sewerage facilities, that the local authorities already have these powers under the Public Health Acts whenever an accumulation of sewage presents a public health problem. They undoubtedly have powers under those Acts to cope with that and to make a system for removing it. The provision of mooring sites is, of course, already fully covered by Clauses 8 and 14 of this Bill, and also by Section 80 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, which relate to the provision of recreational facilities, including, of course, any steps considered appropriate in dealing with the sewerage problem.
The noble Lord also touched on the question of grant. I think this is the nub of the matter: he wants grant to be payable under the Countryside Bill for these sewage collection points. I am not sure about that. I think that if there is sewage anywhere in the area of the local authority which needs to be collected, the cost of collection falls on the rates. It seems to me that it should continue to come on the rates, and the local authority should provide it in the ordinary way.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lord says that the local authority should do this. But the fact is that they do not; and it is in order to encourage them to do it that I want them to be given grants. I know that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have been very reluctant to accept this proposal. They put forward various reasons why they think it should not be accepted. They put forward the view that sufficient charges should be made to the boats and the cruisers using these
1566
waters in order to pay for these stations. But we all know very well that the kind of charges that can be made for licence fees for boats will never be sufficient to pay for stations of this kind; and therefore, unless grants are given in this way, we simply shall not get these sanitary stations put there, and the waters will be excessively polluted, which is clearly to the disadvantage of everybody.
I urge the noble Lord to be a little forthcoming on this matter. I am sure this is a sensible thing to do. Although the need is urgent now, as noble Lords who are familiar with the area must surely know, these sanitary stations will not be put down unless local authorities are given the encouragement of a grant. I do urge the noble Lord to be a little more forthcoming and to say he will look at this point again before Report stage.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: is it not a fact that the majority of these vessels are already fitted with sanitary appliances which discharge straight into III: river? Therefore, unless you convert a large number of these boats, those facilities will still be used. Would it not be mu:1 more practicable, once you have converted the vessels, to have a sanitary launch which could go alongside each vessel when moored to collect the sewage and dump it in a proper place—otherwise there will not be a hope of making the provision work.
LORD KENNET: It does not require any provision in the Bill to enable a hirer of boats to provide such a sanitary launch and cover the cost in their hiring fee. In regard to preventing pollution of rivers, there are by-laws in preparation for the Norfolk Broads to achieve precisely this effect. In general, I am inclined to the view that this is something which ought to be paid for by the holiday-makers who go on the Broads. They hire a boat, they pay for it—there is no grant on their hiring of it—and they should behave themselves in as civilised a way as the boat will permit. There are by-laws coming along which, in effect, will bind the boat owners to have certain kinds of sanitary arrangements on the boat. Beyond that, it seems to me that the cost of getting rid of holiday-makers' sewage should be borne by the holiday-makers themselves

1567
and be reflected in the hiring charges for the boats.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.12 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Brooke, I beg to move Amendment No. 28. Subsection (4) provides that a local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land required by them for the purposes in this clause; that is to say, in connection with camping and picnic sites. In this case the mantle of Elijah, my noble friend Lord Brooke, descends upon my inadequate shoulders to inquire why it is necessary, in the Government's view, to take compulsory powers for this purpose. These facilities of camping and picnic sites are desirable and we should like to see them further extended, but is it really justified, pro bono publico, to use compulsory powers for acquiring sites for this purpose? We all accept that compulsory powers must be used for many purposes these days, but I am sure that it is the concern of us all to keep the right balance between the rights of private property and the rights of the State on behalf of the whole community. It is right to question whether compulsory powers are really needed for a purpose of this kind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD BARNBY: The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in dealing with similar powers in an earlier clause registered his doubts as to the propriety of the procedure of compulsory acquisition. Any noble Lord who has any misgivings on this matter would do well to postpone any remarks until Lord Brooke raises the subject on Schedules 2 and 3.
LORD PARGITER: I hope that this Amendment will be resisted. Let us look at what compulsory procedure is. It does not authorise the local authority without inquiry to take over land which is required. They have to go through the whole machinery of public inquiry at which the landowner can state his case why the land ought not to be used for that particular purpose because it would
1568
involve him in difficulty or would affect his amenity. There is also the wider question of one landowner being prepared that a site should be used but another landowner blocking access to it. Although the site may be available from a willing landowner, if it were blocked by another landowner who was unwilling to concede the right of way and the local authority had no power to do anything about it, a desirable camping site would be completely blocked. The matter could easily be threshed out at a public inquiry and I have no doubt that justice would be done. I am sure that this Amendment would not be right in relation to local authority powers, nor would it enable the authorities to carry out the functions of the Bill.
LORD HENLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, whose Amendment this is, is perhaps making heavy weather in this Bill about this question of compulsory purchase. I am sure that all noble Lords realise that, in the last resort, one must have compulsory purchase powers if one is going to make such a Bill work. On the whole, we all think that it is a good Bill. There are certain injustices and difficulties for the landowning and farming communities, and those aspects must be watched. On the whole, we who are trying to look after the interests of the agricultural industry would perhaps do very much better by not paying too much attention to this issue of compulsory purchase, which is not as important as it may appear to be to noble Lords on the Tory Benches.
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask the Minister who is to reply, first whether his noble friend behind him was right in thinking that in such cases there would be a public inquiry at which the person whose land was sought to be acquired compulsorily would be able to put his objection? The second question is a question I raised on a similar provision in an earlier clause. What is to happen to land already being used very much for the public advantage? I refer to the case of land held by the National Trust. Would it be possible, if we left this subsection as it is, for a local authority to use its powers of compulsory acquisition to acquire land already held by the National Trust?
LORD LINDGREN: There has on a number of occasions been some justification for questioning the necessity for Amendments bringing in powers in relation to sewage. Some landowners take it as a threat behind negotiations for voluntary purchase; but here is a case where compulsory powers are genuinely essential. In our daily life we hear criticisms from the general public about gypsies on the roadside. Everybody is in favour of their being given a camping site so that they can put their caravans there and carry on their way of life—until one selects a site, and then everybody in the neighbourhood around the site starts to object.
I have got to the age when I prefer when on holiday a comfortable bed and comfortable surroundings, but there are still those who enjoy a caravan camping holiday as a complete change from their normal way of life. It is almost certain that wherever a local authority want to put a camping site, particularly when it is associated with an area of considerable beauty, there will be objections, not only by the landowner but by persons in surrounding lands who might be affected. Therefore, if we are going to provide caravan sites—and whether or not we should is a debatable point—it is essential in those instances that the compulsory purchase power should be in the background.
LORD BARNBY: Before the Minister in charge replies to my noble friend Lord Conesford about National Trust land, there are two points about which I hope the Minister will be able to speak. My noble friend referred to the National Trust, but there would be a more complicated problem in regard to common land. It is illegal to enclose common land, but if any land contiguous to it were taken the common land might have to be enclosed. With regard to caravans, the Minister will presumably be able to say that such sites as were allotted would come under a conventional regulation.
LORD KENNET: We are here going over ground which we threshed out pretty thoroughly a couple of days ago in connection with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to Clause 7 of the Bill, which gave local authorities compulsory powers to purchase land for country parks. The same arguments apply here, where the same powers would
1570
be given to them by the Bill to purchase land compulsorily for picnic sites. Let me, first of all, answer the detailed questions which have been put to me.
With regard to the public hearing, the Government are not doing anything unusual in this. Normally, compulsory purchase order procedure will apply, which means, as it always does, that if objections are made and are not withdrawn a local inquiry will be held. On the question of the National Trust, if the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will turn to Clause 41(5) he will read that the National Trust is exempted from compulsory purchase, so that point i5 looked after. On the question of common lands, we are later coming to a clause, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has put down an Amendment, which deals specifically with them. Perhaps we can discuss the matter under that clause, rather than under this one. The general arguments are the same as those on Clause 7. In my view, the question of whether or not compulsory purchase is justified is synonymous with the question: is this a serious social need that we are talking about? The Government believe that it is and that there is, therefore, a case for having compulsory purchase, subject to all the usual safeguards written into the Bill.
I should like to repeat in the context of this clause what I said in the context of Clause 7; namely, that the compulsory purchase is, of course, subject to the approval of the Minister and that he will not agree to its being used unless he is satisfied that there is no other way of achieving the end which the local authority desire to achieve, which is the setting up of a picnic site or whatever it may be under the wording of Clause 10. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, withdrew his exactly parallel Amendment to Clause 7, and I hope that his noble friend will see fit to do the same with this one.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the answers which he has given to points raised by my noble friend and myself? I am relieved to hear that the normal safeguards exist, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Conesford will also he glad to hear that. I think it is not making heavy weather of the

1571
point, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, to bring it before your Lordships. It is an important matter when we give power to local authorities to take property from private persons. For myself, I entirely accept the necessity of these powers being given, but I think that each time such powers are given they should be most carefully scrutinised to assure ourselves that they are fully justified. Then, if they are, let them go ahead and we shall all be satisfied that on balance it is the right thing to do. I am satisfied, and I hope that my noble friends behind me are satisfied, but I trust that noble Lords will not feel that time was wasted in discussing this very important point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:
Regulations for the control of vessels
".—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of, or includes the whole or any part of a National Park, may make regulations for the control of vessels on any waterway in the National Park where, as respects such waterway, it appears to the authority that it is expedient so to do—

(a) for avoiding danger to persons or vessels using the waterway;

(b) for facilitating the passage of vessels on the waterway;

(c) for preventing or limiting the use of the waterway by vessels of a description which, or used for a purpose which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the waterway and its surrounding area;

(d) for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the waterway and its surrounding area;

(e) for the purpose of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the waterway or the surrounding area for recreation or the study of nature;

(f) for the purpose of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the waterway or the surrounding area by the public.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, regulations made under this section may—

(a) prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of a waterway, either generally or in any manner specified in the regulations, by vessels of any description so specified or used for any purpose so specified;

1572

(b) be made so as to relate either to the whole or to any part of the waterway, and may make different provisions for different parts thereof;

(c) prohibit the use of the waterway by vessels of any description specified in the regulation, or used for any purpose so specified, which are not for the time being registered with the authority in such manner as the regulations may provide;

(d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the regulation of vessels in pursuance of the regulations.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall not provide for any prohibition, restriction or regulation of vessels which would be inconsistent with any rules for the time being in force in relation to that waterway by virtue of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and shall not interfere with any authority having under any enactment functions relating to that waterway.
(4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect unless confirmed by the Minister.
(5) The Minister, if he confirms any such regulations, may confirm them either without modification, or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm any regulations until at least one month has elapsed since the making of the regulations and, before confirming them, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a public inquiry to be held.
(6) Any such regulations as aforesaid may be revoked, varied or amended by the authority subject to the like confirmation given subject to the like provisions as the first-mentioned regulations, or may be revoked, varied or amended by order made by the Minister after giving notice to the authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry.
(7) Before an authority makes regulations under this section the authority shall consult the Commission.
(8) Regulations made under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, or as the Minister may, in any particular case, direct.
(9) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making by authorities of regulations under this section, the confirmation of regulations so made, and the holding of inquiries.
(10) Any person who contravenes a regulation made under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence under this section to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, thereunder, to a fine not exceeding £50.
(11) A local planning authority having power under this section to make regulations shall have power to enforce regulations made by them.
(12) In this section 'vessel' includes any ship, boat, lighter and craft of every kind, however navigated, propelled or moved, and

1573
any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manoeuvre on or immediately over the water."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29 standing in the Marshalled List in the names of my noble friends and myself.
LORD KENNET: May I interrupt the noble Lord at this point, just to ask whether he has taken account of Amendment No. 35? That is a new clause standing in my name to which we shall be coming and which covers very much the same ground as the Amendment which the noble Lord is moving.
LORD INGLEWOOD: If the noble Lord can contain himself to allow me to say one more sentence, I was going to say that my clause is very long, for which I apologise, but that there is another very similar clause—also very long—in the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I was going to ask whether it would meet with his convenience and the convenience of the House if his clause and my clause were discussed together now. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his agreement.
I am glad that his clause has been put down, even at this late hour, because it shows that the Government now accept the general need for some regulation of traffic on lakes in National Parks. That matter was discussed at great length in another place, so I do not think there is any reason for me to argue the general grounds here again this afternoon. I mentioned this question during our Second Reading debate and I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replied he said that this was very much in the Government's mind. But he did not specifically refer to the new clause which I believe the Government have been considering since the month of February, so I thought the right thing to do was for me to put down a new clause so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing it. But I should not have done so if the Government's intentions had been clearer and if their new clause had been put down before it was really too late for proper discussion.
At first reading of the Government's new clause, it seems to me that it meets in general terms the case put forward in
1574
another place by my honourable and right honourable friends, and I believe it follows very closely correspondence which has been taking place over quite a long time between the noble Lord's Department and the Clerk of the Lakes Planning Board. Therefore I hope that when the Minister replies he will let me know how far he has been able to meet the Lakes Planning Board and which of their points he has not been able to meet. I should not have put the question quite in that way if the clause had been put down earlier and if I and other noble Lords who are interested had been able to discuss with those who advise us on these matters. Unfortunately, the time has been too short. Therefore I should like to ask several questions of the noble Lord. I am sure he will understand that until I have heard his replies I must reserve my position about any Amendment to his clause which I might like to move on the Report stage. I am not asking these questions just because of their difficulty, but rather the reverse. They are basic questions which arise from the correspondence which his Department has had with the Planning Board, and they are points about which particular care was taken in my clause.
The first question which I should like to put deals with registration. Does the question of the power to register, which is given in the noble Lord's clause, also include the power to refuse to register? It could well be, in the opinion of the Lakes Planning Board, that certain types of craft or certain lakes could become (if I may use rather an imprecise word) "over-saturated", and they would like, temporarily or for longer periods, to be able to refuse further registration. Some noble Lords may not appreciate the enormous increase there has been in the the number of people using these lakes every weekend for sport and recreation, some with great skill, some with less skill and some with no skill at all, and how these numbers are continually rising. I think it would be right to give the Lakes Planning Board the power to refuse registeration, although it would be understood that such powers would be used only in very limited circumstances.
The next question I should like to put to the noble Lord—and I think this is very important—is this. I should like

1575
him to let us know what exactly he means by the word "managed" in subsection (7), which says:
"This section shall not apply to any lake owned or managed by a river authority or by any statutory undertakers".
From the drafting, the word "managed" there presumably means something rather less than ownership, but would it cover a water authority with power to take major abstractions from a lake, such as Manchester Corporation recently obtained, both in connection with Ullswater and Windermere? Does that come within the meaning of the word "managed" in this subsection? I should like to think that we could clear that point up this afternoon, because it is extremely important. Then, further, does "managed" extend to lesser abstractions by local water undertakers? Because if it covers either of those two classes, I think we shall have to seek to amend that subsection on Report stage. But I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that he intends the word "managed" to mean something a good deal less wide.
Then there is a question in which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will be interested. How exactly do the river authorities fit into this picture, and how are they concerned with this word "managed"? Here we are concerned only with lakes which are inside National Parks, but, as I understand it, all the lakes, whether inside or outside, come under the statutory jurisdiction of the river authorities to some extent. Therefore I should like to ask how the river authorities are in fact seen in connection with this word "managed".
The fourth point is also an important one, and it concerns the definition of "vessels". The noble Lord will see that in my Amendment great care has been taken to define all sorts of craft. I am not an expert, but great care has been taken to define craft of every sort or kind which may now or is likely in the near future to appear in the Lake District in any numbers. We have even included,
"any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manœuvre on or immediately over the water."
1576
In the drafting of his clause, the noble Lord does not seem to have taken quite such great pains as we have, and I should like to hear from him exactly what he thinks about this matter. The point was put to his Department by the Lakes Planning Board in these words:
"In view of modern developments, including the use for pleasure and sport of amphibious vehicles, seaplanes, hovercraft, motorised skis and the practice of aerial ski-ing, the words should be given a very wide definition."
I am not as yet satisfied that the definition in his clause is really wide enough to cover the needs of our problem.
My last two questions concern the making of by-laws for privately-owned lakes. I can see no provision in the noble Lord's clause requiring consultation between the by-law-making authority and the owner of a lake. I should have thought that we ought to require the authority to consult with the owners of lakes before they publish these by-laws. It is not that I suppose that in the majority of cases they would not do so; but, none the less, I think that the requirement ought to be written into the clause.
The last point which has been put to me concerns compensation. The by-laws are bound to deprive an owner of something, and they could deprive him of rights of very considerable value. Although, in those circumstances, no one would wish him to be in a position to claim other than fair compensation, I think the Committee would like to be satisfied that his rights were not being taken away from him under this clause without any compensation at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Inglewood.)
LORD KENNET: If I may interrupt the proceedings, I believe that now would be a convenient time for your Lordships' House to hear a Statement, and I beg leave to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

RHODESIA: SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD'S PASSPORT
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission I will now answer the Private Notice Question which was put earlier in the afternoon. I will use the words which have been used in answer to a similar Question in another place, the words of my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary:
"Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained"—
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, on a point of order, may I ask: what was the Question?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gathered that the Question had been put earlier. If the House would like to be reminded of it, I presume it is in the same terms as the Question asked in another place:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport at Heathrow on Tuesday".
My Lords, the Answer is:
"Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained in the first paragraph of the statement made to the House"—
that is, the House of Commons—
"by my right honourable friend, the then Commonwealth Secretary, on January 25, 1966."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, before I ask the noble Lord any other question, may I ask him, for the information of the House, whether he will remind the House what the first paragraph of the Statement of January 25 was?
LORD SHEPHERD: I have it with me, my Lords. The statement was as follows:
"In general, the passport facilities granted to persons known to be active supporters of the illegal régime, whether such persons are Rhodesian citizens, United Kingdom citizens or dual citizens, are confined to documentation for their return to Rhodesia, though exemp-
1578
tions may be made in compassionate cases".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, 25/1/66, col. 4.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am rather surprised to hear the first paragraph of that Statement on January 25, 1966, because through the usual channels, and through the courtesy which the noble Lord opposite always shows. I have had the opportunity to look up the quotation, and it has absolutely no bearing on passports of any kind. I have looked up the quotation in Hansard, and it has absolutely no bearing. Could the noble Lord explain that?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear hear!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before we have the "Hear, hear!" perhaps we might have the information, would refer the noble Lord to column 4 of Hansard of January 25, 1966, in reply to Question No. 13, by Mr. Lomas.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, obviously we cannot produce all the Hansards, and I must accept what the noble Lord says. But may I ask him for what purpose the confiscation of this passport has been carried out?—because it seems to those of us who sit on this side of the House a most extraordinarily mean and petty action, and none of us can see what possible useful purpose it can serve. Here is a distinguished public servant who has spent a long time in the service of the Crown and who now appears to be treated like an enemy alien and as if we were at war with Rhodesia. I must tell the noble Lord that we who sit on this side of the House really are rather ashamed of the Government, that they should behave in this way.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is perfectly true that this gentleman has been a servant of the Crown, and a Governor of two Territories. He now resides in Rhodesia and the information that is available is that he has given comfort to the illegal régime in Rhodesia. It is on that basis that the decision was taken.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, with all respect to the Leader of the Conservative Party, may I put it to the Government that the most worrying aspect of this is the fact that there was no procedure whereby the person could be

1579
heard in his own defence before the passport was taken away from him? Is this not quite contrary to all the rules of natural justice? No-one is deprived of membership of a trade union without being allowed to be heard. That is a rule of natural justice. I would ask therefore, what are the Government going to do about it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, passports are issued under the prerogative and discretion of the Crown. They remain the property of the Crown and may be withdrawn. We have had such withdrawals over the years—not necessarily in connection with Rhodesia. Therefore the policy under which the passport has been withdrawn has not been changed. As the noble Lord is aware, Sir Frederick Crawford has been to the Commonwealth Office; and no doubt if he wishes to proceed further in this way he will be fully entitled to do so and will be received by the Department.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, where is the proof, the judicial proof, that this man has given aid to the régime? And what about the 80 others who have been apparently caught in the same way, although this one got the publicity?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the figure of 80 is a gross exaggeration. In fact, during the past year, since the Statement was made, there have been only four cases where the passports of persons seeking to enter this country have been impounded. So the figure is grossly exaggerated. In terms of the judicial position, the situation is what it has always been; it has not changed because of the problem of Rhodesia. But if it is the feeling of the House that the present procedures are wrong then I would suggest that this matter should be raised not specifically in regard to Rhodesia but in regard to the rights of all persons who are entitled to passports, because the policy under which this particular passport has been impounded is one that has existed since passports were first issued.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while accepting that the Government have the right to withdraw a passport, I think that in this case the withdrawal clearly implied gross misconduct on the part of
1580
this distinguished former public servant. The noble Lord has added to that by saying that the reason for withdrawal was that the Government thought that he had "given comfort to" the illegal regime. The words "aid and comfort" appear, I think, in the Treason Statute. The charge that the noble Lord has made is a charge of conduct akin to treason. In those circumstances, what right have the Government to condemn this man without any trial and without any inquiry? Was he given an opportunity of making his defence? There may be many people in Rhodesia who are not supporters of the illegal régime. Was he given any opportunity of showing that he took no active part? May we have answers to those questions?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the right of appeal, the giving of evidence in his support, I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that the present procedure has been in existence for many years. The passport is the property of the Crown and can be withdrawn. Sir Frederick Crawford has been seen at the Commonwealth Office and it is the view of the Secretary of State that the actions of Sir Frederick Crawford are such that we—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: What actions?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, let me finish. I think I am entitled to answer the question in my own way and in my own time. It is the view of the Commonwealth Office, of the Secretary of State; that the activities of Sir Frederick Crawford in Rhodesia have been to give support and comfort to the illegal régime. They are not, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, improper, in the sense of criminally improper. But may I put this to the noble and learned Viscount? Last December Lady Crawford's passport was withdrawn. On that occasion I gather there was no protest.
A NOBLE LORD: We did not know of it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that what has happened here is yet another instance—we had one recently—of public condemnation by the Government of an individual for alleged misconduct without any kind of trial?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not know to what the noble and learned Viscount refers.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while accepting the Statement that my noble friend has made, I would ask him: would it not be possible to tell us whether the particulars of this so-called "aid and comfort" to the illegal régime have been conveyed to the gentleman in question and whether there will be any objection to publishing those particulars for the benefit of the House?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I have said, Sir Frederick Crawford has been to the Commonwealth Office, and we have made it clear that if he wishes to return he will be welcome to do so. I think it would be wrong at this stage to disclose the reasons. It is not the usual practice in these matters. Perhaps the House may be aware of the words of Sir Frederick Crawford which I think were on the "tape" prior to luncheon. He said that in view of the fact that he was intending to return to the Commonwealth Office on this matter he did not feel that he ought to go into the case any further.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, although this is one single incident, it marks the end of the present situation and a new phase in the relationship between the United Kingdom and Rhodesia. In these circumstances, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it will not be proper now for the subject to be a matter of debate at an early stage; rather than to link the whole situation to a particular incident (which has also occurred in relation to other people in the last few weeks and months) and whether it would not be important now for this House and for the Government to see clearly the logical consequences of the policy upon which this country is now embarked?
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have been asked a question. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer it. It is of course always open to the House, if it wishes, to initiate a debate, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was aware of this when he made his point; but it is not customary to initiate a debate immediately upon the making of a Statement.
1582
If a debate is wanted, it is open to the noble Lord to put down a Motion, and this can be the subject of discussion through the usual channels. I think it is quite likely that at some time in the next few weeks we shall have occasion to debate Rhodesia. I hope that noble Lords, when they have considered this further, would wish to think about the desirability or otherwise of a debate. But certainly I should be anxious—and I am sure that my noble friends on the Government Front Bench would be anxious—to meet the wishes of the House in the matter.
3.47 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that all of us would welcome a debate on Rhodesia—and the earlier the better. But I hope that the noble Lord and the Government will not try to ride off this issue to-day by submitting it to the general question. It is not a general question. It is an incident of a particularly acute kind. I should like to ask the Government one question. Are they aware that the withdrawal of a passport usually implies doubts as to the loyalty of the holder? In these circumstances, I appeal to the Government to rescind this decision of the Minister against this very distinguished public servant. Do the Government not realise that there is to many of us, as my noble friend Lord Carrington has said, something not only new but profoundly shocking in the whole idea that action such as this should be taken against a man—and especially against such a man as this, with his great record of service to this country—and that his personal honour and loyalty should be impugned without t any charge being made against him or any evidence produced? May I ask what is the evidence on which this action has been taken? What is, accurately and definitely, the evidence?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as a Minister I have the right to defend the Government. I have also to take into account the fact that Sir Frederick Crawford has, as I understand it, indicated that he wishes to return to the Commonwealth Office to discuss this matter (I rely on a "tape" report. which is generally accurate), and has himself said that he does not wish to go into the matter any further. Therefore I think it

1583
would be utterly wrong, even in order to defend the Government, if I were to give reasons why Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State have made this decision. But I must say to the noble Marquess, though he may not accept it, that in fact the régime in Rhodesia is illegal, is treasonable; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the declaration of independence was directed against Britain and the Crown. I do not doubt that in the minds of most people this regime is regarded as illegal, and anyone who gives comfort and support to it must bear the responsibilty of such action.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is there not a wider and more sinister aspect to this incident? Is the noble Lord aware that this gentleman is a director of one of the largest firms in Johannesburg, which may be thought to be bringing aid and comfort to Rhodesia by its interest there, among other world interests? Therefore are we not seeing the first shot in a confrontation with the Union of South Africa, and are the Government giving consideration to what the escalation of that is going to mean to our economic situation and unemployment in this country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, an assurance that this decision was not taken because of the fact that Sir Frederick Crawford is the resident director in Rhodesia of this large organisation. It was taken purely on what we believe to be his personal activities.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, must, as a result of these exchanges, have realised that your Lordships, probably on both sides of the House and whatever their feelings about Rhodesia and the illegal regime, must be very uneasy about what the Government have done in relation to this matter. I should have thought that that was the general feeling. The noble Lord has said that he finds it difficult to justify what the Government have done because he feels that he must not do so in the interests of Sir Frederick Crawford. In that case, I do not think that one can press the noble Lord any further. But would he, in the light of
1584
this feeling—which, I should have thought, is shared by almost all of your Lordships—be prepared to make a further Statement on the subject on Monday afternoon when the House meets again?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that there must be disquiet, particularly when individuals are involved in circumstances like this. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows me and knows my colleagues. I know my Secretary of State and I know that these decisions would never have been taken lightly. I should not wish to give an assurance that I would make a Statement next week. The Government are not the only people involved here. I would say, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I am prepared to see him and talk with him on a basis which we understand, and, if the circumstances then warrant it, to make a Statement. But I should have thought that in the present circumstances it would be wrong to commit me to a Statement at any particular time, in view of the fact that we are not the only people involved in this matter.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, a question of principle arising out of the replies he has given? May I ask whether British subjects who are arbitrarily deprived of their British passports in this way are entitled to receive Nansen certificates, or other international travel documents, which are issued to all persons not possessing national passports, to enable them to travel freely abroad? This is something which is not denied to anyone else in the world.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that Sir Frederick Crawford, like his wife, was given a document for his return to Rhodesia.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, Sir Frederick wanted to go on holiday with his wife to Southern Portugal this week, and he was told at the Commonwealth Office that that would not be permitted.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would confirm that, and it is one of the things that was borne in mind when we made this decision.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as Sir Frederick Crawford has

1585
undertaken to come back for further consultations with the Commonwealth Office, would it not be a generous and proper move to restore his passport pending the result of those consultations, in order that this man may take a perfectly innocent holiday with his wife?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the decision has been taken. I could not undertake to meet the noble Earl, but I understand that Sir Frederick Crawford will be coming to the Commonwealth Office, and we shall not in any way delay receiving him and considering what further things he wishes to say to us.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? As I understood from one of his earlier replies, he bases the legal position on the fact that a passport is the property of Her Majesty and can be withdrawn from anybody who possesses it; and it has been withdrawn from this particular man because he has given comfort to the Rhodesia régime. If I am right, that first principle applies to every holder of a British passport, whether resident in this country or not. May I ask him whether the Government think they would be entitled to withdraw a passport from any British citizen who makes adverse criticisms in this country of their Rhodesia policy; who holds that Rhodesia policy to be wholly wrong and immoral? Could such a man have his passport taken from him on these grounds?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it depends on the extent to which he gives aid and comfort and also to what extent he is involved with the illegal régime. We in this country still value freedom of speech—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHEPHERD: —something we should like to see return to Rhodesia, something we should like to see back in Rhodesia. All these cases are judged on individual merit and the circumstances of the case.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in recognising that, does not the noble Lord also recognise that in the light of what he has said he has branded this man as guilty of conduct akin to treason; and
1586
has done so without any charfge being preferred; without any trial and without any evidence being adduced? The noble Lord has the opportunity of adducing the evidence on which he has acted, and I, for one, shall look forward to seeing it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is being less than fair. You can twist words which is not the usual activity of the noble and learned Viscount. I did not say that Sir Frederick Crawford had committed treason; what I did say was that he had given aid and comfort to an illegal regime, and there is no doubt about it—even on the Front Bench opposite or the noble and learned Viscount—that the Rhodesian régime is illegal.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before we leave this point—and I do not wish to prolong the debate—may I ask whether the noble Lord could take an early opportunity to set the record straight; because column 4 of the Hansard from which he quoted deals with losses from crime?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have my paper in front of me and I would not depart—perhaps we had better compare papers.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I may be the only Back-Bencher on this side of your Lordships' House who disagrees completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, attributed to most of the Members here. Constitutionally it seems to me that the Government are entitled to do what they did. If they did anything illegal in a, sense towards a private person, that private person has his re remedy in the courts. But, my Lords, I hear with some surprise noble Lords opposite protesting so fervently about what they conceive to be an injustice in this case, when the illegal régime in Rhodesia has for many months interned without trial its political opponents of whatever colour.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in case the Minister has the legal knowledge which apparently is possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would he tell us what is the legal remedy of a British subject deprived of his passport?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not think that there has been any legal wrong.

COUNTRYSIDE BILL
4.0 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I should like to put in a plea for the liberties of a class of persons not in any way concerned with the high constitutional issues which the Committee has been discussing. I was going to speak for the liberties of that small class of persons who like to propel craft manually rather than mechanically. When my children were younger, and when I was younger, I spent many happy days upon the waters of the Thames, punting, canoeing and sculling small boats in company with my family. That pleasure is now denied to many of Her Majesty's subjects. Mechanically propelled boats, spreading enormous ripples that would overturn our shallower craft, have rendered the water of rivers, and I suppose of lakes also exceedingly dangerous to us whose quiet pleasure meant so much. I rise to express the fervent hope that the powers given to local authorities under the proposed Amendment will include a power to permit manually propelled craft and to prohibit mechanically propelled upon all waterways.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: While I have some sympathy with the last speaker, it is generally true that on all navigable waters the nagivation authorities have power to remedy the situation under their by-laws. Unfortunately, they do not always use them. After studying the two clauses which we are comparing, I markedly prefer that of my noble friend Lord Kennet. The clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for example, says:
"Regulations for the control of vessels on any waterway",
whereas my noble friend's clause says:
"Traffic of any description on any lake".
I think that wording is better. Where there is a navigation, there is presumably a navigation authority which has power to make by-laws, and I think that these should be adequate.
What is more, a navigable waterway usually goes through the area of a large number of local authorities. For example, a local authority intending to regulate some aspect of navigation on the Grand Union Canal would probably find
1588
that it was regulating for a few miles here and a few miles there as the waterway zigzagged in and out of their area. That would be true of almost any legal navigation. A lake, on the other hand, is almost invariably either totally within the area of one local authority or within the area of at most two or three local authorities. What is more, in most cases there is no authority controlling the navigation on the lake. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's clause is distinctly better.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked Her Majesty's Government certain questions. There are three points I should like to raise, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give some information to the Committee on them. The first point is that it seems to me that there is a lack of consultation with the local authorities interested in the control of waterways. In the Lake District, in particular, there are local authorities other than the planning boards that have a great and deep interest in what is happening in the Lakes. For instance, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood well knows, the Windermere Urban District Council owns the bed of the lake. Therefore, it seems to me of great importance that with matters which affect the lakes—and no doubt there will be other cases of inland waterways elsewhere—and in which local authorities are concerned, there should be full consultation to find out whether there are any local or special needs and requirements which ought to be studied and considered. I hope the Government will look at this point and see to is that the anxiety of the local authorities concerned is allayed and that proper consultations can be arranged legally for full discussion of anything that may be done which may affect their interests.
The second point is that there seems to me to be a lack of advance publicity to proposals that may be made from time to time, and that there is a shortness of time for any representative body to air its views. As noble Lords know, it takes time, first of all, to appreciate and understand the effect of the proposals and, secondly, for those concerned representing various interests on local authorities to get together to discuss, assess and find out exactly the effects of those proposals. I think it is of great

1589
importance that as much advance publicity of proposals as possible should be given to all interested bodies so that proper consideration can be given to proposals and suggestions, which may have great merit in them, but which possibly may be opposed because they are not properly understood. I hope, therefore, that we can be given assurances that there will be adequate time for interested bodies and that there will be publicity and private information available for any proposals that may be made.
The third point I want to make is that it seems to me that here we are changing the function of the planning authority. The position in so far as the Lake District is concerned is that we have a planning authority that plans. It makes its recommendations about planning proposals. But as I see it, under this clause we are changing the functions of the planning authority so that it will become legislator, administrator and enforcement body. If that is taking place, that is an important change of policy and principle. I suggest that a planning authority has not the organisation available to legislate, administer and enforce. Surely that must be the job of the local authorities; that is what they are there for.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will have a further look at this, and will not require a planning authority to legislate, administer and enforce proposals. I hope that the planning authority, quite rightly carrying out these functions of planning, will not be required to do the job of the local authority, which is to administer and enforce and, as may be required, to produce by-laws for whatever it is required to control—public behaviour on the lakes or anywhere else. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some reassuring information on these three points.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to add a word or two in support of the observations which have just been made by my noble friend and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, as well. First of all, I would say that I support the general intention here, and on the whole I prefer Lord Kennet's version. I think there would be some difficulty if the point referred to
1590
by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, was not covered: in other words, the limitation to lakes rather than the application to all waters. But following the point that has just been referred to by my noble friend Lord Wakefield, I am not sure whether the procedure here—I refer to matters like making by-laws, charging schemes for vessels using the waters and so on—is going to be adequate to carry the load that will be put upon it. I am entirely in favour of by-laws being made. It is essential to have some sort of navigation control and navigation inspectors in order to keep down speed and noise to an acceptable level, and particularly to take care of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that unless high-powered launches are kept down to a reasonable speed, any prospect of being able to row a row boat or punt a punt disappears altogether.
I am entirely in favour of the intention of the Amendment which to me seems broadly to be on the right lines. But I think there is a deficiency, in that the clause does not seem to provide for any form of public inquiry where, the bylaws and the charging scheme having been advertised, objections could be heard and a final deliberation taken. If I may compare this with the procedure on the Thames Conservancy where charges are to be raised, that has to be done by Private Bill procedure. All objectors then have full opportunity to make any objections they wish, and the merits are then decided by Parliament. Although lake navigation would not be on the same scale as on the River Thames, undoubtedly it would be, and is already, considerable, and I should think it would be necessary to have tome regularised form of procedure, where after proper advertisement, and so on, the matter could be fully investigated and objections heard before the by-laws and charging schemes were approved.
The general intention here is, I am sure, excellent, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would look at these particular points before, the Report stage of the Bill. I am assuming that he has satisfactory answers to the important points made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, but I think the point that I am making may be a deficiency in this clause and may reed further study.
4.14 p.m.
LORD KENNET: We are considering formally Lord Inglewood's new clause, but we have been talking also about the new clause down in my name, which we shall reach shortly. I propose to continue to do just that, as it seems to be convenient to do so, on the understanding that if I satisfy the Committee that my clause is the one that will go in, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will withdraw his clause. I shall move my new clause formally when we get to it, and we can then amend it, if we wish to do so, on the Report stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked what bodies had been consulted in the drawing up of new Clause 35, the one in my name, and whether we had met all the points which had been raised by one of these bodies. If I were to answer the noble Lord in that form, "Yes" or "No", and if not, which we have not, I should have to tell him which points we had not been able to meet in the representations which have been made to us by 24 other bodies. So I think I will not do that. Let us consider the clause on its merits.
I have been asked ten identifiable separate questions, to which I shall do my best to give answers. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked: Would the local planning authority have power to make by-laws about the registration of vessels? Would it be open to them to make by-laws empowering them-selves not to register a vessel? I see the greatest difficulty about this. It could be done only on a "first come, first served" basis, or by reflecting it in the charging scheme in some way. I do not know whether it would be the wish of the Committee that it should be able to be done in this way. It seems to me that there are so many other powers which will be available for use in these by-laws, about which types of boat may be permitted on the lakes, at what speeds they may go, what noise they can make, and things of that kind, that to give the local planning authority power to make by-laws which would enable them to refuse to register a boat on sheer grounds of numbers—that is to say, that there are already so many other boats of the same type on the lake—might be a difficult thing to do. But I am going to say now what I shall say throughout: that I
1592
should be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, or both, or any other noble Lord who has spoken, between now and the Report stage to thresh out these matters, because they are detailed. I do not want to close any doors at this stage.
Secondly, there is the question of management—by-laws not to apply to waters which are owned or managed by certain bodies. It is true that all lakes, to some extent, come under the statutory jurisdiction of river authorities. Does this constitute management? No, it does not. The statutory right to abstract water and control the abstractions of water by others does not constitute management of the body of water for the purposes of the Bill.
On the definition of vessels, the Government did not think it necessary to list the kinds of vessels which might be covered by the by-laws, because subsection (1) of the new clause refers to "traffic of any description", and I am advised that this is wide enough to cover hovercraft, seaplanes and anything that human ingenuity could devise to get in, over or on the surface of a lake.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, inquired about the duty of local planning authorities to consult the owners of private lakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, inquired about their duty to consult local authorities who had an interest in the area, or were in the area, but were not planning authorities. The bylaws which can be made under this clause have to be published, objections have to be considered, and the Minister has to confirm them. I am not sure that it would be desirable to write in whom the by-law making authority should consult before they publish. The wise authority will certainly consult as many people as they can, including certain owners of lakes and other local authorities having an interest in the lake. So I should be against putting a statutory duty to consult, in view of the fact that by-laws must be published while they are yet provisional. But this I will say. We shall be sending a circular on this Bill to all local authorities, and in that circular we shall advise them what classes of persons or bodies the Minister thinks they ought to consult before publishing their draft by-laws.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Before the Minister goes further, may I ask him this question? Is it then intended that the planning board should make the by-laws, or is it intended that the local authority should make the by-laws, the local authority being the best person able to carry out and enforce such by-laws as may be made?
LORD KENNET: I was coming to that point, and I will do so now. The by-laws will be made by the local planning authority. They may under subsection (12) of the draft new clause be enforced by any local authority in the area relevant to the by-law. So I think there is a precedent here. Local planning authorities have been making by-laws under the 1949 Act all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, is quite right in saying that the local authority may be better equipped to administer and enforce a bylaw, and in areas where that is so the local planning authority will be free to pass over to a local authority the execution of the by-law under subsection (12).
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this perhaps raises a rather important matter. If the planning authority is to make the by-laws and the local authority is to be responsible for the enforcement, it may well be that the local authority will disagree with certain of the by-laws which the planning authority have made, and very considerable difference and difficulty may arise from such a situation. Those circumstances do arise. How are they to be resolved?
LORD KENNET: The local planning authority will have been advised by circular from the Minister to consult local authorities with an interest in the matter. The local authority expected to administer the by-laws once they are made certainly have an interest. The local planning authority may abstain from taking the Minister's advice and publish by-laws without consulting the local authority. In that case the local authority will no doubt object and the Minister will have to settle the matter. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
I was next asked about compensation, presumably for the removal of existing rights, when by-laws remove existing rights. It seems to the Govern-
1594
ment at this stage that there is no reasonable justification for by-laws interfering with or removing private rights in respect of lakes, except for such purposes as prevention of public danger or public nuisance. In the case of motor boats, this might mean that, provided the mode of nagivation did not constitute a public danger all the by-laws would need to do would be to require that the noise emitted by those boats should not constitute a public nuisance. We are talking here about rights on private lakes. If that is all the by-laws can do on these, it does not follow that they cannot prevent the appearance of certain classes of boats on public lakes where at the moment there are no existing rights, or even where there may be rights but they have not appeared. It is a complicated matter, but I hope I have given sufficient explanation.
On the question of advance publicity for the draft by-laws, I think that this is related to the other point which Lord Wakefield raised. They have to be confirmed, and I can assure the House that they will not be confirmed with indecent haste. It is not often done by Ministers, and it will not be done in this case either. On the question of the right which Lord Nugent of Guildford inquired about, the right of public inquiry—that is, as opposed to the consideration of representations—this is a question which I should like to consider further and take further advice upon. For the moment I am not convinced that we should change the provisions in this draft clause, but it is obviously an important point, and perhaps if we could be in private communication about it between now and Report stage we could cover that matter, too.
This has been a lengthy discussion, but it is a lengthy and complicated matter. I believe that the new clause should give that degree of control to local planning authorities which they ought to have over lakes in National Parks. I hope that they are not going to use it in such a way that any other bodies will wish they had never been given it. I have no reason to suppose they will. I hope we have got the solution right. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for the preparatory work he has clone on his subject. I hope he did not have to do a lot of work he would not have done if he had been perfectly confident that I was

1595
going to put down a new clause on my own. I always was; there was no question about that. But, at any rate, there was no harm in having the matter opened up earlier and getting people to think about it. I am grateful for what he has done about that, and I hope that the new clause, Amendment No. 35, will meet with the approval of the Committee when we come to it.
4.26 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his explanation of his clause, and I think I can say to him that I did not put an undue amount of work into this subject, in which I have in fact been interested for about fifteen years. I cannot claim the authorship of the new clause standing in my name which is appearing on your Lordships' Order Paper and having its third outing, because it appeared twice on the Order Paper of another place. Even if it has not attracted the support of noble Lords, I am sure that its repeated appearance has encouraged the Government to draft and put this clause in the Bill, which they were reluctant to do when the subject was first broached. I am very grateful, too, for the invitation to discuss various small points between now and the Report stage. I am sorry that I personally shall not be able to accept that invitation, because I shall be going abroad to-morrow for a few days—that is, unless the Government take my passport away.
With regard to the questions, on the first one I think I shall have to take advice as to whether, before the Report stage, my noble friends feel that some words should be added, in the interests of safety if nothing else, to give a power to refuse registration as well as a power to register. Everyone in the Lake District will be extremely grateful, I think, for what the noble Lord has said about the definition of the word "manage", which was not clear until he spoke. As for the question of the definition of "vessels", he has made it clear, I think (which was what the Lake District Planning Board wanted), that his definition is intended to be as wide as theirs, even though it is set out in less detail.
The last point is with regard to consultation. I did not mention consultation with local authorities because I assumed
1596
that in circumstances like this all local authorities consulted one with another. But I thought there was a danger that where the lake was privately owned and managed—and Bassenthwaite, for instance, is owned and managed by the noble Lord, Lord Egremont—so far as circumstances are like that, it is quite possible for by-laws to be made without consultation. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that it is a proper procedure in fact to draft these, as it were, in secret and then to publish them, so that the first opportunity which people have of knowing about them is when they are published. I think that we should look at this point again to see whether some duty to consult should not be inserted in the Bill.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord will bear in mind what I said about the circular we shall be sending out.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Yes; but I like to think that when we are considering a Bill, which will be part of the law of the land, we see that words which are important in the interests of the individual are inserted in the Bill. However good the Minister's intentions may be about circulars, the Bill and circulars are two different things, and it is right that some things should be in the Bill and others should be in the circular. I should have thought that the duty to consult ought probably to be inserted in the Bill. I thought the Minister passed off rather lightly the question of compensation. I do not think at the moment it is a big issue, but it could become an issue, and I should like him to consider it further. I ought to have declared an interest at the beginning of this speech. I do not own any part of any lake, but I think it is right and proper to say that I own a small and not very valuable part of the shore of one lake, and the only part of that shore of mine which is of any value I let to Lord Egremont, for much below its real value. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: May I intervene for a moment on this matter? It is obvious that it is the Lake District which is mostly interested in it. This matter is one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has told your Lordships, has been very much in the minds of everybody who has been concerned with the

1597
Lake District over these last years. I speak as President of the Friends of the Lake District, an organisation who have been particularly concerned with this problem. I am sure they would wish me to say how much they appreciate this new clause which the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, is going to move and which he has explained. It is even longer than the one which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and it has been put down at rather a late date. So one has not had the opportunity of giving it the attention and study which it deserves, and which undoubtedly it will have in the Lake District from all the organisations concerned with this problem.
Therefore, while I would express my gratitude, and that of my friends, for this gesture on the part of the Government, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate that we may wish to put down Amendments or to ask further questions, and to present a further analysis, at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MOLSON: There are just two small points that I should like to mention before this Amendment is withdrawn. I hope that on further thought the Minister will agree that there should be power to limit the number of registrations. I can imagine circumstances in which much of the amenity of a lake would be completely destroyed by there being an unduly large number. In my view, "First come, first served" is a reasonable principle which might well be applied in this respect.
The noble Lord expressed the hope that we had not gone to undue trouble in drafting our Amendment. Of course, it would not have been necessary for us to put down this Amendment, which was, as my noble friend has said, taken from the drafting which was done in another place, if the Government had put down their own Amendments a little sooner. I made a complaint the day before yesterday that a number of Amendments had been promised but had not yet been put down. I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the inconvenience which results when it is promised in another place that an Amendment will be put down for discussion here, and it is put down only rather belatedly for the Committee stage here or (as in the case of Amendments to which we are
1598
coming later) has not yet been put down at all. To have these matters discussed on Report here, when noble Lords are supposed to make only one speech, is no substitute for having them at Committee stage, when we can discuss them fully and also consult local authorities and other interests concerned.
LORD KENNET: In regard to the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I would point out teat it does happen in a democracy that after a Bill has initially been discussed the Government become convinced on something about which they were not convinced at the time the Bill started on its way through Parliament. Any Government is faced with the dilemma: What shall we do? Shall we try to catch up with the Bill and take the right course of action, in which event we shall be late with the Amendment and therefore incur blame; or, on the other hand, shall we do nothing whatever about it and let the Bill go forward unamended although we are now convinced that a change should be made?
LORD MOLSON: The Parliamentary Secretary has quite misunderstood my remarks. Of course I agree about this and we much appreciate the fact that the Government have drafted this Amendment. But what is unsatisfactory is that it was put down only two or three days before it was due to come up for discussion in this Committee.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lore did not quite take the point I was making. The Amendment could not have beer put down earlier and yet take into account the discussions that were necessary with the 25 bodies to which I have already referred.
LORD HENLEY: I find this unconvincing, because the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is not very different in substance from that of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. In fact it is in no small measure drawn up on the arguments that produced the Amendment, both at Committee stage and at Report stage in another place. That being so, although I accept all his arguments I think in this particular case he could have put down this Amendment earlier.
LORD KENNET: If the Committee go on like this I shall regret ever thinking that we ought to try to catch up with this Amendment. I hope the Committee will agree that it was a good thing to have it put down and in the right form. I do not think anything can exonerate the Government from finding out for itself the views of various bodies—not even the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I hope our Amendment will be acceptable, despite its lateness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.35 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of powers of rivers authorities to provide and control water recreational facilities and services
".—(1) Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 79(4) of the Water Resources Act 1963 (which specify waters to which river authority's bye-laws for prohibiting and controlling the recreational use of waters in their areas are not to apply) shall cease to have effect as from the passing of this Act.
(2) Section 80(6) of the said Act of 1963 (which limits the expenditure of river authorities on the provision of recreational facilities on inland waters subject to regulation by bye-laws made under section 79) shall also cease to have effect as from the passing of this Act and:—

(a) subsection (2) of that section shall have effect as if the" Subject to subsection (6) of this section "were omitted; and

(b) after subsection (4) of section 83 of that Act (which prescribed the amounts to be credited and the expenditure to be debited to the water resources fund) there shall be inserted the following new subsection:—

"(4A) References in this section to the new functions of a river authority shall be deemed not to include the exercise of the powers conferred on a river authority by section 80 of this Act."."
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause to which the river authorities attach some importance, and I hope it will prove to be another example of a case where the Government have become convinced during the passage of the Bill that this is an improvement which could be made to it. I should apologise for the complicated form of the new clause, by reference to other Acts of Parliament, but I think the effect of it is fairly simple. Broadly speaking, the effect of it will be to bring the effect of the Water Resources Act 1963 with regard to the powers of
1600
river authorities to provide water recreational facilities, or indeed to make bylaws controlling them, broadly into the spirit of this Countryside Bill some five years later.
I should say in passing that in 1963 the river authorities pointed out that the Act was rather tightly drawn in this respect, but their comment went unheeded. The effect of this Amendment would be to do two things: first, at present river authorities have a free hand, as regards the reservoirs they own or manage, to provide water recreation facilities. They have power to provide these facilities on other waterways—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will correct me if I make any technical mistakes in this rather complex matter—if they provide facilities which are self-financing. In other words, the charges for boats, and so on, must raise sufficient money to pay for the facilities which the river authority provides. In practice, that simply is not possible. With the experience I have of the Thames Conservancy, I know quite well that what I believe to be the good facilities that exist on the Thames simply would not be there if the river authority had only the revenue from the registration fees. Much revenue has to be raised in other ways in order to make the navigation facilities good and comfortable in every respect.
What the river authorities are seeking by means of this new clause is a relaxation of the restrictions existing under the 1963 Act, so that they may use their other finances in order to supplement the revenues that they might earn from boat registration fees, and so on. They would not seek to do this by increasing their water charges in the charging scheme, but by an addition to the precept which they make on the local authorities through which their waterways pass. So in effect the ultimate burden would fall on the local people, as is the general structure of this Bill. I feel that this is a sensible Amendment which will enable river authorities to do more on waterways where they have navigations to develop further those navigations for the benefit of the community and generally in the spirit of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD KENNET: I should broadly confirm that my understanding of the effect of this Amendment is the same as the noble Lord's. Noble Lords may like to know that this is identical to a new clause introduced in Standing Committee in the House of Commons, where it did not find favour. The effect of this Amendment is so much to increase the recreation providing powers of the river authorities as to put them into competition with the local authorities—or not necessarily to put them into competition, but to give them concurrent powers in certain circumstances in places with the local authorities as the main instrument of the policy embodied in the Bill. The Government remain convinced, as they have been throughout—and as I said on an earlier stage when we were talking about the relationship between local authorities and the Countryside Commission itself—that what I said then applies also to the relationship between local authorities and river authorities, that it was a difficult question to decide which body in which place should be the one to exercise the powers.
That question was decided, and as I believe rightly decided, some time back; it was decided that the local authorities should be the recreation providing bodies throughout, and that any functions accruing to other bodies under this Bill should simply be such as could not be exercised conveniently by the local planning authorities. One may think at once of the experimental functions of the Countryside Commission itself. The effect of this Amendment would be to extend the river authorities' powers for making bylaws about recreation to all sorts of other waters over which they do not have them at the moment; namely, tidal water, inland waters in relation to which navigation, harbour or conservancy authorities exercise functions, and certain lakes, ponds or reservoirs which do not themselves discharge into any other inland water.
The reasons against this Amendment are twofold. The first, as I have said, is that it is a sort of backdoor way of conferring the main functions on the river authorities as well as local authorities. The second is that the river authorities exist, after all, primarily for the conservation of water, and their by-law making powers and all their statutory
1602
powers are directed primarily to that purpose. They have certain secondary powers about providing recreational facilities. But this Amendment would even give them power to regulate recreation in places where the primary powers over the body of water were exercised by other sorts of bodies altogether, for instance harbour authorities, and in tidal waters and so on. In other words, for the same reasons as were stated in another place, I must advise the Committee against accepting this Amendment, not, I may say, because I think the river authorities would do it badly, nor indeed that it is intrinsically an undesirable thing that river authorities should do more provision of recreation, but mainly and overridingly because the Bill singles out the local planning authorities as the right ones to do the job wherever they can.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kenner, for his considered reply to this Amendment. He made one statement which I thick on consideration he will find not entirely correct. He said that the river authorities exist primarily for the conservation of water with only certain secondary powers for recreation. This simply is not true. River authorities are responsible for a vast range of functions in connection with land drainage, and it would be very difficult to develop these recreational facilities without having some regard to the application of those functions Land drainage includes such things as dredging, maintenance of banks and so on. These should be directly related to the use of rivers and waterways for recreational purposes. Then when we come to fisheries, river authorities are the statutory authorities for fisheries. It simply is not possible to consider developing recreational facilities on a river with navigation without considering the fisheries as well. I can assure noble Lords that the kind of conflicts that go on between fishery interests and navigational interests are unlimited, and to have one authority responsible for one and another authority responsible for another would make confusion completely confounded. The noble Lord really is not on good grounds.
I urge the noble Lord to look at this again. If he does not like the clause in its present state, we are willing to take it back again and get it into a state tie would like before Report stage. It really

1603
is not going to make a sound basis for what we all want to see in these country parks where rivers are concerned if local authorities are put in to try to operate over the top of the existing statutory responsibilities of the river authorities. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I have already made. I am sure I am right here. I urge the noble Lord to agree to take this back, and if he does not like my clause we can put down something that suits him on Report stage.
4.47 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: I am bound to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said. I was convinced by the argument the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, adduced as to why this particular Amendment is not a good one, but I was not convinced by the arguments he adduced yesterday to reject a similar Amendment to bring river authorities into the Countryside Bill in a more comprehensive way. It seems to me that you cannot have a Bill of this kind, a great deal of which will be concerned with rivers and water, unless the river authorities have a much closer association with it than they have at present. The noble Lord pointed out a certain clause in the Bill which goes some way towards that; but it does not go far enough. Unless you get the co-operation of river authorities in a much better way than the Bill at the moment proposes, you will not get the water side of the Countryside Bill on the right basis at all.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, taxed me with error and inconsistency, and the basis of what he said was that there ought not to be one authority providing recreation on a given bit of water and another authority looking after the banks and fish. I hope that I do not misinterpret him. But his Amendment would have the river authorities looking after the recreation on certain bits of water, and harbour or conservancy authorities exercising other functions over those same bits of water. As between our two inconsistencies, perhaps there is not much in it. I would still maintain that the primacy of the local planning authority is a principle which must be maintained throughout the Bill. However, I do not wish even to give the appearance of not consider-
1604
ing anything enough, and once again, if the noble Lord would like to meet me between now and Report stage, to thresh out something which would be entirely free of the disadvantages which I have enumerated, and which, I must repeat, are in my view quite grave, I should be very happy to do so if he would consent not to press his Amendment to-day.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The last thing I wish to do is to divide the Committee on a Bill which is broadly non-controversial. I want to see the Bill as good as possible by the time we have finished with it. I am most anxious to meet the noble Lord and, if we can, to find an answer. But I am not entirely happy about the terms in which he made his invitation, because it seemed to me to indicate that he could not concede my point of principle here: my feeling that because the river authorities are already responsible for a number of important functions on their rivers they should have a rather different status from that which the noble Lord wishes them to have. What I am asking—and this is the effect of my Amendment—is that river authorities should have a little more scope in order to develop the navigational facilities on their rivers. A number of them already have statutory responsibility for certain sections of their rivers. The classic example is, of course, the River Thames, and the whole of the navigational functions of that river.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in his invitation, he is prepared to accept what I am asking for, which is a change of status in this relationship here which will make sure that, where rivers are concerned, the river authority will be joined in partnership with the local authority in making the country park. This is the point that I want to secure. I am sure it is a good one. If the noble Lord is willing to work out with me a structure by which, acceptably to him, that can be achieved, I shall be only too happy to meet him. But that is what I shall be asking for.
LORD KENNET: The Committee will not wish us to negotiate across the Table. I think I should not say any more than I have already said. The invitation is there if the noble Lord wishes to take it up: but the principle behind the Bill must be maintained.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: With some apprehension, but in order to show good will, I will withdraw this Amendment; but I warn the noble Lord that I shall expect some concession.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Conservation of natural beauty
11. In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.
4.53 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to the clause:
"and its flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features."
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has an important engagement elsewhere, I beg to move on his behalf Amendment No. 31. The object of this Amendment is twofold: first, to make the full scope and significance of this important declaratory clause and all its implications plain upon the face of it in the clause itself. It is not satisfactory that in order to find out what the clause is intended to mean it should be necessary to refer to the interpretation clause. Clause 44, some 30 clauses further on. The Government must bear in mind that in legislating in a matter like this it is intended to give guidance to all and sundry, not merely to skilled and experienced civil servants but to everybody in any way concerned with the countryside. Therefore it is extremely desirable that Clause 11 should be really intelligible and that all its implications and its scope should be seen by anyone who reads it without having to refer to a clause, Clause 44, much further on, in order to find out exactly what it means.
By extending the normal meaning of the term "flora and fauna" in this way in various parts of the Bill, there is at least a risk of some confusion between the functions of the Countryside Commission and those of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy. They, too, are charged with the conservation of our flora and fauna as well as with duties of
1606
scientific research in connectior with them. But if in this Bill the Commission are to be charged also with a statutory duty to keep all these matters under review, some confusion and overlapping is likely to result. I understand that this has already happened in Scotland as the result of similar wording in the Countryside (Scotland) Act. We all agree that the Countryside Commission ought to have full regard to these considerations in their policies and administration, but I venture to doubt whether the Bill as at present drafted is the right or the best way of doing this.
My noble friend Lord Hurcomb raised these points on Second Reading, but on that occasion he was unable to stay until half past ten at night. Naturally, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not reply to those points, taking the line, which I think was not only justifiable but a great relief to those of us who were still here, that he would not answer all the points that had been made by Peers who were no longer here. This is a little more than a drafting point. I think the drafting is extremely important, but it is of even greater importance that there should not be any confusion between the responsibilities of the Countryside Commission and those of the other bodies to which I have referred, for looking after the flora and the fauna. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, at end insert ("and its flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features.")—(Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: I am in some doubt about this matter, because I simply do not understand how the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, proposes is going to clarify the dividing line between the Countryside Commission and the Natural Environment Research Council with regard to the protection of flora and fauna. I shall be most grateful, and perhaps the Committee will be, if he can explain how it will have that effect. I should like to know this to before I answer the noble Lord in regard to the Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: As the Parliamentary Secetary realises, I am moving this Amendment on behalf of Lord Hurcomb, who cannot be here. I think the point that he wishes to make is that the flora and fauna are the responsibility of the

1607
Countryside Commission in so far as they are concerned with the preservation of the beauty and the amenities of the countryside as a whole. The special scientific responsibility is imposed upon the other two bodies.
LORD KENNET: Yes, of course, that is so. It is so under the Bill as it stands. It would still be so under the Bill if the Amendment were carried. There is a possibility of confusion. I should like to address myself first to the general and informative question rather than have a discussion on the question whether the clause shall stand part. The Government have thought about this possibility of confusion. We do not know of any evidence that there is confusion or overlapping or duplication of functions as between the Commission and the N.E.R.C. They are both Government-financed bodies and I would advise your Lordships to leave this matter to the ordinary administrative controls of Government funds. The Treasury will certainly see to it that two Government-financed bodies are not doing the same thing.
To turn to the Amendment, Clause 11 refers to: the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside", while Clause 44, the definition Clause, says in subsection (4), that the conservation of "natural beauty" of an area shall include the conservation of "its flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features". We are inivited to carry that definition up into the main clause, the declaratory clause which governs all this. I think it would be a very eccentric person who, even for a moment, believed that the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside excluded all or any of the flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features. What else could it be made up of? That is what natural beauty is—just those four things. If anybody were so eccentric as to charge the Commission, or any of the public bodies we are talking about, with paying attention to one of those four things which was not, or ought not to be, included in the term "natural beauty and amenity" then the public body concerned could instantly turn to Clause 44, subsection (4). I would advise the Committee that it does not make any difference where we have the definition, whether in the definition
1608
clause or up in the declaratory clause; and for the sake of smooth reading one would rather keep this point of supererogatory definition where, to my mind it belongs—in Clause 44.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his courteous and full reply. I still think that when you are referring to the beauty of the countryside it is an advantage that you should say in the same clause what it is, instead of having this rather cumbrous method that in order to know exactly what is included you turn to the interpretation clause much further on. But I have moved this Amendment in order to obtain an explanation from the Government, and naturally I reserve the right of my noble friend to raise the matter again on the Report stage. Certainly, so far as I am concerned I do not wish to pursue the matter any further; and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.2 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to the clause:
"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section if it appears to a local planning authority in relation to any land in their area comprised in a National Park that it is expedient to make provision for the conservation of the existing character of any such land they shall, after consultation with the Commission, pass a resolution designating such land (herinafter referred to as an "amenity conservation area") for the purpose of this section.
(3) As soon as may be after the passing of a resolution under this section the local planning authority shall submit the resolution to the Minister for confirmation.
(4) Upon the Minister's confirming the resolution the local planning authority shall publish in a newspaper circulating in the area to which the resolution relates a notice stating that the resolution has been confirmed and the general effect thereof and after the date of the publication of the notice no person shall execute or cause to be executed any agricultural, afforestation or other operation which would alter the existing character of any land in the amenity conservation area unless at least three months before the works are executed but not more than six months before they are begun notice in writing of the proposed works has been given to the local planning authority.
(5) Where a local planning authority receive notice of any proposed works under this section they shall, as soon as may be, send copies of the notices to the Minister and the Commission, and to such other persons as the Minister may specify.
(6) If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of conserving the character of any amenity conservation area designated and confirmed in accordance with the provisions of this section, and having regard to the interests of agriculture and forestry, they may make an order (hereinafter referred to as an "amenity conservation order") prohibiting as may be specified in the order the carrying out in that area of agricultural or afforestation or other operations which would alter the existing character thereof.
(7) An amenity conservation order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Minister and he may confirm any such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient.
(8) Provisions may be made by regulations under this section with respect to the form of amenity conservation orders and the procedure to be followed in connection with the submission and confirmation of such orders, in particular, requiring notice to be given to any owner and occupier of the land comprised in the order, for publicising the making of the order in a local newspaper, and for any representations made in accordance with the regulations to be considered by the Minister before the order is confirmed by him.
(9) If it appears to the Minister that an amenity conservation order should take effect immediately he may confirm the order provisionally without complying with the requirements of any such regulations with respect to the consideration of objections and representations; but any order so confirmed shall cease to have effect at the end of six months from the date on which it is so confirmed, unless within that period it has again been confirmed, with or without modifications, after compliance with those requirements.
(10) (a) The local planning authority shall be liable to pay compensation to any person having an interest in any part of the land comprised in an amenity conservation area in respect of any damage or expenditure caused by or incurred in consequence of the making of an amenity conservation order or in respect of the loss of income consequent on the making of such order;
(b) any question of disputed compensation under this subsection shall be determined in accordance with section 128 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (reference to Lands Tribunal).
(11) If any person contravenes the provisions of subsection (5) of this section or of any amenity conservation order he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100; and where a person convicted of either offence fails to take such reasonable steps as may be necessary to prevent any damage or further damage resulting from the offence, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 for every day on which the failure continues.
(12) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory
1610
instrument which will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, moved on behalf of the County Councils of Somerset and Devonshire. It refers particularly to one of the smaller National Parks, Exmoor, which has only some 170,000 acres. Owing to the development of agriculture, and especially to the encouragement given by the Ministry of Agriculture to the enclosure of land and the ploughing up of rough land, the area of the wild countryside of Exmoor is being 'educed at the rate of some 600 acres a year. The charm and beauty of Exmoor result especially from the impression of unspoiled, rugged wildness. There is, of course, a beauty of the carefully cultivated countryside, with ploughed fields and fences, and so on, but that is not the especial charm and beauty of Exmoor.
The two county councils which are responsible for it consider that they have been made responsible by Parliament for the preservation of Exmoor as it is. Lines of posts and wire fences have appeared where none existed before. The features of Exmoor which have been so universally admired by everyone who has seen them are the heather moors, with their colourings, and the steep-sided combes. It is, I am sure, an unintended result of the agricultural policy of successive Governments, and of the ploughing up grants that have been made in trying to increase the production of food in this country—and indeed to advance the interests of the agricultural community—that in the case of this small and beautiful National Park the effects should be gradually to diminish the special beauties that are associated with the name of Exmoor.
This problem, which I have mentioned here on previous occasions, was shown to the Minister responsible by the Chairman of the Exmoor National Park Joint Advisory Committee, and certainly the representatives of the two county councils gathered that the Minister himself was very much concerned at what he saw was happening. He said that he did not think a complete planning control of all forms of land use within National Parks was a practicable arrangement, at any rate at the moment, and that although more use could be made of Article IV directions, unfortunately he was not at all sure that

1611
that would serve the purpose. He then went on to say something which gave a good deal of encouragement. He conclude by saying—and I quote his exact words:
"This may well require legislation, and I shall ensure that all possible courses of action are thoroughly considered to see what measures should be incorporated in the proposed Countryside Bill."
This is an opportunity which the Government now have of carrying out their declared policy of preserving the amenity and beauty of the countryside. The agricultural legislation which is in force at the present time does not give to the Minister of Agriculture a discretion to refuse to pay a grant for the ploughing up of land on Exmoor which would have the immediate and necessary result of diminishing still more the small acreage of that beautiful wild part. This is the legislation which gives the Government an opportunty of giving effect to what the Minister said he would like to see done. Without going so far as to say that an express promise was made, I hope that the consideration that has since then been given will enable the Government either to accept this Amendment or perhaps to draft themselves another Amendment which will have the same effect. It is on behalf of the county councils concerned in the administration of Exmoor that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Molson.)
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: As this Amendment does not affect in any way either the powers or the finances of the Countryside Commission, I hope that I shall be in order in expressing a view upon it. I am sure that my colleagues, as I, myself, on the National Parks Commission have very great sympathy with the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has in mind in moving this Amendment. We are deeply concerned to preserve the wild heather country in Exmoor and, indeed, on other moors as well; the same problem is likely to come up on the North Yorkshire moors, for example. But we are also deeply concerned to maintain good relations with the agricultural community. We can claim that in the last year or two we have improved relations with land-
1612
owners and farmers and with their organisations. In the first instance, we would rather approach this matter, not by way of giving power to the Minister to make an amenity conservation order, but by trying to pursue the possibility of making satisfactory agreements.
A later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, embodies a proposal which is aimed at exactly the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has in mind but which would not at this stage apply compulsion. It would make it possible for agreements to be made with landowners by which they would surrender their right to plough up land which has not previously been under the plough and, if they agreed to surrender this right, to receive suitable compensation. In the Scottish Act there is already a provision that where access agreements are made they cannot, as at present, be unilaterally denounced by the farmer. At present, a farmer who makes an access agreement can take out a parcel of land and say that it is to be excepted land and that he is going to plough it up. If he does this the other party to the agreement, the local planning authority, has no power to object.
The Scottish Act provides that this unilateral denunciation will no longer be possible, and that in the event of a farmer wishing to plough up the matter can be referred to the local planning authority. If the differences cannot be resolved the matter will go to the Minister of State—and this is laid down—who will have to weigh the amenity advantages against the possible agricultural gain in ploughing up. He will not decide the matter on purely agricultural grounds or on purely amenity grounds. In Scotland the situation is easier because the Minister of State deals both with agricultural matters and with amenity matters, and therefore has only to consult with himself. If some similar arrangement were made for England and Wales it would be necessary for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to consult with the Minister of Agriculture, the former advocating the amenity arguments and the latter countering with agricultural arguments.
The point I wish to make is that the Countryside Commission—or, at present.

1613
the National Parks Commission—are anxious not to alienate local communities of farmers and landowners. If we go as far as this, it may create fears among local agricultural communities which, though we know them to be groundless are likely to prejudice our relations with them.
5.14 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I add a word to this short discussion on this interesting point, particularly because later, if all goes well, I intend to move Amendment No. 38A, in the name of my noble friend Lood Brooke? I sympathise with the objective outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, but I would say to them that Amendment 38A is aimed in a positive way at doing what Lord Molson wants, and at achieving what was envisaged by the noble Baroness; that is, to restrain farmers by agreement, rather than by compulsion, from ploughing up these areas. I feel sure that the noble Baroness is right in her general policy that good relations with both farmers and landowners must be, in the interests of everybody, an object of the highest priority.
I assure my noble friend Lord Molson that I sympathise with his objective. The moors of Dartmoor and Exmoor were the haunts of my childhood. I still see them occasionally, and I agree that if these areas are developed patchily it may destroy the natural beauty, and that it is in everybody's interest, if possible, to put a brake on this sort of thing. But if it could be done by agreement in this way, that would be infinitely preferable. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will feel that this is the right approach to achieve the end result which we all seek.
LORD HENLEY: I am in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in this Amendment, but I also agree with the other two contributors to this discussion. There is one other danger which occurs to me. It may not be a very real one, but it is something one must bear in mind. I am very reluctant to accept the idea of having special amenity areas. It is rather like having a beauty spot. If one has a beauty spot, then, by definition, anything else "can go to Hell." I have a grave fear that if we
1614
allow special conservation areas to be part and parcel of what we are doing in this Bill, we shall allow the rest of the countryside to be, to coin a phrase (I see that the noble Lord is not here) "Lind-grenised"
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, yesterday made a passionate plea that the first object of this Bill must be that of recreation—the sort of fun-fair activities which could perfectly well be supplied in the town, and which he thought ought to be the first object of the Bill in the countryside. I do not agree. This is the sort of thing which the townsman wants to come out of the town to avoid. Therefore, if there is any danger of this kind of thing in having particular beauty spots and special conservation areas while the rest of the land may be allowed to become a fun fair, I deplore it. I do not think this is a very real danger, but it ought to be borne in mind.
LORD FOOT: I hope that this Amendment will be treated with the seriousness which I believe it deserves, and I hope we shall not dismiss it in a cursory or peremptory way. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has rightly pointed out, the Amendment is the product of the thinking of the Devon and Somerset County Councils which, through their Joint Committee, are responsible for Exmoor. The proposals contained in this Amendment have been worked out over a long period of time, and these responsible authorities are satisfied that it is only by having some provision of this kind that they will be able to prevent the progressive obliteration of the Exmoor National Park. Without powers of this kind, the Park Authority will not be able to exercise their duty of preserving the natural beauties and present condition of the Park, as they are required to do.
Moreover, I believe that the Amendment not only affects Exmoor but is important, as a matter of principle, from the point of view of all the other National Parks, particularly that from which I come, the Dartmoor National Park. I have been a member of the Dartmoor National Park Committee for some years, and I can still remember my surprise, in my early innocence when I was first appointed to the Committee, to discover that whereas we were put under the duty of preserving the natural beauty of the Park and promoting its enjoyment by the

1615
public, there were nevertheless yawning gaps in this control. In particular, we had no control over any forestry or agricultural activity.
We had no control over any agricultural activity, because that is excepted from the control, and we had no control over afforestation of what had previously been open land, because I understand that is not a change of use and therefore is not development. It came as a great surprise to me, in my innocence in the early days, to find that there were those great gaps in the Act. I think the author of what I believe is Section 84 of the 1949 Act, which says that in carrying out its functions a park committee must have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, must have been an ironist, because so far as the ploughing up or the afforestation of open land are concerned, a park committee is simply in the position of a powerless impotent bystander.
The way in which we carry out our first function under the 1949 Act—that is, the preservation of the existing natural beauties of the park—is mainly by exercising our powers as the planning authority. In the main, the amenities are preserved by our refusing planning permission to applicants, where we think that permission will seriously interfere with the amenities of the park. But, of course, in the case of the farmer or the landowner who wants to plough up what had previously been open moorland, or in the case of the forester who wants to plant on what had previously been open access land, there is no obligation upon him even to make an application. He does not have either to seek our permission or to obtain our permission. There is no sanction. There is nothing in the world we can do but watch these things happening; and they are happening not only in Exmoor, where the threat is acute and urgent, but also in Dartmoor. Time after time during these last years we have had to stand back and watch moorland being ploughed up under our eyes, utterly without any power to stop it.
There is reciprocity in this, because while we, the statutory body charged with the preservation of the park, are required to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, there is no obligation upon the agricultural and
1616
forestry interests to have any regard to amenity. It is entirely a matter for the individual judgment and individual standards of the person who wants to engage in that sort of operation. Is it not entirely wrong as a matter of principle that the statutory body, which is charged with these duties under the Act, should be quite powerless over this great range of activity? As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has already pointed out, the figures produced by the Devon and Somerset Committee indicate that the rate of erosion in Dartmoor by ploughing is something like 600 acres per annum.
One of the measures which one might have proposed is that for the future agricultural activities as a whole, and forestry operations, should come within the ordinary ambit of planning control, but of course that would have aroused every kind of opposition. This simple Amendment is nothing like so Draconian as that; nothing like as comprehensive as that. It is a very modest proposal indeed, and although the Amendment is rather long to read the sense of it can be expressed in a couple of sentences.
What the Amendment proposes is that a planning authority in a National Park should have the right to survey its Park and to designate particular areas of high amenity value, where it is of extra importance that preservation should predominate. Having done that, from then on anybody who wishes to engage in any operation in those designated areas must give notice of his intention to do so before he can start. Furthermore, the local authority is permitted to make an amenity order in respect of any part of the designated high amenity areas, and if that order is confirmed by the Minister—and indeed the designation of the area must, in the first place, of course be confirmed by the Minister—from then on operations which would affect the general appearance of that high amenity land cannot be carried on.
The area of Exmoor which might be made the subject of an amenity conservatiton order is in the neighbourhood of 33,000 acres. That is the maximum involved in the Exmoor National Park; something like one-twentieth of the size of the Park as a whole. All the ordinary safeguards to prevent an aggrieved person from being ill done-by are contained here. There are all the ordinary safeguards for

1617
the inquiry, and for his representations to be heard before any order is made.
So the sense of it is, first, that we want to apply this procedure only within the National Parks. Secondly, the land concerned is only a very small part of the National Parks. Thirdly, all the rights of anybody who might think himself disadvantaged or aggrieved are preserved, and he has every opportunity to be heard. Fourthly,we are providing that if anybody is financially damaged by reason of being denied the opportunity of pursuing ploughing or afforestation activities, then he will have the right to compensation. It is a very modest and limited proposal.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has gone, because I wanted to say a word or two about what she said. I must say that I was disappointed in the attitude that she took—and I have no doubt that the Committee will pay considerable attention to the view that she expressed—that this matter could be more satisfactorily dealt with by an Amendment which is to be moved later in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. As I understand it, the object of that Amendment is to say that if a landowner will enter into an access agreement with the local planning authority, once that has been done he cannot go back upon it and, from that time onwards, if the agreement relates to what is open country there is protection against the ploughing or afforestation of that land.
I suggest that there are two things wrong with that view. One is that it is entirely dependent upon the landowner originally being prepared to enter into an agreement; and if any landowner says, "No", there is nothing that anybody can do about it. The other mistake, if I may call it that, in that approach is that it is a cumbrous and illogical way of dealing with the problem, because what we are concerned with is the conservation of these areas of high amenity value to stop the change in the appearance and nature of the park and the moor. Surely it is a very illogical, roundabout way to try to do it through access agreements. We are not talking primarily about access here: we are talking about the preservation of amenities. I suggest that to try to do it in this roundabout way first of all will be ineffective if the landowner concerned will not co-operate and,
1618
secondly, is a very uncertain and roundabout way of achieving what is the real object in mind. I am sorry; I now see that the noble Baroness has merely changed her position. I did not realise she was still here. What I have been saying about her arguments applies equally, I suggest, to those of my noble friend Lord Henley, who took t1 e same view and thought that this matter could be easily disposed of.
It will be a matter of grave disappointment in Devon and Somerset and, I assure your Lordships, to all those people who have worked upon this Amendment for many years now and who have carried out very careful surveys, if this Amendment is discarded, possibly in favour of nothing, but possibly in favour of the subsequent Amendment, which I am quite sure the authors of this Amendment will not think meets their requirements.
5.32 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to make four points very shortly. First of all, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that the subsequent Amendment which has been referred to really does not go half far enough. I do not think it goes a quarter of the way which is required, for the protection of this sort of land, although it is useful so far as it goes. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has completely proved that it would not really provide the protection which is needed in these particular areas.
I also thought that what he said demolished the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this was legislation for a particular National Park, and that that was wrong. It is quite obvious that this legislation would cover the situation in quite a number of National Parks, as indeed the noble Baroness pointed out. Having just complimented the Minister on providing an Amendment which can hardly apply anywhere except to the Lake District, and which dealt with the subject matter of an Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, himself had added his name, it is rather strange that the noble Lord should take this view, because it is completely inconsistent. There is no other National Dark which is provided with lakes to anything like the extent of the Lake District, or which really requires the Amendment which the Government are proposing to

1619
give us for the protection of the lakes and the Lake District. I think that that argument just does not hold water.
Thirdly, I think it is quite clear—and what Lord Foot said really dotted the is and crossed the is to this—that however much one wished to get the farming community and the landowners on one side in regard to the management of National Parks, the element of disagreement, of enmity, which it is suggested would be raised among the farmers by the acceptance of this Amendment would be minute. I think Lord Foot made that point perfectly clear. Although I have the greatest sympathy with my noble friend Lady Wootton in what she said about trying to work in with the local people—I have seen that time after time in the Lake District—I do not think one ought to allow that to go too far and in effect to work up a bogey which hardly exists. In other words, I do not really feel that this is a serious objection to this Amendment.
What I do feel is a very serious point is this. It is quite obvious that, not only in the Exmoor National Park but in some other National Parks where there is this kind of land, if this is allowed to go on within a very few years there will be hardly any National Park left. We have seen from what Lord Strang has told us—and, indeed, it is something which those of us who have been in the movement know quite well—that if one were to come back in two years' time and say, "As a result of your not passing this Amendment in 1968 about half the remainder of Exmoor has already gone", and if one were then to ask for a new Bill, there would not be the slightest chance of getting it. It takes about ten years to get a Bill. As Lord Strang has mentioned, and indeed as we all know, time after time the old National Parks Commission came up with proposals for really essential amendments to the National Parks Act 1949, many of which we have now got in 1968—very nearly twenty years later. If we have to come back to ask for these clauses which Lord Molson is asking us to give him this afternoon, and have to get the Government to provide time for a Bill, there will obviously not be any real prospect of getting it. For these four reasons, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD KENNET: I have been doing some sums. I think this may be a good moment to assess progress upon this Bill. We have got as far as Amendment No. 32, out of 78 Amendments. A couple of days ago we sat for seven hours, I think, and to-day we have already sat, with an interval, for three hours. We are still considerably less than halfway through the Bill. So I hope that your Lordships' Committee will not hold it discourteous of me, still less peremptory, if I give very shortly indeed the Government's view on this Amendment. It can be summed up thus. We must all have the greatest sympathy with the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, as embodied in the Amendment, but I think we should all pay the greatest attention to the advice of my noble friend Lady Wootton, coming from a person holding her office, that to adopt this Amendment would be to go too fast. I shall end by saying that, if Lord Molson will withdraw this Amendment, when we come to Amendment No. 38A I shall turn what is popularly known as a smiling face on that part of it which covers the same subject matter as the Amendment now before the Committee.
LORD MOLSON: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly, but I am bound to say that I am extremely disappointed by the reply which the Government have given. In the first place, let it be noted that this Amendment is put forward on behalf of the County Councils of Somerset and Devonshire. Both those counties are predominantly agricultural. Probably the great majority of the members are much concerned to secure the franchise and support of the agricultural interests in those counties.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, this matter has been under consideration by the two county councils for a long time, and therefore I do not attach very much importance to the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, that this would be going too far and too fast. These are primarily agricultural counties, and they are asking for a clause of this kind. The alternative is really hopelessly inadequate. It gives no power to the Exmoor and Dartmoor authorities, or any other National Park authority, to take action in this matter.

1621
I can only say that to treat an access agreement—which was intended, under the Act of 1949, to give people the right to go on land without being trespassers—as a basis on which to exercise what is in fact, or should be, a planning function is a complete misunderstanding and a complete distortion of what the access agreements in the 1949 Act were intended to be.
In view of the attitude of the Government, I shall now withdraw this Amendment; but it will be in order to consult with the county councils concerned. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who comes from that part of the country and has been concerned with the administration of Dartmoor, is perfectly justified in making the claims that he has: that, without an Amendment of this kind as drafted by the two county councils, what everybody agrees they deplore, the gradual destruction of the wild beauty of Exmoor and Dartmoor, will continue. With those words, and with the indication that I reserve the right to bring up this matter again on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDYS: I hope I am in order at this juncture to make a few final remarks about Amendments 31 and 32 taken together. It will be remembered that on Second Reading it was said that Clause 11 was going to be printed as an illuminated text; and a very generous offer was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, that this should take place. Notwithstanding the fact that these two Amendments taken together would make a considerable addition to that text, I feel most earnestly that Amendment No. 31 especially is worthy of further attention. I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, told us in his reply than it would not make a bit of difference—and I think I am quoting him accurately—if the words "and its flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features" were left in or out. The tone of his reply rather indicated that this was an unimportant factor. But this is the main conservation clause in the whole Bill; so the noble Lord's reply would tend to indicate to me that this clause is
1622
thrown in as a sop to the amenity societies. I hope that he will be able to convince us that this is not so.
Amendment No. 32 is of especial interest to the counties of Somerset and Devonshire and I would not presume to be sufficiently knowledgeable of that area to embark on a further dissertation. But I would earnestly commend to the Government, in respect to Amendment No. 31, that the geological and physiographical features of the countryside are not dealt with sufficiently in other parts of the Bill although further aspects of conservation are dealt with in a later clause. For instance, it would mean to me that from the point of view of amenity and the needs of conservation there should be some restriction placed on such activities as the extraction of natural gas, water, all forms of minerals, stone, gravel, sand and other substances, removed from the ground throughout the United Kingdom. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will attach due weight to Clause 11.
LORD HURCOMB: I apologise to the Committee for not having been in my place when the Amendment in my name was moved on my behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I should like to say two things. I understand the Government attitude that the interpretation clause deals with this matter; but my point is that in order to discover what a clause means one ought not to have to read 30-odd clauses on. When the clause is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, an important declaratory clause, then what it is meant to declare ought to be obvious on the face of the clause itself. I suggest to him that in that particular it might be helpful if he were to undertake to issue in due course to all concerned a circular pointing out what Clause 11 really means.
Dealing with the other point to which I have referred twice in previous debates, I believe there is a good deal of doubt in the minds of local naturalist bodies and other bodies as to what exactly are the functions of the Countryside Commission on the one hand and the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy on the other. If it is a statutory duty of the Countryside Commission to keep under review all matters relating—
LORD KENNET: I wonder whether the noble Lord will yield? I think that if he were to read in HANSARD the remarks that I made before he was able to be here, he would find that they covered this matter.
LORD HURCOMB: I will certainly accept that advice; but if the remarks do not seem to me to cover the matter then I shall feel free to raise it again.
LORD KENNET: Before the Motion is put, I should like to repeat the assurance that I gave on the Second Reading. Clause 11 is meant to apply to everybody and is meant to include all the words found in it and all the words found in Clause 44(4) which further defines it.
Clause 11 agreed to.
5.47 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved to add to subsection (7):
"or of any enactment contained in or made under the Land Drainage Act 1930 or the Land Drainage Act 1961".
The noble Lord said: Clause 12(7) says:
"Nothing in the said section 13 as extended by this section shall authorise the carrying out of any operation in contravention of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949."
Evidently the Government Department and the drafter of this Bill thought it necessary to save the words of the Coast Protection Act in this clause. The position in regard to sea defences is that the local authorities are responsible for the urban areas, as it were, of the coast, and the river authorities are responsible for the non-urban or rural areas of the coast, especially the low-lying areas, which are thus included as coming under their functions as drainage authorities. Coast protection is divided between the two in this statutory fashion. My Amendment simply saves the Land Drainage Acts of 1930 and 1961 which cover the coastal areas not covered by the Coast Protection Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 23, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD KENNET: The proviso requires the local planning authorities to consult with any authorities
"which under any enactment have functions relating to the waterway in question as the
1624
Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct."
I can tell the Committee that the Minister intends to include river authorities and internal drainage boards in such a direction, and this will ensure that their interests under the Land Drainage Acts are safeguarded. That being so, I do not feel that this Amendment is necessary. It only makes clear that actions which are already illegal are not to be done by the planning authorities. One could sum up the Government's objection to the Amendment by saying that murder is also illegal but we do not put a stipulation in the Bill saying that it shall not be committed in the context of the Countryside Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I do not wish to be tiresome over a small point, but would the noble Lord then answer this quesion? Why is it necessary to put in the saving of the Coast Protection Act, which covers a limited part of the coast, simply the urban areas, but not to include a saving for the Land Drainage Act, which covers far more of the coast? Why is it necessary to put in one and not the other? I should be happy if the noble Lord took both out. Really, his answer about consultation simply is not an answer at all.
LORD KENNET: It is always an open question as to how far you should go in statutorily requiring consultation, because people always consult more than they are statutorily bound to do. If we were ever to approach the time when nobody ever consulted anybody unless he was statutorily bound to, and Parliament had always to ensure that it was a statutory duty to consult everybody who ought to be consulted, then our legislation would be congested indeed. I am not wedded to any particular way of ensuring that these consultations shall take place. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has put his finger on an apparent inconsistency. Whether it is really one or not I shall want to study further, and I suggest that we add it to the agenda of the forthcoming meeting.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Again I must assume that the Minister is going to be a little more forthcoming than he has been. My point is perfectly clear and I think that when the noble

1625
Lord studies it he will see that here there is a complete inconsistency. However, after the somewhat guarded undertaking which the noble Lord has given, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: This is really a consequential Amendment on the one which was moved by my noble friend Lord Beswick yesterday about the Harbours Act, to ensure that nobody spends more than half a million pounds on creating harbours under the Countryside Bill without getting the permission of the Minister of Transport as he is bound to do under other legislation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 23, at end insert ("or section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 ").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD KENNET: Amendment No. 35 is a long new clause about by-laws on lakes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved,—
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Lakes in National Parks: control of boats, etc.
".—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park shall have power to make byelaws for the prohibition or restriction of traffic of any description on any lake in the National Park.
(2) The power shall be exercisable for the purpose of—

(a) ensuring the safety of persons resorting to any such lake,

(b) regulating all forms of sport or recreation involving the use of boats or vessels,

(c) conserving the amenity and natural beauty of any such lake and the surrounding area, and

(d) preventing nuisance or damage, and in particular nuisance from excessive noise.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, byelaws under this section may—

(a) prescribe rules of navigation and impose speed limits,

(b) require the use of effectual silencers on boats or vessels propelled by internal combustion engines, and prescribe rules with a view to imposing limits on the noise or vibration which may be caused by any such boat or vessel,

1626

(c) prohibit the use of boats or vessels which are not for the time being registered with the local planning authority in such manner as the byelaws may provide,

(d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the registration of boats or vessels in pursuance of the bye aws,

(e) make different provision for different circumstances, and in particular may impose different restrictions in different parts of the lake and at different times or seasons.

(4) In acting under this section the local planning authority shall have regard to the fulfilment of the objects set out as respects National Parks in sections 1 and 5 of the Act of 1949, and, before making any byelaws, shall consult the Commission.
(5) Byelaws under this section shall not be made so as to extinguish any public right of way over any waters, but, except as otherwise expressly provided, any byelaws under this section shall apply to persons exercising any such public right of way as they apply to other persons.
(6) Byelaws under this section—

(a) shall be of no effect if and in so far as inconsistent with any rules under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which are in force as respects the water to which the bye-laws apply,

(b) shall not interfere with any functions relating to the water or land to which the byelaws apply which are exercisable by any authority under any enactment.

(7) This section shall not apply to any lake owned or managed by a river authority or by any statutory undertakers.
(8) Section 106 of the Act of 1949 (supplementary provisions as to byelaws) shall have effect as if byelaws under this section were byelaws under that Act.
(9) Subsections (1) and (2), and subject to the next following subsection subsection (4), of section 92 of the Act of 1949 (appointment of wardens of land for which byelaws may be made under section 90 of that Act) shall have effect as if the power of making byelaws conferred by this section was contained in the said section 90.
(10) For the purpose of securing compliance with any byelaws made under this section, a warden appointed under the said section 92 as applied by this section may enter upon any land, or go on any water, whether or not within the area where the byelaws are in force.
(11) Where two or more local planning authorities' areas consist of or include part of a National Park, the powers conferred t y this section may be exercised by them, or any of them, jointly, or may by agreement between them exercised by one local planning authority in the part of the National Park in the area of another.
(12) Byelaws made by a local planning authority under this section may be enforced by any local authority in the area of that other local authority.
(13) In this section "lake" includes any expanse of water other than a river or canal"
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Access to open country: rivers, canals and woodlands
14.—
(6) Subsections (2) and (3) above shall not apply as respects, or as respects land held with—

(a) a reservoir owned or managed by statutory water undertakers,

(b) a reservoir owned or managed by a river authority, or

(c) a canal, or a part of a canal, owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.

(7) The local planning authority, before making an access agreement or an access order under Part V of the Act of 1949 in respect of land outside a National Park which comprises—

(a) all or any part of, or of land adjacent to, any river, or

(b) all or any part of, or of land adjacent to, any canal other than a canal owned or managed by the British Waterways Board,

shall consult with such authorities, being authorities which under any enactment have functions relating to the river or canal in question, as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, in subsection (6)(a), to leave out "water". The noble Lord said: The effect of this very small change is to exclude from the provisions of Clause 14—which is about access to rivers and canals—reservoirs owned or managed by all statutory undertakers and not, as it is at present drafted, only those owned by statutory water undertakers. This is meant to deal with the position of the British Waterways Board who own a number of reservoirs. The Board already have a policy about this which is set out and illustrated in The facts about Waterways published in 1965, and that policy is to permit the maximum possible recreational use of their reservoirs. There is here a complicated position between two Bills now before Parliament. I am sorry to bother your Lordships with the technicalities, but I think that the Committee would desire it.
Clause 47(6) of the Transport Bill provides that in future:
"Without prejudice to the powers of the Waterways Board apart from this subsection, that Board shall have power to provide services and facilities for the use for amenity or recreational purposes (including fishing) of the
1628
inland waterways and reservoirs owned or managed by them."
The Board will therefore, under the Transport Bill, be on a similar footing to statutory water undertakers under Clause 19 of this Bill, and in common with those undertakers should be excluded from the provisions of Clause 14 of this Bill on the ground that the question of public access is adequately dealt with by alternative means. Moreover, the British Waterways Board's reservoirs are nationalised, and the Board are provided by the Transport Bill with powers and finance to make them available for recreation, so there seems no case for a further subsidy under the Countryside Bill to this nationalised body which already has the duty and the grant to provide recreation. The Committee may like to be reminded that under the Transport Bill the British Waterways Board are going to get about £1 million a year for the provision of recreation on all their waters—that is, canals as well as reservoirs, which we are talking about in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, leave out ("water").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (6), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This Amendment was a probing Amendment to find out why it was that access agreements to canals or waterways managed by the British Waterways Board were to be excluded. But having listened to the excellent explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explaining Clause 47 of the Transport Bill which provides for both a duty and a grant to provide this recreation, I already have my answer.
LORD KENNET: The effect of this Amendment is to require a local planning authority, proposing to make an access agreement or order in respect of land outside a National Park which comprises all or any part of or of land adjacent to any river,
"including any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river runs or any canal"
to consult with authorities exercising a statutory duty in respect of waterways

1629
concerned. This means that consultation must take place in respect of all the types of waterways and of the adjacent land—this is the point—to which Clause 14 applies. The subsection, as drafted, did not provide for consultation in respect of adjacent land to these expanses of water, and on further consideration the Government thought that it should. This is a simple Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("river") to end of line 42 and insert ("(including any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river runs) or any canal").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I make one observation? I should like to study what the noble Lord has told us. I think I am happy with it, but if I am not I am sure that he will be ready to consider any Amendment we might want to move on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
Access Agreements: Amendments of Act of 1949.
"—(1) In section 64(2) of the Act of 1949 after the word 'expenditure' there shall be inserted the words 'or loss'.
(2) After section 64(6) of the Act of 1949 there shall be inserted the following subsection:
(7) An access agreement may be made as respects land which was "open country" at the date when the relevant access agreement was made, to restrain its conversion to the status of "excepted" land as defined in section 60(5) of this Act and section 14 of the Countryside Act 1968, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary therein contained."
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 38A which is a new clause. The merits of this Amendment have been discussed to a considerable extent, and therefore I think it would probably be for the benefit of the Committee if I am brief. I should mention by way of explanation that subsection (1) of the new clause is put in in order to remove the doubt whether the wording of Section 64(2) of the 1949 Act would
1630
allow payment to be made to a farmer or forester under the terms of an access agreement for any loss he suffered as a result of his restraint to make the fullest economic use of that land. Therefore we have put that subsection in the drafting.
The broad effect of the nevi clause would be, as has already been mentioned in the discussion we had on my noble friend Lord Molson's new clause, to enable the planning authority to make access agreements in consideration of the farmer or the landowner concerned restraining his farming activities by agreement on reasonable terms of compensation being paid to him. Where such agreements are made, it would achieve the end which all of us wish to see in such areas as, for instance, Exmoor, which my noble friend so graphically described. It would give farmers the necessary incentive to refrain from agricultural development and achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, rightly wants, which is an amicable relation with landowner and farmer, because it would be brought about by agreement. Although I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, the new clause would largely cover the need we all feel here, and therefore should be acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I think that this Amendment does a little more than the noble Lord implied. It enables access agreements to be made between the local planning authority and farmers to cover a certain area of land. That can be done now, but at present if a farmer changes his mind during the currency of an agreement and wishes to plough up a portion of land covered by the agreement, he can do it unilaterally in spite of the agreement. The important part about this Amendment is that it prevents that unilateral decision on the farmer's side and makes it necessary that the matter should be referred eventually to the Minister.
LORD HENLEY: I think that this is an extremely good Amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Foot

1631
is not here. He felt that we had dismissed rather frivolously the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but I feel that this Amendment will give everything that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, wanted, if put into operation in Devon and Somerset. It also gets over the danger I always feel about making special areas.
LORD KENNET: The new clause is in two parts. The first seeks to make clear that a consideration covers loss. I am informed that there is no doubt at all that the clause as drafted does cover loss, and I think that the first part of this new clause is unnecessary. The second part though, both earlier and now, has met with a wide measure of acceptance. At first sight I think there is a great deal to commend it. When I have been able to go further into it and get better advice, I may well find that there are drafting and even bigger obstacles to doing it in the way suggested, but at the moment I do not know of any major obstacles. So, if the noble Lord would withdraw his new clause for the moment, we shall be able to discuss it between now and Report, and if nothing untoward happens I hope that the Government will be able to put down an Amendment covering the same ground on Report stage.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to have quite clearly from the Parliamentary Secretary an explanation of how far the Government are prepared to go. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, the farmer whose farm includes wild country is able to obtain certain subsidies and financial advantages if he improves that land. Are we to understand that in their anxiety to prevent the improvement of land in the National Parks from taking place, the Government are prepared to agree under this Bill that a farmer can be compensated to the same extent of financial advantage that he would have obtained had he improved the land? The Parliamentary Secretary looks a trifle puzzled. I will repeat it in other words. If a farmer could gain a certain financial advantage by ploughing wild country on his farm, are the Government prepared to put down an Amendment which will see to it that he does not forgo any financial advantage by leaving the land in its present wild, uncultivated state?
LORD KENNET: I could not possibly go that far now.
LORD HENLEY: Why not? Because in this Bill already the Minister is entitled to do that in areas of special scientific interest, and under the 1949 Act he is entitled to do so in nature reserves. It would not seem to be going too far to add the same principle for the land about which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is speaking.
LORD LINDGREN: Before my noble friend replies, I think this Committee ought to get down to a serious attitude towards this Bill. Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Molson, have been saying all the time that the land and its beauty ought to be kept as it is at the moment. Footpaths should not be made; there should not be access; fellows should not be allowed to ride their bicycles, and now where there is a piece of land which they declare is of great natural beauty and somebody says that for his own personal profit he could improve that land on an agricultural basis, noble Lords are asking that he should get a subsidy to cover all the amounts he would have received if he had improved the land. The aim of this Bill is to give access to the countryside to the ordinary man and woman of this country, so that they may enjoy its beauty and indulge in healthy recreation. This is not a Bill to give subsidies to landowners, and I am surprised at noble Lords putting forward the arguments they have this afternoon.
LORD MOLSON: I would say, with all courtesy to the noble Lord, that if he had been in the Chamber during the long debate on this subject, he would not have made the speech he has just made.
LORD HENLEY: Nor would he have made the astonishing speech he made yesterday.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replies, may I just make this point to him? Of course it is implicit in this new clause, which I understand the noble Lord is prepared to accept in principle, that there should be compensation. That is what we are asking for. Unless there is to be compensation for the farmer for

1633
not ploughing up land which he otherwise would do, there is no purpose in trying to get that done by agreement. This is the very essence of it. How much that compensation would be is anybody's guess. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, will know from his knowledge of agriculture that the development of land in these areas is not very profitable, even when there are subsidies as well, so the net profit would probably not be very much. Nevertheless, it is certainly intrinsic in this new clause that there will be compensation here for such an access agreement, which will mean (and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for kindly amplifying my description) that there will be a binding agreement on the farmer that he cannot then farm once he has agreed to such an access agreement. But that would be the quid pro quo. I hope that, in principle, the noble Lord will accept this.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: Before we have the reply, I should like to ask what is the matter with ploughing up a bit of derelict land, putting it back to good sound grass on which sheep can graze and letting the urban population see what goes on in the country, rather than leaving it derelict old Exmoor. There is another point. There is a world shortage of food. There is a lot of Exmoor and Dartmoor, and there are moors in Yorkshire and Scotland. Are we right in preventing the farmers from taking advantage of anything they can do with derelict land? I think this matter ought to be reviewed most carefully. I do not think that a nice field of corn or a lovely stretch of fresh grass is any eyesore; I think it is an amenity.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I think the total area of Exmoor is about 12,000 acres. It is extremely poor, acid soil, and to plough it up would be quite uneconomic. Even if you got a heavy subsidy, it would be d completely uneconomic process. I cannot agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that all land everywhere ought to be ploughed up.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I did not say that.
LORD KENNET: We really must avoid getting into a general debate on agriculture. I was going to reply to this debate
1634
when I was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who said: "Why cannot the Government go so far?". All I had managed to say was that I did not think I could go quite as far as accepting all the interpretations that had teen put on this Amendment as something which the Government would forthwith do. Why cannot the Government go so far? Well, Governments never do go t tat kind of distance on an Amendment in Committee, which they have seen only that morning or the day before.
I return to what I said before. I am not undertaking to accept an) single element of subsection (2) of this Amendment. I am inviting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, or the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, or both, to come and talc to me about the possibility of a Government Amendment covering the same ground as subsection (2) of the Amendment which is now before the Committee. I very much hope that they will do this, because I believe that something might be done. But I am afraid that I cannot possibly (I think the Committee will understand this), at such short notice, enter into any commitment whatever about what that will be.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for his invitation, which I am glad to accept. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Recreational facilities at water undertakers' reservoirs and other waters
19.—(1) Statutory water undertakers may, if it appears to them reasonable to do so—
(a) permit the use by members of the public, for the purposes of any form of recreation which the undertakers consider appropriate, of any reservoir or other waterway owned or managed by the undertakers, and of any land held with the waterway,
6.13 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may, if it appears to them reasonable" and insert "shall, unless it appears to them unreasonable". The noble Lord said:

1635
I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. This Amendment was moved in another place rather as a probing Amendment, and at that time the Minister of State replied that there was about to be a meeting between the Minister of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the representatives of the British Waterworks Association to discuss these matters. It would, I am sure, be helpful to noble Lords on all sides if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could tell us what was the outcome of that meeting, and whether the statement which the B.W.A. were able to give with regard to the provision of recreational facilities, which is what Clause 19 is concerned with, was satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 16, leave out ("may, if it appears to them reasonable") and insert ("shall, unless it appears to them unreasonable").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD KENNET: The meeting between the Minister of State, myself and the British Waterworks Association has taken place. At that meeting the Association ran through the recent history of the opening of reservoirs for recreational purposes, which has been encouraging, in distinction to the less recent history, which was somewhat discouraging. A generation of reservoirs is now coming along which have been and are being planned for recreational use from the very beginning. Grafham Water and the Derwent Reservoir, in Durham, are examples of those already in use. Dray-cote is one that is being planned with full recreational facilities from the start.
The British Waterworks Association represented to us with some force that this Amendment—the simple reversal of the words—might make their task of convincing their members that recreation on reservoirs is a good thing not easier, but harder. They said their members might feel that an undue burden of proof was being put on them; that they were being "good boys", and might resent this, so that the task of modernisation of the views of these authorities—a task on which considerable amount still remains to be done; on this the Association agree with the Ministry—might not be speeded up, but might be slowed up.
1636
The Amendment in itself, in legal logic, does not make the least difference, because it is the same thing to say that somebody "may", if it appears to him reasonable, do something as it is to say that he "shall unless it appears to him unreasonable to do it. It leaves the judgment entirely on the person concerned. The Waterworks Association very much want it to be the existing way round, and for that reason I recommend the Committee to leave the wording as it is.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The words of the Amendment put the onus on the statutory water undertakers to open the reservoirs to the public, while the words in the Bill do not. It is true that the legal case may be the same, but what I would call the plain English interpretation is quite different. After all, we have had some very unhappy experiences in the past of reservoirs being closed to the public. For example, we had the Manchester Corporation, with Thirlmere. It has always amused me that when you get public bodies owning land or waterways they always appear to be more possessive than private landowners. I could quote all sorts of instances, but I will not weary your Lordships with them. But I would support this Amendment. The words are far better because, as I have already said, they put the onus on the statutory water undertakers to consider the public, whereas the words in the Bill do not.
LORD LINDGREN: I should have—
LORD ILFORD: I hope that the Government will continue to resist this Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: It is a debate from one side of the Committee to the other.
LORD ILFORD: I am willing to give way. I hope that the Government will continue to resist this Amendment. It is objected to very strongly by the water undertakings, and if the Bill is amended in the way suggested it will, I think, have the opposite effect to that which my noble friend intends: it would discourage many water undertakings from providing facilities on their works, which they are very ready to do.
It is the case now that water undertakings recognise that their works should

1637
be available as a public amenity for persons who desire to use them for recreation. But, of course, they have a paramount duty to which they must have first regard; that is, to ensure the purity of the water they supply. That must be their first consideration. The Bill, I think, deals very reasonably and fairly with this. I think that if the order of the words is reversed (and I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the order makes no difference, or very little difference, to the meaning) it seems to put an onus on the undertakings which they rather resent. I am quite sure that your Lordships will encourage the organisation of recreational services of waterworks much more readily by leaving the Bill as it is, than by agreeing to this Amendment.
6.22 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. His statement in regard to the attitude of water undertakings was relevant thirty years ago. There was then the attitude—and I am sorry to say that in one or two instances there still is the attitude—of some water undertakers not to allow access. I have been one of those over the years in various sporting activities trying to encourage the various water undertakers to give access. We in this Committee to-night ought to pay tribute to the work of the British Waterworks Association, which is a kind of trade union for the various water undertakers, in regard to the propaganda they have put out among the water undertakers, and the success they have had with the water undertakers, concerning the facilities which are now being provided. Angling, canoeing, sailing, motor boat activities and water ski-ing are quite common.
My noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to Grafham Water. As Chairman of the Eastern Region Sports Council, I had the pleasure of visiting that reservoir only a week or two ago. It was a tremendous delight. Although it was a week or two ago, there was glorious sunshine and there were sailing activities, picnic areas, with motor cars and families having a glorious time. I think that if we can encourage the British Waterworks Association to carry on their good work, and to remember, too, that in association with Nature Reserve cer
1638
tain activities can also be undertaken in regard to sport, we should do so. I should like to pay tribute to the progre3s made in what is, after all, a comparatively short time in the access to reservoirs and their use for recreation and enjoyment.
LORD AMULREE: I was very pleased that the Government took the line they did. In talking of water companies one must remember that our first function is to provide wholesome water for the consumers. I think it is quite right that as many reservoirs as possible should be used for recreation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, mentioned. I am sure the vast majority of those that can safely be used are used now. There has been a great change in the last twenty or thirty years, and I should not like to see this altered. I would much rather the clause were kept as it is in the Bill, and I am very pleased indeed to find the Government taking this line.
LORD INGLEWOOD: While I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that the duty of water undertakers to maintain the purity of their water is paramount, the fact remains that with modern techniques of purification plant; it is quite possible to combine that service together with allowing a far wider measure of access and recreation than was the case not only thirty years ago, as Lord Kennet said, but also to-day.
I thought it was a pity when ray noble friend Lord Ilford said that the water undertakers would resent this onus being put upon them. Surely, onus is being put upon everybody else by this Bill The duty of additional access is being asked of everybody else, and I do not see that the water undertakers need look upon this as any particular onus. The noble Lord. Lord Lindgren, was talking about the way in which water undertakers, by and large, throughout the country are doing their best now to allow a greater measure of access and public enjoyment. But it is done under public pressure. Most of them would not be so keen on doing it unless there was public pressure, not least because the cost of either building or modernising a purification plant often represents a very large sum.
To be fair to Manchester Corporation, who have been criticised a number of times in this House—as often as not by me—their attitude is partly due to the

1639
fact that there has been no purification plant down the line from Thirlmere in the past, and to install and build a purification plant would cost a lot of money. So they have put off the day as long as they possibly can. There is now a plan to build a purification plant, but clearly it will take time to complete. But, having said that, partly to correct the record, I would add that I think it would be a good thing to amend the Bill in this way so that water undertakers realise that they are in exactly the same position as everybody else under this Bill, and that they should try, so far as they can, to allow greater access.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to add a word to this debate, because I have been very interested in this matter of the opening of Thirlmere and the early Manchester Waterway, and their reservoirs. While I agree there has been considerable improvement up and down the country in recent years in opening up reservoirs, there is still a great deal of truth in what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said about it. Progress has not been anything like so great as it ought to have been. Manchester are always very forthcoming, when they want Parliament or the Minister to help them to get some more water, in promising what they will do; but as soon as they have got the water they are very slow about implementing these promises. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, quite properly, that it is an expensive business. But surely there should be some method of seeing that the water undertakings do in fact get on with this job.
We are squabbling here between one set of words and another, but when this Bill goes from us it will still leave the position, in effect, at the discretion of the waterworks companies, and in my view there ought to be some impartial authority which will go into the question and give a ruling about it. The present situation, in spite of the improvement, is far from satisfactory.
LORD ILFORD: That situation would be exactly the same under the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: Manchester never promised to do anything about Thirlmere. They promised to do something about Haweswater, and their plans to do
1640
it are well advanced. I have just received some news which is relevant to this point, and which I should like to give to the Committee. It is that discussions between my Department and the British Waterworks Association have been continuing at official level, and there now seems to be a good chance of a new procedure being set up. It is subject to ratification on the Association's side, but the Association's officials think that it would be a good idea. The procedure is that the Association should carry out an annual review of the extent to which their members had opened their reservoirs to the public for recreation; and should make a report on the results of this review to the Minister. If this arrangement comes to fruition it should help things along wonderfully.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his original answer which prompted this interesting debate? It is clear that although water undertakings have done a great deal in recent years there are still anxieties on all sides of the Committee that more should be done. I realise, and so does my noble friend Lord Brooke, that many of the earlier reservoirs were not designed to be opened to the public for recreational purposes; and as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, the construction of an adequate purification plant involves very great cost, which would throw a higher charge on all water consumers. Although I should not like to say that that was the reason for their not proceeding, it does give some explanation of why, sometimes, these large undertakings proceed slowly.
Certainly the pattern which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave us of the reservoirs which are being built to-day—and, indeed, which are being planned to-dayindicates that they are normally planned for recreational purposes from the start, and I am sure this is right. I am happy to hear of the further activities of the British Waterworks Association. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just told us that they propose to set up a system of an annual review in order to find out exactly what their members are doing, and I think this will go some way to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his anxiety. My noble friend Lord Brooke and I do not wish in any way to

1641
discourage the water undertakings from the good work they are doing. We wish to encourage and support them, and in that vein I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Provision of facilities by Forestry Commissioners]:
6.32 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I discuss Amendment No. 41 at the same time. This clause deals with the provision of facilities by the Forestry Commissioners and in subsection (2) it sets out a number of facilities that the Commissioners may provide. Subsection (2)(a), which my first Amendment seeks to omit, says that they can provide accommodation for visitors and paragraph (f) says that they can provide shops "in connection with any of the aforesaid facilities", the other facilities mentioned being camping sites and caravan sites, places for meals and refreshments, picnic places, and so on. All that seemed to my noble friend and me to be perfectly reasonable, but we rather doubted whether the Commissioners should be empowered to provide accommodation for visitors, which presumably means hotels, and so on. Would the Commissioners really want to do this? Similarly, would they really want to set up shops in connection with any of these things? It is a matter of degree and of judgment, but it seemed to us that this was going rather further than prudent judgment would suggest was right, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to explain to us circumstances in which these additional facilities would be necessary. If not, I feel that the Bill would be better without them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD INGLEWOOD: May I ask whether the Forestry Commissioners have asked for these powers or whether it is something put in the Bill in line with the general policy of the Government to
1642
give commercial powers of various kinds to the corporations acting in the public sector? I think it would be useful if we could have that information.
LORD KENNET: It seemed to the Government that the Forestry Commission ought to have these powers on simple, common-sense grounds. One can imagine the Forestry Commission setting up virtually a country park in one of these forests, with camping sites and access arrangements, and everybody will have a pleasant time; but the campers in their tents or caravans., or even people walking, may want to buy things of the kind that campers do want to buy, such as paraffin or a bar of soap. They may want to go and have a shower. Probably the provision of a room with showers would be "accommodation"—I am not quite sure whether it would be accommodation or facilities. At any rate, that is the kind of thing the Government had in mind.
The power to do this is precedented in the Countryside (Scotland) Act. There the Forestry Commission asked for it because they thought it would round off the package of powers to provide what would be right and proper. I do not think the Committee need worry about the Forestry Commission going into the hotel business on a vast scale, o opening a chain of stores. They will continue to be the Forestry Commission, but they want these powers in order to make things nice for everybody.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thought the noble Lord was very good on the public convenience part, which is paragraph (g), but I feel unconvinced about the need to put in accommodation for visitors, because I do not believe the Forestry Commissioners will ever want to provide this.. A heavy capital cutlay would be involved and I doubt the wisdom of including that provision in the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord that campers will want toilet facilities and showers and it is most desirable that these should be properly provided, nut I still boggle at the idea of accommodation for visitors. Nevertheless, I will not press the Amendment. I shall be content to leave the thought with the noble Lord that the Bill would make more sense if he took this provision out before the Report stage, because I am quite sure the Forestry Commissioners will never do

1643
this. With those words, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to add to the clause:
"() The provisions of subsection (2) above shall not apply to any land for the time being forming part of the open waste lands of the New Forest."
The noble Earl said: In view of my remarks during the debate on the Second Reading in my capacity as Official Verderer of the New Forest, I can explain this Amendment quite shortly. Its effect is to prevent the Forestry Commissioners from exercising the wide powers of subsection (2) on any land in the New Forest which it is the responsibility of the Verderers of the New Forest to administer. The reason for this is that the clause as it stands is in direct conflict with the principle contained in the New Forest Acts, 1877 to 1964, namely, that in matters of this kind nothing should be done on the open waste lands of the Forest—that is, the lands over which common rights exist—without the agreement of the Verderers.
It is considered that to some extent the clause extends the powers already available to the Forestry Commissioners under Section 18 of the New Forest Act 1949, as amended, and these additional powers would be useful. However, so deeply do the Verderers feel about the principle at stake—and one must remember that the New Forest would not have endured over the centuries if principles had been lightly abandoned—that they would rather that these useful powers were not available than that they should be exercisable without their agreement. This, they feel, might be the thin end of a very large wedge indeed. I would go further and say that if it would make this Amendment any more acceptable, the Verderers would be prepared at their own expense to promote further legislation to confer these additional powers upon the Forestry Commissioners within the existing New Forest code. I hope that this reasonable request to maintain the Verderers' existing powers of control will be sympathetically received. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbuty.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like briefly to support the noble Earl. As the Committee will know, the Verderers of the New Forest have a very proud and long record; I think they go back to the days of King Canute. Their interests include the forestry interests in the Forest coupled with the Forestry Commission, the rights of grazing of those in the area, and preservation and care of the Forest, tasks which I think they have carried out exceedingly well, for all the present pressures on development in the Southampton area. Last, but not least, they are concerned with the public enjoyment of the Forest. I remember that in 1964 they put forward a New Forest Bill. It was then stated that in one year alone the Verderers' staff had to pick up 23,000 milk bottles left by the public. They provide picnic areas, caravan sites and camping, and it is within my knowledge that they have provided a draft plan for further amenities for the public. I believe they have a very strong case for exclusion from this Bill. There is one other point, and that is that the National Trust are excluded from the Bill and the National Trust have certain lands in the Forest. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that there could be a conflict of interest in this matter.
LORD KENNET: The Forestry Commission have no intention whatever of exercising these powers in the New Forest, at least without the agreement of the Verderers, and the Government have every sympathy with the Amendment. I should like very much to accept it, but I cannot because it would hybridise the Bill, with undesirable consequences which the Committee will understand. What I can do is to give an assurance that the Forestry Commission, in exercising the powers given to them under Clause 20(2) of the Countryside Bill, will not in the New Forest do so without the agreement of the Verderers. I can also confirm that the Government will raise no objection if later on the Verderers should wish to have a Private Bill introduced with the object of amending the New Forest Act 1949 so as to give statutory force to this undertaking. I hope, and have reason to believe, that this should satisfy the noble Earl and that the Amendment, with all its risks of hybridisation, will not be insisted upon.
LORD MITCHISON: Some years ago when I was in the Ministry then concerned with these matters I went and had a rather detailed look at the New Forest with this particular point in mind. I quite agree with what has been said about the delicacy of the diarchy between the Verderers and the Forestry Commission. On the other hand, I hope that no question of consent, no procedural difficulties, are going to prevent something from being done in the long run. The reason is this. The New Forest draws visitors from a number of large neighbouring towns. They come and want to stay a little, and there are some facilities for staying, as the noble Lords who have spoken will know, but they are insufficient. The difficulty that I saw was not any question of jurisdiction or anything of that sort. It was quite frankly a question of getting money out of the Treasury, and I hope they will get it.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance I have been given. I am most grateful for the support the New Forest Verderers have had from the Committee, and I can only say it will give a great deal of pleasure to the Verderers when they know of the reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
6.46 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, after Clause 22, to insert the following new clause:
Maintenance of trees
". In section 89(1) of the Act of 1949 reference to the planting of trees shall include reference to carrying out such work and doing such other things as appear to the local planning authority expedient for the maintenance and well-being of trees and their environment."
The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment and I am moving it in the same form in which it was moved by the Member for the High Peak in another place. Really it is in order to obtain a further explanation as to why the Parliamentary Secretary in another place regarded it as unnecessary. The Act of 1949 provides that a local planning authority—this is in Section 89(1):
"…may plant trees on land in their area for the purpose of preserving or enhancing the natural beauty thereof…"
1646
The Amendment I am moving s2:eks to ensure that the same power and the right to receive grants in respect of it shall continue for a reasonable period after the planting of the trees in order to ensure the maintenance and well-being of the trees and their environment. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place referred to grants continuing for five years. I should be glad to know whether, on further consideration, that has been found to be possible under the Act of 1949. He said that it was extremely desirable that trees should be properly maintained and he talked about five years, and said that the cost of maintenance could then be provided by thinnings. But in the case of trees planted particularly for amenity purposes—which may be only small clumps and so on—there virtually are no thinnings.
All I am seeking to obtain from the Government is an assurance that, where it is necessary to maintain the well-being of trees that have been planted for amenity purposes by planning authorities, they are satisfied that the present powers are adequate, and that they still remain of the opinion, upon which some doubt has been cast, expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary elsewhere that an Amendment. of this kind is unnecessary. I should be glad to know whether that is so, because certainly the argument about thinnings does not apply in the ease of trees planted for amenity purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 22, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: Yes, the Government still are of the opinion t the Bill is all right as it stands. I should like to go into this question a little. The power to plant trees embraces all the processes incidental to the establishment of trees, such as soil preparation, fencing, weeding, et cetera, which one would expect because it comes before planting, but also trimming and the replacement of trees which fail to take. This process continues over a number of years, and the powers have been used to plant trees and ensure their satisfactory establishment, and to carry out the associated works, including the replacement of failed plantings and the trimming and thinning and pruning of the young trees. Five years is the usual time, and

1647
the same five-year policy which was hitherto applied to National Parks and areas of natural beauty is now going to be applied throughout the country. I am informed that the work that you have to do to keep a tree or to keep plantations of trees healthy beyond the fifth year of life is very little indeed and therefore the costs are little, and it is not worth continuing a grant year after year, ad infinitum, because of these minute tapering costs.
I am not quite sure that it is right to say that amenity facilities will never give rise to any thinnings or saleable thinnings. It could still be that it would be most amenitous to plant young hardwood and conifers mixed, and then to cut or thin the conifers at a certain stage and sell them for Christmas trees. Then you would get a better amenity as the trees grew bigger. I should not like to go too deeply into this matter, but I confirm that the Government are still of the opinion that the five-year rule spread over the whole country under this Bill will be all right.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Signposting of footpaths and bridleways]:
6.52 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "bridleway" to insert "or road used as a public path". The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to consider with it the following Amendments to Clause 24, since they all seem to follow exactly the same pattern and are consequential on Amendment No. 44. The purpose of these Amendments is to provide for "roads used as public paths" —and I gather that the proper definition of a "road used as a public path" is "a green lane for vehicles and signposted cart tracks". This occurs mostly in the North; they are not seen so much in the South, around London. The Amendment provides for roads used as public paths to be signposted as such as well as footpaths and bridleways.
The Report of the Worboys Committee on traffic signs states that:
"Throughout the country there are many old roads which have fallen into disrepair, and some have been signposted by highway authorities as footpaths or bridleways. In the main, these are the roads used indicated as roads used as public paths' on the latest Ordnance Survey maps. Whilst it is still legal for motor vehicles to use these roads, the footpath or bridleway signs tend to indicate that they are reserved for pedestrians or horse-riders, who we understand have sometimes expressed resentment at their use by motors."
I know that the Gosling Committee recommends a survey to decide whether the roads used as public paths should be designated as unclassified roads, footpaths or bridleways. But what worries me is how long it will be before this particular survey is completed. I am hoping that information will be provided concerning the Government's intentions in this respect, and that assurances can be given that interested organisations, especially the Royal Automobile Club and the Auto Cycle Union, who are keenly interested in this work, will be fully consulted before any action is finally taken, since any reclassification of "roads used as public paths" will have a serious effect on the facilities available for motorists and motorcyclists, both for general and motor sporting purposes.
As there will presumably be considerable delay before any survey is completed, it might seem desirable in the meantime to signpost "roads used as public paths" to avoid confusion, and in this context I suggest that the use of the "roads used as public paths" may avoid the necessity for motor vehicles participating in motor sporting events' to use roads passing through villages. This helps to reduce any inconvenience to residents in the area, and is also in the interests of road safety. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, which should prove helpful in the final structure of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16 after ("bridleway") insert ("or road used as a public path")—(Earl Howe.)
6.56 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. It seems to me that it is calculated to bring motor vehicles on to these green ways which have long been used as

1649
carriageways and are used a great deal by pedestrians, by hikers and cross-country walkers, and also by those who like to go about the countryside on horses. These green lanes are often soggy and tiresome places anyway for a motorist, but to find a series of motor cars coming along one is most disturbing; and in the interests of the motorists themselves they ought not to be invited to go along these places by the putting up of signs such as this Amendment calls for. I hope that the Government will not give way to this rather subtle scheme for enticing motorists on to the green ways of England.
LORD MOLSON: I am bound to say that when I read this series of Amendments I could not quite understand what they were intended to do, and I am not sure that I am entirely clear even after listening to the speech of the noble Earl. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make one thing quite plain: that this is not a covert way to make footpaths or bridleptiths available for the use of vehicles.
LORD KENNET: The trouble about this, as the Committee knows, is that these are a dwindling class, and the Govennment are i n doubt whether it would In right to attract the signposting provisions on to a class of roads or paths which we hope are not going to be there in the not too distant future. The Gosling Committee recommend that the whole category of roads used as public paths, as defined in the 1949 Act, should be abandoned, but of course, it is not always certain precisely which of these green lanes are "roads used as a public path", and there has to be a work of identification. Then, after that, once it has been determined that such-and-such a road which is used as a public path is to cease to be one because the whole category is to be abandoned, it must then be decided whether it becomes a road, an unmade road, with ordinary traffic rights on it, or a footpath or a bridleway.
The Government intend to introduce provisions requiring the surveying authorities, which are generally county councils, to survey their roads used as public paths, which are already on their definitive maps, so as to establish whether or not there are vehicular rights along them, and then to divide them up into
1650
these three categories. I think it would be undesirable, in the meantime while that work is going on, to make it obligatory to signpost these categories of ways, and so I recommend that this Amendment should not be adopted. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw it. In the not too distant future it will turn out not to have been necessary, anyhow, because they will all haw been reclassified as something else.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I should like to stress that the noble Lord said on Second Beading that there would be no discrimination whatsoever against those who wished to use these National Parks on motorcycles or motor cars. I listened to that very carefully, and was very pleased to hear it. These are green lanes which were originally defined as lanes for the purpose of vehicles proceeding up them or down them, and all I was trying to find out, as I think the noble Lord appreciated, was whether, when access given to different sections of the community, motorists and motor cyclists also have that same right. That is only fair play, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships is interested in that.
I was pleased to hear the assurance that when the survey is completed there will be paths—if I may put it that way—provided for the use of motorists and motor cyclists. I understand that that is to be the case, and for that I am grateful. As I suggested earlier. I do not think I can expect more than that the motorist and motor cyclists will have this opportunity, and also that the interested organisations, such as the R.A.C. and the A.C.U. will be consulted on any measures of this nature.
LORD KENNET: I do not think that it can possibly be represented is discriminating against motor cyclists, because, after all, motor cyclists are not the only people who can read signposts—walkers, cyclists and everybody else, also use them. If there are no signposts on a given class of road, those who suffer inconvenience are as much cyclists and walkers as they are motor cyclists and motorists.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.4 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: May I say just a word on this clause? This is a very valuable clause. The number of people who go about the countryside at the present time as walkers is very gratifying, and certainly the outdoor healthy recreation which these footpaths provide is tremendous. Unfortunately, these town people are often in considerable difficulty in finding their way about. Some local authorities have already adopted a wise and go-ahead policy of signposting, but others are abysmally behind, and from that point of view this clause will make a substantial contribution towards the amenities of the countryside.
The Commons and Footpaths Society, which is naturally very concerned at the use of these footpaths, is very pleased with this clause, and I think that will be the general view of walkers and hikers about the countryside. It may be that some people will feel that if this policy were carried out 100 per cent. it would lead to its being rather overdone; but no doubt a certain amount of discretion will be exercised by the authorities concerned, and I am quite certain that, on the whole, this clause provides a very valuable amenity for the countryside.
LORD MOLSON: Before this clause is disposed of I should like to make a few remarks on the general confusion about terminology. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary for his assurance (if I correctly understood him) that there is to be some further interpretation of all these descriptions of areas over which passage is possible. There is a great deal of confusion over this matter. Some reference is made in different parts of the Bill to the Highways Act, and of course the Highways Act has pages of definitions about these.
The Amendments which we have just heard discussed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, brought up the fact that there are several of these roads (and when I say "roads" I include also paths, passages, and so on) as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, where there is great danger to foot people. They, of course, wish to circulate in comfort and safety in the countryside, but at present they
1652
are at the disadvantage of not knowing where they have a right to pass without disturbance from horse riders or of pedal cyclists and even, it is now suggested, motor-cyclists. Great concern is felt among members of the Footpaths Association. I recognise that horsemen have every right to pass where that is properly authorised, but the restriction as it stands now is quite definite. It is because of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said at this stage that I raise the point now, and I have been encouraged to hope that he will give us further definitions later in the progress of the Bill.
LORD SANDYS: I should like to echo the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about the possible proliferation of signs in the countryside. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will agree that this is highly undesirable. Nothing has been more unattractive of recent years in the countryside than the use of all these signs without discretion, and unnecessarily where the needs of safety are not best met. I hope that special attention will be given and that, if necessary, a circular wil! be issued on this subject, because the proliferation of signs, especially in the villages, has become so outrageous as to need almost special direction.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Duty to maintain stiles, etc., on footpaths and bridleways]:
LORD BESWICK: I beg to move that consideration of Clause 25 be postponed until after the other clauses and Schedules.
Moved, That consideration of Clause 25 be postponed.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD HENLEY: Before we move on to the next clause, would the noble Lord say which other clauses he proposes shall not be discussed this evening? What are we going to deal with next? Are we going to discuss Amendment 54A? And are we going on to pedal cycles or not, or are we going to stop at seven o'clock?
LORD BESWICK: It was never the agreement that we should stop at seven o'clock. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is not here; the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has had to leave, and it is simply

1653
to meet their convenience that we "leapfrog" Clause 25 and carry on with other Amendments. And I hope that we can make progress until about eight o'clock, when we go on to the Motion.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Is not this very unsatisfactory, when it had generally been understood that we were going to stop this evening at about seven o'clock? Over the last two or three hours noble Lords will have calculated which points we were going to reach to-night, and some noble Lords who are doubtless interested in clauses will have gone away on this basis. It was so clearly understood by everyone concerned that I think it is unreasonable to suggest now to this thin Committee that we should carry on.
LORD BESWICK: What was most clearly understood was that the House, when we considered this matter earlier on, wanted more time. It was pressed upon me most firmly when we had the discussion on Tuesday that the House wanted more time in Committee. We therefore provided another day for consideration of the Bill in Committee. It is, however, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who was going to move the Amendments in his name, has had to leave. Therefore I am suggesting, for the convenience of other noble Lords, that we postpone consideration of Clause 25. If we move on, then I hope we can make some progress, and adjourn the Committee stage at around 8 o'clock until Monday. We shall otherwise be likely to go to a rather late hour on Monday, and I was anxious to relieve the strain on Monday.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. We do not all have residences in London, and it is not easy to make one's plans if one understands that a debate is to last a certain time and then the whole programme is upset. It has nothing to do with the absence or presence of any particular noble Lord.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I have just heard that the Government are proposing to put down a new clause covering the same point as is made in the Amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Molson and myself. May I ask what is to happen with regard to that?
LORD BESWICK: Perhaps I can help on that. If the noble Lord is thinking of Clause 28, which we are unlikely to reach to-day, it was urged on my noble friend that if it was possible to provide the Government Amendment by the time we reached Clause 28 the Amendment should be put down. It has not been found possible to put down that Amendment today, but if we sit again on Monday then the Government Amendment will be down. Going on the admirable suggestion of the noble Viscount on Tuesday, it was thought that we should postpone consideration of Clause 28, if reached—which seems unlikely now if we adjourn at 8 o'clock—but that if we reached Clause 28 before 8 o'clock, and assuming it was for the convenience of the Committee, we should adjourn consideration of that until the Government Amendment is down on Monday.
LORD BARNBY: Where do we stand now? I understood that there was a Motion that we delay further consideration of Clause 25.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ROYLE): I had collected the voices on that Motion, but we have allowed it to go a little further. Therefore I will put the Question again.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and consideration of Clause 25 pos poned accordingly.
Clause 26 [Ploughing of footpath or bridleway.]:
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"() The council of any county district or parish within which the land is situated may take proceedings in respect of an offence under the said section 1l9(2)."
The noble Earl said: This is a parish council Amendment and is, I think, important. I hope that the Government will give it sympathetic consideration. Clause 26 deals with the ploughing up of footpaths and the rights of farmers in this matter. The purpose of my Amendment is to allow parish councils to prosecute under Section 119(2) of the Highways Act 1959. The present obligation of a farmer, set out in subsection (2), is that the occupier
"shall give to the highway authority … not less than seven days' nolice of his intention to plough it".

1655
And by subsection (3) the occupier of the land is required to return the footpath as soon as maybe after the ploughing is completed. Under Clause 26 of the Bill this has been clarified to a period of within six weeks.
There is strong evidence that the position in which farmers must give notification of the ploughing up of footpaths has been abused. I am told that in 1965 there were only 100 notifications throughout the country. The people who are most affected by this are the parishioners or people living in the area. I am also told that there have been occasions when people have objected and have advised the county council, but that the council have taken no action under their powers of prosecution. Therefore, I suggest in the Amendment that parish councils should be allowed to prosecute and that they are the bodies most liable to do so. This is an important small Amendment, to which I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am all in favour of the clause as it stands in the Bill because it means that farmers or landowners who plough up footpaths illegally will quickly be brought to heel. But I do not see how I can possibly support the Amendment because it would authorise a parish council to take legal proceedings. What is a parish council? It is a collection of nine or ten very respectable gentlemen who live in a village—most of them, incidentally, farmers, but that is beside the point. Under this Amendment they would be required to take legal proceedings. They would have to engage solicitors, and probably would have to brief counsel. Yet under the Statute the power of parish councils to levy a rate is restricted to something like 2d. in the pound. They have no accumulated funds on which to draw, and in most cases they have no legally qualified clerk to guide them through this sort of legislation. I am quite sure that if an Amendment such as this were adopted, it would cause confusion in many parts of the countryside. Let us leave it to the highway authority
1656
and other higher authority to take this action. We will see that it is done with proper legal advice and will see that it is carried through effectively.
LORD KENNET: The question whether the parish council, as well as the highway authority, should have the right to prosecute is one which raises the question of efficiency—the question almost of agricultural efficiency. If the farmer has to give notice of his intention and make a return on a form not only to the highway authority but also to the parish council, it may have the effect of making him less likely to fill up the form at all. At the moment not all returns which should be made in this respect are actually made, and to require a farmer to do it twice over may make the position even worse.
This is not a matter on which the Government feel strongly. My advice to the Committee is that the Amendment should not be carried, because in the large majority of cases the parish council will not have the resources; and where there ought to be prosecution the highway authority will usually undertake it. In view of these two objections against the Amendment, I hope that the noble Earl will feel inclined to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: As I understand it, there are two arguments against the parish councils being allowed to prosecute. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said, is that they do not have the resources, and, secondly, they do not have the qualified stall. I should have thought they could apply for legal aid in this matter. Also, there seems no reason at all why they should not submit their case to the clerk of the county council to take action. As regards the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the efficiency of farming, how many footpaths cross farmers' land? I am a practising land agent and I know of quite a number of farms, but I do not accept the argument that there would be damage to the efficiency of farming. In the case of a planning application, certain county councils ask one to notify the parish council. I see no reason why one should not notify the parish council about ploughing up a footpath. It is a very important right which the public have, and parish councils should have that right. Even though there is a small Committee to-night, I ask your Lordships to accept

1657
this Amendment because I think it is important.
LORD KENNET: My advice to the House would be not to accept the Amendment. But it is not a matter on which the Government wish to override the wishes of the Committee, and I am not at all sure that it is worth having a Division. Would the noble Earl agree to withdraw the Amendment if I take it away and consider the point at greater length?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Yes, I am quite prepared to do that, because it is an important point. In that case I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD INGLEWOOD: On this occasion I am like the Government; I have been very slow with my Amendment and I did not succeed in getting on the Marshalled List an Amendment which I wanted, suggesting that we should omit Clause 26. It seems to be such a complicated procedure for doing a relatively simple thing that Parliament ought to be able, in its wisdom, to devise something which is simpler yet fair to all parties. The noble Lord is asking us to agree to this clause which covers about a pageand-a-half of the printed Bill. It is something which concerns not just a few people in this country, but a very large number of people who go to the countryside for recreation.
When I first saw this clause I wondered why it was necessary to have a clause of such complication and why the present state of the law was not considered satisfactory. I made some enquiries and was told that the real difficulty about the present procedure is the time factor, which I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned. A vague phrase such as "as soon as may be" is used, which is not really the right wording to find in a Statute. But, be that as it may, I do not think there was any good reason for recasting the whole procedure in this somewhat complicated way. If noble Lords read the clause and understand even the parts which are not references to other Statutes, they will see that a great
1658
deal of detailed work is put on the shoulders of the local authorities. A great deal of time of officials is going to be taken up doing very small jobs which ought not to be done through a procedure organised by the administration of the local authority but by ordinary common sense as between man and man.
Before we part with this clause, I ask the noble Lord to tell us fully, and so that we can all understand, why it is necessary to have it at all. It will not be enough for him simply to say that it has happened in the past. Quite a few footpaths have disappeared. What we have to be sure about is that no more footpaths disappear, because we all agree about that. What I particularly want to know is why we must have this new procedure simply to overcome some difficulty which is supposed to be concerned the main with the time factor.
The noble Lord has just shown himself very willing to meet representations on the footpaths question, and although he would not accept the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull he said that he was prepared to look at it again. After he has explained what he is trying to do in this clause, may I ask him to say whether he would be prepared to consider a new clause on a much simpler basis, which I am sure could be drafted by experts both within and without the Department? if something that sort could be achieved, then we should have taken a great step forward. But there is a real need for us to be given to-night a full explanation of why we must have this long and complicated procedure involving a great many individuals and visits and inspections, in order to do a relatively simple job which people in the countryside ought, by and large, to be able to do by common sense.
LORD HENLEY: May I add my support? I think that this clause as it stands will defeat its object. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, liked it because he felt it would bring to heel a recalci rant plougher-up of footpaths. I do not think it will. It will end with nothing at all happening. So I hope the Government will look at the clause again, at the same time as they look at the Amendment of the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, wanted the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to explain in full what the clause meant. I shall be very surprised if he

1659
can do so, and my advice to him is not to try but just to say that he will have another look at it next week.
LORD KENNET: I am sorry to disappoint the Committee. We really cannot start again on this clause at this late stage in the hope that some body of experts can find something simpler in time to put it into the Bill. The Gosling Committee was set up precisely because it was felt that there should be a body of experts to tackle this extremely complicated matter. They did so, and recommended that the problem could not be solved without these complications; and that recommendation, coming from a distinguished and skilled body which had examined the matter in depth, was accepted by the Government. That is why the clause is so complicated.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked why it was necessary to do anything. It is because the existing provisions, to which we should revert if we took out this clause, proved ineffective because the requirement to restore the path had no time limit and it was difficult for the highway authorities to do anything. If a highway authority went along and said to a farmer, "You must restore that path", the farmer could say, "I do not have to restore it within any special time". Naturally, the highway authority would become depressed about the matter and let it go, because it was difficult to insist. Generally, the opinion throughout the countryside was that footpaths were being ploughed up and not restored, and that gave rise to protests. What did the Government do? They surveyed the law and asked the right qualified expert people to see how it could be put right. The Gosling Committee came up with the recommendation that the Highways Act should be amended to require the restoration of the path within 21 days of each cultivation, or to allow a highway authority to consider an application for a temporary diversion or closure, and where an application for temporary diversion or closure was refused, to require the path to be made good—
LORD BARNBY: Would the noble Lord give a reference for what he is quoting?
LORD KENNET: I hope I am quoting it accurately. It will be as quick for the noble Lord to look it up himself as for me to find it. Where the application was refused, the authority should be able to require the path to be made good within 21 days of cultivation, with the restoration period being extended by a further 21 days if the highway authority considered it reasonable to do so. So it is 21 days or 42 days, according to what they think reasonable. This clause which the noble Lord seeks to delete is based on those recommendations.
The Government decided to vary the periods of 21 and 42 days then suggested for the restoration, and to substitute one period of six weeks, which seemed simpler. It is a long clause, but that is the outline of it. One drafts things at length to look after everything. I repeat that the hopes of getting a simpler or more generally acceptable provision out of the body of experts in a few days, when the Gosling Committee came up with this one only after many months, seem to me slender indeed, and I hope the noble Lord will not seek to persuade your Lordships to delete this clause.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I think it is very often dangerous to take the advice of a lot of experts and to consider that the last word. What one wants here, surely, is common sense. The noble Lord used the phrase, "general opinion throughout the countryside". I should have thought that general opinion throughout the countryside was that this clause was quite unworkable. I wonder whether, since it was published as part of this Bill, he has received any great enthusiasm for it, not only from the agricultural interests but from the associations of local authorities who will be responsible for working it. I should be very surprised if he had had enthusiasm from that quarter.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord is quoting that which I did not say. I did not say that there was a general feeling throughout the country that this clause was a good one. I do not suppose it is very widely known throughout the country yet. What I said was that there was a general feeling throughout the country that the old provisions of the 1949 Act were not working out very well because so many footpaths were being ploughed up and not restored.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not want to give that impression, and I certainly do not wish to misquote him. But it seems to me that at the end of the day we come back to this time factor. Surely it would he possible for us to amend the existing law by merely putting in a figure of so many weeks or so many months and saying that that shall be the obligation on the farmer concerned unless he obtains authority for an extension from the local authority. When you think of the various crops which may be grown in any particular field it is of course difficult to say that, irrespective of the crop, it shall be completed within a certain time, and to make it apply to them all. That obviously would be a foolish thing. But I should have thought it possible to choose a figure which was generally applicable and then to have the provision that when there was reason for an extension the man concerned must go to the local authority, where he would no doubt get it without difficulty. That would then save all concerned from having to learn a new and complicated procedure, and would certainly save a good deal of expense, as well as time, which the noble Lord is surely putting on the shoulders of local authorities, who I should think have enough to do already.
LORD KENNET: That is exactly what the clause does. It lays down one single period of six weeks.
LORD INGLEWOOD: It takes two pages to say it.
LORD AIREDALE: May I just draw attention to an anomaly in the drafting of this clause? It begins, "Subject to subsection (2) below". That is not a reference to the subsection (2) which is mentioned a few lines later on, for that is a reference to subsection (2) of a section of a different Act of Parliament. It is, in fact, a reference to subsection (2) of this clause. Likewise, when you come to subsection (4) it refers to "subsection (2) above", and that is a reference to subsection (2) of this clause. When you get to subsection (8) it does not refer to "Subsection (1) above", but to "Subsection (1) of this section", and that is correct. If we can have consistency in terminology, that will avoid confusion. It will avoid people thinking that the subsection referred to is a subsection of a
1662
different Act of Parliament, which it is not. I therefore hope that this clause will be looked at before the next stage and that we shall have a drafting Amendment down, because it is rather confusing as it stands.
LORD KENNET: I have no doubt that the draftsman will pick up the noble Lord's remarks and will do whatever is necessary.
Clause 26 agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I wonder whether this would be an appropriate moment to adjourn the discussion of this Committee. The next Amendment is one which will take a considerable time; and on the clear understanding that your Lordships should agree that no matter what the hour the Committee stage will be concluded on Monday, I hope the noble Lord will agree to move the adjournment of the Committee.
LORD HENLEY: May I support that?
LORD BESWICK: Bearing in mind that the principal actor in the next drama is not here, may I say that I understand the force behind the suggestion, but what particularly appeals to me, of course, is the latter part of what the noble Earl has said: that, come what may, on Monday we finish this Bill. I hope that those noble Lords who thought that we were being unduly harsh in suggesting that we sat until eight o'clock will understand that in suggesting that we sat until this late hour of eight we were only trying to meet the appeal of noble Lords when they stressed on Tuesday most emphatically that they would like to have more time to consider this Bill properly. It was with the intention of providing that time that I suggested we shoul I sit rather later this evening. However, whilst agreeing that this is a convenient moment to adjourn, it is on the understanding that we this evening determine that on Monday we shall finish the Committee wage. I hope, too, that noble Lords will not think that we have been unduly harsh in allocating another day for the Report stage on Monday the 20th. With those words. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TRADES DESCRIPTIONS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

BERMUDA PETITION
7.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. I beg leave to move that the Petition which I read earlier in the day, signed by the inhabitants of Bermuda, shall be printed in the Journals of this House. There is one incidental reason why this should be printed which I think will appeal to many Members of your Lordships' House. This is the first occasion in this century on which the presentation of a Petition has been followed by a debate of this kind; and let me say at once to the Leader of the House that I shall understand if he thinks it desirable that the Committee for Procedure should reconsider how these matters should be dealt with.
There was a rule in another place that when Petitions were presented there should be an immediate debate before any other business in the House. It was found that this happened so frequently and that the business of the House was so often held up that new Standing Orders were necessary. If I may say so to the Leader of the House, I hope that when this matter is reconsidered here it will not result in quite such a rigid basis as has been decided upon in another place. I have presented many Petitions there; they have been put in a green bag and nothing has ever been heard of them afterwards. For that reason, when this matter is reconsidered I hope that, with the liberality which is characteristic of this House, the procedure regarding Petitions will be a little more generous than that. This may easily prove a quite historic day in the records of this House. It is not only the first occasion in this century that we have had a debate fol
1664
lowing a Petition; it may be the last. In such circumstances I think that those who in the future may be doing research work on the history of this House may very well like to have a printed record of this Petition.
I accept at once that that is an incidental reason. I want to argue in favour of it on much more fundamental grounds. I am doing so primarily because I am concerned about what is, perhaps, the deepest issue of our times—that of race relations—as it is reflected in the island of Bermuda. In many ways the Caribbean islands, which were in the British sphere of influence, have given us an example in race relations. Quite extraordinarily, in Jamaica and in the other islands there has been an association of those of different races—descendants of African slaves, descendants of Indian indentured labourers, with the white population. That example has been of very great value to our own country and, I will say, to the world. Nevertheless, when I have visited the islands in the West Indies there has been this fear in my mind. I have found that in those territories, while relations between the white and non-white races have been good, there was the potentiality of conflict. The main impression left in my mind has been the extraordinary gulf between the standard of living of the white population—often a standard of luxury—and the struggle for existence of the mass of the non-white people there. Unless that problem in the West Indian islands is dealt with there may easily grow up racial conflict.
This is very relevant to the situation in Bermuda. Strangely enough, in Bermuda we have the oldest Legislature in the world outside the United Kingdom. I have been writing on this matter recently and I find that the only territory which used to be associated with this country which had an older Legislature was Virginia, which is now part of the United States of America. Until the recent Constitution, the Constitution in Bermuda was that of pre-American War of Independence times. Under that Constitution you had a white minority which was able to dominate the great majority of non-whites in that island.
In the coming election there will be for the first time universal suffrage in that island. All of us who know its

1665
past history and know that, despite the facts which I have given, there has not been violent racial conflict, will hope that the first election of a democratic character may be held in such circumstances as to be a precedent for the future and an example for the whole of the Caribbean area. I find it very significant indeed that the recent State of Emergency in Bermuda is the first that has ever been proclaimed in that island. It is an indication that if we are wise and careful in our procedure now, the danger of racial conflict will be averted.
My Lords, for all these reasons, it is very desirable that in this Chamber to-night we should seek, in a responsible way, to reach a solution of this problem between the white and the non-white races in Bermuda which will be acceptable to them all. Because I do not desire to intensify racial feelings there I do not propose to discuss the recent events. I want, in a constructive way, to look at the present situation and to look at the future.
It is the present intention that the General Election is to take place there on May 22. The decision on that date and the announcement of it was made during the State of Emergency. It was made in circumstances in Bermuda where public meetings of more than five were not to be allowed, when there was to be a curfew (I think at 8 o'clock) which would prevent the ordinary election activity of canvassing to take place; which would even prevent any live presentations on television—which, perhaps in Bermuda even more than here, is a method by which the electors can be influenced. In these circumstances television acted unfairly. Because the Governmental party, the white party, in Bermuda has greater resources, it had been able to get canned production of television propaganda; and because the curfew confined people to their homes television propaganda from the richer Party reached them to a greater extent than would otherwise have been the case. They could not enjoy television propaganda from the Progressive Labour Party, because it had less resources.
I want to acknowledge this at once. I have been engaged in discussions with the Commonwealth Ministry and with others during the last few days and I recognise that the Commonwealth Min
1666
istry has gone a considerable way to meet us. First, it reduced the curfew; and, secondly, yesterday it decided to lift the State of Emergency—or at least the Governor did on their behalf. That I welcome and recognise. However, my Lords, I wish to put it to you that that has been clone too late to enable the election to take place on May 22 under fair conditions. It is not only that there has already been an advantage on television to the United Bermuda Parly, the Party of the white minority, in the way I have described, but much more serious (I want to put this with all the influence I can exert to your Lordships) these questions of race relations in 11, last resort are nearly always issues of psychology. The recent riots in Bermuda, and more particularly the interpretation given to them, has created a climate that island which in my view would be disastrous for the commencement of an election campaign.
There is bitterness there; there is ill-will; there is suspicion; there is doubt about the role of those in authority, justified or not. That is the psychology in that island, and it is an impossible psychology in which to begin an election where you are likely to have a fair expression of the feelings of the community. This may not seem to be concrete, but the feeling in the community is the most important factor if you are to proceed into an election which is to reflect the democratic view.
My Lords, under the present Constitution the election need not take place before the end of June. There is noshing sacrosanct about the date of May 22, which has now been decreed. When—how shall I put it?: I do not want to reveal confidential discussions—I have argued this, the reply has been that it is impossible for the Government and Her Majesty and the Privy Council to cancel the Order in Council which has put the date at May 22. I find this a little extraordinary—one of those curious coincidences which occur in political life—that the precedent of an Order in Council being withdrawn and of a second Order in Council being issued, also relate; to Bermuda. I have in my hand the Statutory Instrument 1968 No. 463 Caribbean and North Atlantic Territories, the Burmuda Constitution Amendment 01-der which records that Her Majesty the

1667
Queen in Privy Council amended the Order in Council which had previously been introduced; and there is nothing in constitutional practice which would prevent that from being done to-day. It is a comparatively small thing.
Even if I have not convinced my noble friend of the desirability of postponing this election, perhaps he would do me the justice of agreeing that over the years I have given my mind to these questions. Over the years I have tried to understand what is happening in Colonial Territories. Particularly I have tried to understand the psychological position in territories where there was a danger of a racial explosion, where there was a white minority and a non-white majority. I do not put it any higher than this: that the change of date from May 22 to the end of June is a comparatively small constitutional matter, and if what I am urging is true—that it would be less likely to lead to racial conflict—Her Majesty's Government ought to accept this proposal.
My Lords, I have been authorised to say this. If the election were postponed, even for a month, which may not seem long, it would give an opportunity for a pause, for a new atmosphere to be created. I am authorised to say that the leaders of the Progressive Labour Party who are now in this country, the leader of the Opposition in the Legislature, the Chairman of the Party, and the Third Representative in the Legislature, are prepared to return to Bermuda and seek to create there the atmosphere of calm and reason in which it would be possible to have a postponed election without the dangerous climate which now exists and will exist if there is an immediate election. Inevitably they will raise controversial issues. They are dissatisfied with the present Constitution, and they will want to move forward towards independence. They would want to do that in a reasoned way. The danger is that if constitutional issues are raised in the present climate of psychology in Bermuda, instead of having an election which could be carried out in that kind of atmosphere, the racial intensities may be extended.
My Lords, I urge that this is worth doing, and I very much hope that Her
1668
Majesty's Government will at least agree that the Petition that I have presented to-day may be printed in the Journals of the House so that not merely your Lordships' House but the public generally may be aware of the fact that in this situation an attempt has been made to resolve these problems in a way which will make racial tension less likely. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I, too, do not wish to concentrate on the details of what has happened—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. We are having a debate, but we have not had the Question put to the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not know that there would be any Motion, unless it be that the Petition be printed. The Question is, That the Petition be printed in the Journals of the House.
Moved, That the Petition be printed in the Journals of the House.—(Lord Brockway.)
8.0 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for "beating the gun". I, too, do not want to dwell on the details of what has happened in Bermuda in the immediate past because, with the noble Lord opposite, I agree that in elections, even more than at other times, what people believe and feel are even more potent factors than what has actually occurred. But there are half-a-dozen facts which I should like to put before your Lordships.
First, Bermuda has a history not so much of racial dispute as of distance between the races, of bad relationship, even though it has never come to the top, something which I think, having seen a lot of the West Indies, is worse than anywhere else in the islands. I have been shocked, in a way I have not been anywhere else in the West Indies, by some of the attitudes I have come across in Bermuda. Secondly, there is a situation now which undoubtedly has had a worse effect on two of the Parties in this election than on the third. I accept that this was almost certainly not intended by anyone, but it is undoubtedly true.

1669
Thirdly, allegations have been thrown about as to the cause of the riots, which undoubtedly led many people in Bermuda, again possibly without justification, to believe that the authorities there have taken certain views about the position and actions of the Progressive Labour Party. Fourthly, considerable disquiet has been caused because the new Constitution, which has not in these respects come into force, and which lays down specific provisions as to what should happen in a case like this, has been disregarded. There is no legal reason why it should have been regarded but, these parts of the Constitution having been agreed on, it seems to me extremely odd, and I do not wonder that it seems odd to Bermudans, that these provisions were not followed.
Then I think we are all agreed that this is a key election. It is the first time Bermuda has had adult suffrage, and this election will have an effect on the final form of the new Constitution adopted. I can see that in the circumstances the authorities and the Governor may have thought the best thing to do was to get an election over. They may have thought: "Let us have an election, and a Government which has a popular mandate; then we can deal with these matters, have a committee of investigation and settle down to sorting out the problems".
I see the strength of this argument. I cannot believe that it is right. I cannot believe that it is right that this election should take place in an atmosphere in which, if the result goes one way, there will be tremendous suspicion on the part of something like half of the island that the election was not honest and was all part of some kind of conspiracy. However misguided this is, I am certain that everything that can be done should be done to obviate this and lull suspicion. It seems to me that by putting off this election to the end of June a very considerable step could be taken towards doing this. It is for this reason that I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that this Petition should be printed, and I go on to urge that Her Majesty's Government should agree to it.
8.4 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, clearly this is an important matter, but I am not certain that this is the right
1670
way of dealing with it. Here we are, with barely a dozen Members present in the House, discussing a matter that affects very considerably the future of our fellow citizens in Bermuda. Therefore I would address only one minute's worth of remarks to your Lordships' House and declare an interest immediately. I got back only yesterday from Bermuda, where I have a financial interest in that I am director of the Cunard Line which runs a regular weekly cruise down to Bermuda. The whole of the tourist industry ha; been greatly affected by the unrest in the island. Hotel reservations are being cancelled, and doubts are thrown into everybody's mind about the stability of an island which has hitherto been regarded us on2 of the happiest and most stable places in the world. I say this only to let the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, know that I am not for a moment underestimating the importance of this matter.
I came into the House quite casually. I confess, this afternoon and heard that this matter was to be raised. I had done my best in the last two or three days in Bermuda to acquaint myself wit i the facts. Incidentally, they do not correspond very largely with those put before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—but that is a matter which can surely be discussed on another occasion, after more careful thought and in a fuller assembly of your Lordships' House. I have only just had time to read the noble Lord's Petition and the brief which accompanied it.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? If he had been in the House immediately after Questions he would have heard the procedure outlined. The Petition has been available. This is not the occasion on which to settle the issues that have been raised; we have merely to decide whether the Petition should be presented and printed. It is open to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to raise certain comments, and for the convenience of the House it was decided to take the matter now. There may be faults in the procedure of the House—indeed, I think there probably are—but we have done the best we can in the circumstances, and therefore I think that the noble Lord ought not to blame either the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, or any of the rest of us, for coping with this situation in this way.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am blaming nobody. All I am saying is that I have not had time to read the Petition, to understand it, to get myself briefed and produce any cogent arguments one way or the other. Nor, I suspect, looking at the empty Benches round about me, have many other noble Lords. I am not criticising the noble Lord at all. He is angry with me; I am sorry about that, but this is not the proper way of dealing with a matter of this importance.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is raising a question of fundamental procedure, which is not the subject under debate at the moment. It has already been suggested that this matter should go before the Procedure Committee. It is not my fault that this Petition has been available only for a few hours. I am not in the least angry, but the noble Lord has come rather late on the scene.
LORD MANCROFT: I am not late on the scene. I was here when this matter arose in the first place. We are not only discussing procedure. The noble Lord in front of me raised several powerful points about the whole fundamental issue at stake, as he was perfectly entitled to do. What I am trying to put to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if he would kindly allow me, for a change, to finish one or two sentences, is that there are better ways of dealing with this matter than debating it at this time of night.
Other Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt wish to give an opinion upon it. I agree that it is urgent. I merely raise the point that another way should be found, and I ask the noble Lord whether he can find a more satisfactory way of dealing with a matter of this importance without its being sprung on noble Lords like myself; and, contrary to the noble Lord's expectation, I did present myself at the opening of proceedings this afternoon but still did not have time to brief myself adequately upon it. This is my fault, I agree. But I was in Bermuda only yesterday, and therefore I have not had time to get myself fully informed on this matter. This is a matter on which we should all like to be fully informed. It is an urgent matter upon which a decision should be taken fairly rapidly, and it is one on which we should like to check some of the—"allegations" is an unkind word,
1672
but some of the views put forward in the noble Lord's Petition.
There are other points of view on this. There are those who think that the Governor has behaved with sagacity and promptness in dealing with a difficult and embarrassing situation. What I am arguing with the noble Lord is that this is a matter on which he should be able to give us his opinion now as to how a more satisfactory method could be arrived at for debating such an important matter as this, without only a few hours passing between the matter being raised and its being debated. I consider it very lucky that I happened to be in the House at an early stage, and that I was able to cancel all my affairs and come back and do what I hope is my duty and raise this matter. As I have said, I am not in any way discussing the pros and cons of the noble Lord's Petition, but am merely suggesting that there are other and better ways than this rather haphazard manner of debating a very important matter, which may have, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches said, far-reaching consequences. With this I agree; but they should not be debated at this time of night in such a small House as this.
8.12 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that according to Erskine May my noble friend Lord Brockway is within his rights to present a Petition, and clearly to make comments. As I understand it, my noble friend is not asking for the approval of the House of the contents of the Petition, but is seeking for it to be printed in the Journals and to be available to all Members of the House. I will have one or two words to say about that at the end.
I propose to deal briefly with the major points that the noble Lord and his noble friend who sits on the Liberal Benches have raised. I am sure the House will understand that I cannot, and will not, go as far as either of the noble Lords, because I think it would be utterly wrong for a Minister of the Crown in the British Parliament to say anything or do anything which would in any way influence those who are in Bermuda and who will for the first time be exercising a vote under universal suffrage. However, I must say this. I deeply deplore the

1673
reference to racial strife in terms of Party politics in Bermuda. I do not know whether there are white men in the P.L.P.; I do not know whether there are coloured men in the U.B.P. My guess is that there are. I think, therefore, that it is utterly wrong, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and others seek for racial harmony, to talk in terms of racial strife as between political Parties in Bermuda.
I think I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on an aside he made about the allegations, and alleged references as to who was responsible for the riots, that clearly I do not know who was responsible for the riots. A Commission is being set up. The noble Lord may have in mind the reports that were printed in The Times and were later corrected. As I know, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, knows, unfortunately The Times report, stemming from Reuter, omitted certain facts which were available to the reporter for Reuter's in Bermuda and which were transmitted but were unfortunately left out of the report. But it was corrected.
I should like to say this to the House. Many of us know the noble Lord, Lord Martonmere, the Governor of Bermuda, from another place, and some of us may know him as the Governor of Bermuda. In all my experience I do not believe there has been a Governor who has more conscientiously sought to reconcile the different peoples in a Colony. I wish that we had more Lord Martonmeres for the problems that beset us, not only within the colonial territories but also within our Commonwealth. Therefore, I would say this: that I, as the responsible Minister for dependent territories, have the utmost confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Martonmere, as Governor, and those officials who serve under him.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept that I did not say, or even imply, any reflection on the Governor, with the exception of just questioning his judgment on one important and very difficult decision. I was merely talking about what people unfortunately believe, and I would not have cast any aspersion at all.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will understand why I reacted to him,
1674
because that was the impression: that an aspersion was being conveyed on the official. Let us be under no illusion that what we now say in this House could well be printed in Bermuda; and in the circumstances if there was doubt in my mind I think it would be wrong that I should not at least have it put right.
My noble friend Lord Brockway said that the election in Bermuda could have been postponed until later in June and that one of the political Parties (I prefer to use the phrase "the political Farties" as opposed to "one of the political Parties") was unaware of the date in order to commence its campaign. I think we should get this clear in our minds: that under the present Statute the Assembly in Bermuda would lawfully have completed its full statutory period by the end of May of this year. Therefore, it was known to all the political Parties and their leaders that there would be a General Election in May, or perhaps earlier.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am surprised at my noble friend's statement. I did not make any reference at all to E. Party being unaware of the election.
LORD SHEPHERD: We must rut this down to the lateness of the evening: that was certainly my impression. The: point is that the political Parties were aware that there was to be an election by May of this year. The sequence of events is that on April 9 the Executive Council decided that a General Election should be called, that the Assembly should be prorogued, and that the election date should be on May 22. That was approved by the Executive Council on April 9, well before the disturbances that took place at the end of the month. It is perfectly true that the date was not announced until Prorogation on April 29, but there is no doubt that the date was known. In fact, the date of the election was discussed in the House of Assembly in Bermuda. So there is no question of an election being sprung or that the Parties were not aware of it.
The disturbances took place on the 25th, 26th and 27th, and a State of Emergency was declared on the 27th. I will say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. The Secretary of State, myself

1675
(and I am directly responsible for dependent territories) and the Government were seized of the fact immediately that in view of the disturbances, in view of the Prorogation and the election, all possible steps should be taken to see that a campaign for both Parties or all Parties could be undertaken.
On May 1 the political Parties were permitted to hold meetings, and then it was subject to the permission of the Commissioner of Police. On May 6 these meetings could now be held, but no permission was needed by any of the authorities, nor were police to be present. I think I should also say that during this whole period television and radio broadcasting was permitted andI will come back to this matter in a moment. But on May 8 the Governor and it was the Governor, not Her Majesty's Government in this country—exercising his full authority, decided that a situation had arisen so that the State of Emergency could be raised.
We have therefore considered all this with the greatest of care. We have, like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, seen the representatives of the P.L.P. I saw them on Monday and, with the Secretary of State, I again saw them on Wednesday; and in the light of all the circumstances I do not believe that there is anything in any way that inhibits a genuine Party political campaign for an election, for a polling day on May 22, I would question very much whether a postponement would achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has in mind. I believe that a change to-day would create even greater uncertainty in the minds of the people of Bermuda. But all the information that is available to me—and I think it was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—is that there is calm and security to-day in Bermuda. I have not the slightest shadow of doubt—and in fact I have had this assurance from the Governor—that there will be nothing done in any shape or form to prevent a free political campaign.
I will say this to my noble friend, Lord Brockway. I understand that the Government of Bermuda—that is, the official Government—will be using the television and the radio in order to explain to the new voters of Bermuda the manner in which they can vote, the
1676
secrecy and security of their vote, and will do all possible to see that this first vote under a universal suffrage will be effective, will be fair and will be secret to all. I will also say to my noble friend that I recognise that for perhaps a few days, perhaps a week, the momentum of a political campaign was affected; that meetings were difficult, canvassing was difficult. But I have spoken to the Governor, and he has given me an assurance that if he is approached by either of the political Parties, either singly or jointly, for extra time on television and radio, in order that the views of either of the political Parties can be put to the people of Bermuda, he will consider such an approach with the utmost sympathy.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying this. I believe, having visited Bermuda on a number of occasions, not only as a Minister of State in the Commonwealth Office, that the Governor, who is a great Parliamentarian himself, is determined to see that there is a basis for free and genuine elections in Bermuda. I would only say this to my noble friend Lord Brockway, since he said he had an assurance from the leaders of the P.L.P. that if only we would concede a delay they would go back and speak for calm and sense in elections: that I hope he will convey to them that, as responsible political leaders, irrespective of the date of the election they have an equal responsibility—not only themselves but those in the other political Parties—to see that those elections are carried out in calm and in sense on polling day. Any assurance given should not be restricted to whether a concession can be made now.
In ending, I say this to my noble friend. We have given this matter the most anxious thought from the beginning of the emergency; we have sought to find ways in which the emergency could be lifted progressively, although the final responsibility must be with the Governor. We have always had at the back of our minds that there should be this free opportunity for a genuine election. Having done that, having seen the restrictions progressively removed, we have come to the conclusion, after very anxious thought, that conditions for a free election exist and that in the end to postpone an election would only be to the disadvantage of the people of Bermuda.

1677
I turn now to the procedural point of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. He has asked for this document to be printed. I would accept that this is a document that should be read. I would not raise just the matter of expense in terms of printing, but it is considerable. I would hope that the noble Lord would feel that this has been a vehicle—as he has said, it is the first time in a century that this procedure has been used; and, perhaps, who better and who more likely to have found a way of using it than Lord Brockway?—and that he has served his purpose and that of his friends in raising this matter, and that he will be content now to take what I hope would be the advice of the House to withdraw the Motion, so that the House may then adjourn.
8.27 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wish to exercise the right of reply to say two things to my noble friend and one thing to the noble Lord opposite. First, I want to say to my noble friend that I think he knows that I would not be urging things which would intensify racial feeling. When I described one Party in Bermuda as largely the voice of the white minority, and another Party as largely the voice of the non-white majority, I was not rejoicing in that fact and I certainly was not seeking to intensify antagonism between them; I was seeking to state a fact. There are, of course, some non-white members of the U.B.P. There are some white members of the P.L.P. But thinking in terms of any analysis of the population of Bermuda, one is a Party which is dominated by the white minority and its interests, and the other is the Party of the non-white majority and their hopes. I did not mean more than that, and I certainly did not want to intensify feeling.
The other thing I want to say to my noble friend I will join with what I want to say to the noble Lord opposite. I deplore the fact that we are discussing this important matter in this small House and at this time. I do not know whether he would have supported me if I had insisted on the right, which under Erskine May I had, of an immediate debate after I had read the Petition. I tried to contribute to the convenience of the House, and in the spirit of tolerance which one finds here. It was in that
1678
attitude that I agreed that the debate should be held later this evening.
The noble Lord has returned from Bermuda to-day, and therefore perhaps he does not know the whole history of this matter. I put the Motion for the presentation of the Petition on the Order Paper last week, and therefore the Members of the House knew about it. I did not press it then only because I knew that the Commonwealth Relations Office was in discussion with the Governor in Bermuda about this; and I replaced it on the Order Paper for today only when I had heard about the conclusions of those discussions, because I did not want to embarrass them. So I think I may say to the noble Lord that I have acted fairly and reasonably in this matter.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I am not for one moment criticising his political skill, his fairness or his propriety. I was merely expressing regret that this important matter has so arrived that it has been discussed in the presence of so few Members of your Lordships' House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, that I accept at once, and I regret it, but I was trying to explain how it came about that the discussion was taking place at the end of this day. However, the noble Lord and my noble friend will be pleased to know that I believe I have found a method by which I can meet their desires that the Members of this House may become aware of these issues, without insisting on the printing in the Journals. Quite obviously the way to meet this is to read to the House to-night the Petition which has been presented to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I should like first to say that I sympathise with him—and of course we are all feeling our way in this matter—but I should have thought that the case had been so well made as to make it unnecessary for the Petition to be read. Of course, unless the House decides that they will not hear him any more, the noble Lord can read the Petition. Perhaps it will not take very long.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that intervention, and also for

1679
the fact that the Petition has been duplicated. But every one of us who is a Member of this House knows quite well that only an insignificant number of Members will have read this duplicated appeal. If I read the Petition now and it appears in the columns of Hansard, it will then be open to all Members of the House to read it, and they will have the oportunity to do so. I therefore propose to read it, which is absolutely within my rights. The Petition reads as follows:
"To The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled:
The humble Petition of Hugh Edward Richardson, Walter Cuthbert Roberts and Walter Nathaniel Harvey Robinson, inhabitants of the Colony of Bermuda:
Showeth:—

(1) that your Petitioners are all members of the Progressive Labour Party of Bermuda and are authorised by that party to petition Your Right Honourable House on its behalf as well as on their own behalf:

(2) that Your Petitioners are all candidates in the coming General Election in Bermuda and that Your first Petitioner is Chairman of the Progressive Labour Party, that your second petitioner was a Member of the dissolved House of Assembly and that Your third Petitioner was the Leader of the Opposition in the said Assembly:

(3) that Your Petitioners and their party desire that the said General Election shall be conducted under circumstances which are fair to all those contesting therein but Your Petitioners humbly submit that in the present circumstances this is impossible:

(4) that on the 25th, 26th and 27th April last riots occurred in Hamilton the capital of Bermuda and that on the said 27th April the Governor of Bermuda proclaimed a State of Emergency, this being the first time that any such Proclamation has been made in Bermuda:

(5) that despite the fact that the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 provides in Section 14 that (after the said Order is brought into effect) the Governor must summon the Assembly whether dissolved or no to discuss any such Proclamation of Emergency within five days the Governor failed to act in the spirit of the said provision but prorogued the Assembly on the 29th April and thereafter immediately dissolved it:

(6) that despite the fact that a State of Emergency existed the Governor issued writs for a new Election to take place on the 22nd of this month though he was under no legal obligation so to do in that Section 7 of Her Majesty's Order in Council made under the Bermuda Constitution Act 1967 enabled the
1680
Election to be deferred, if necessary, for up to two months after the dissolution of the House of Assembly:

(7) that by reason of the said State of Emergency Your Petitioners and all other candidates in the said Election have been prevented until Wednesday 8th May instant from campaigning for their return to the House of Assembly when the said Proclamation of Emergency was revoked, that Your Petitioners and members of their party in particular have been prevented from appearing on television or holding public meetings or canvassing the electors and that Your Petitioners and their party have otherwise been harassed and hindered in their campaign:

(8) that polling day in the said Election having been fixed for the 22nd May instant there does not now remain sufficient time for Your Petitioners and their party to put their case before the electorate:

(9) that Your Petitioners and other candidates of their party are already prejudiced in that the constituencies containing their supporters are much larger in numbers than those where the supporters of their opponents predominate, that the arrangements for the registration of electors has been unfair and discriminatory and that, in particular, persons who have recently arrived in the Island may have been registered as electors without any proper check to see if they were qualified so to be entered on the electoral register, and that by reason of the tensions created through the said Proclamation of a State of Emergency and the failure so far to appoint a Commission of Enquiry to investigate as promised by the Government of the Island the cause of the said riots and the responsibility therefore it would be unfair and prejudicial to Your Petitioners and to other candidates of whatever party belonging if the Election were to take place upon the date presently fixed.

Wherefore Your Petitioners pray that Your Right Honourable House will take into deliberation the conditions under which it is proposed to hold elections in Bermuda and in particular, that Your Right Honourable House will submit an Humble Address to Her Majesty praying that an Order in Council be made under the Bermuda Constitution Act 1967 cancelling writs already issued for the Election and ordering that new writs be issued therefor on any convenient date immediately following the 8th day of May instant when the said State of Emergency was ended and Your Petitioners further pray that Your Right Honourable House will take any further or other steps as to Them seem appropriate in this regard:
And Your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc."
That is signed: "Hugh E. Richardson", and the address; "Walter C. Roberts", and the address; "Walter N. H. Robinson", and the address. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Motion, if I may by leave of the House speak again, since I spoke earlier before the noble Lord, Lord Brockway moved that the Petition be printed, I should like to say that when I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I was unaware that he was present when the matter was first discussed, and I thought he was probably unaware that the matter had been before the House—or at least that the Petition had been referred to on the Order Paper on Tuesday, and indeed on Thursday last.
Since my noble friend was concerned with making history, perhaps I ought to point out that he is also in process of changing history, because I think it is unlikely that your Lordships, after you have considered this matter, will regard this as a satisfactory procedure. I feel that it is my duty, as Leader of the House, at all times to seek to protect the House in accordance with its traditions and past practice and there is no doubt that my noble friend Lord Brockway was, on such information as is available, either in the Companion or in Erskine May, entitled to the procedure which he followed. However, I must say that having agreed, on the initiative of the House, to reproduce these copies of his Petition and to make them freely available in the Printed Paper Office, it would seem quite inappropriate for my noble friend actually to have gone on to read the Petition. No special circumstances have been advanced as to why this Petition should have been printed at all. This is not in regard to the merits
1682
or demerits of the case he put and which he fully deployed, but special circumstances are necessary in order to justify the printing of the Petition, and I think this is a matter to which the Procedure Committee will have to give careful consideration. Many years ago in mother place, because of actions which had been taken by Members of another place, they found a satisfactory way of disposing of Petitions From the standpoint of the House, but the value of those Petitions may to a considerable extent have been lost. No doubt the Procedure Committee will consider this matter. There are, of course, many ways in which matters can be brought before this House, but the more we take undue advantage of our own liberality the more we shah bind chains on our own procedures.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.

MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BR [DOE RESERVOIR) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on April 23 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.